PDA

View Full Version : How far do you go in the sidelines?


Karen Peters
26 September 2006, 07:30 PM
I'm curious what others are doing:

When adding people to your family tree, how far do you go with people who are not your ancestors? If I add John Doe, then I also add John's brothers and sisters, the siblings' spouses (that's assuming I can find all these people). I will also put their children and the spouses' parents' names in the Notes.

I can't realistically include everybody, but I'm wondering how far do you go?

theKiwi
26 September 2006, 07:42 PM
I include anyone who is in any way linked to me - even if they are no relation to me.

If someone finds my tree online and a link to them in it, and they send me information about their ancestors or other relatives I will include that too.

I also include people who might one day turn out to be linked to me - for example if I'm searching the Scottish census, and find other Moffats in the same area as mine I will include them.

I agree that you can't include "everybody", but I'm a long long way from having everybody in my file yet. Of the 15,490 people in my file I am linked to 14,402 of them, and related to 8,200 of them.

Roger

kyuck
26 September 2006, 08:50 PM
I include anyone who is in any way linked to me - even if they are no relation to me. Roger
I agree with Roger. The more people you include, the better the chance of noting a link of which you were not previously aware. Doing this means you must ensure that when adding spouses, children, etc. you always check through the Index first because the person may be an "Existing (whatever)"

marnen
27 September 2006, 08:36 AM
I'm not going out of my way to include extended families of relatives by marriage, but if someone gives me info, I will certainly put it into the database.

fmlyhntr
27 September 2006, 11:33 AM
It depends on my mood and which sideline.

I have several families that I have done extensive work on. Sometimes when I find a last name that shows up in several places, I will hunt to see if there is a connection--obviously I'm not doing this for more common surnames, like Wilson.

And when I'm feeling completely frustrated by my brickwalls, I will pick a random person and see what I can find on them.

When I find a person, I will often look for siblings and parents.

Christina

Mary Arthur
27 September 2006, 06:11 PM
I'm curious what others are doing:

When adding people to your family tree, how far do you go with people who are not your ancestors? If I add John Doe, then I also add John's brothers and sisters, the siblings' spouses (that's assuming I can find all these people). I will also put their children and the spouses' parents' names in the Notes.

I can't realistically include everybody, but I'm wondering how far do you go?

I agree with everyone above - my intent is to add 'everyone' to my data base. Sometimes, I am lazy or my informant is unwilling, but I want to.
Often, immigrants went as groups - if you can't find where your grandparents came from, you might be able to find, for example, where the man who married your grandaunt's husband's sister came from and find that everyone came from the same place!

tismeinaz
27 September 2006, 08:16 PM
I'm curious what others are doing:

When adding people to your family tree, how far do you go with people who are not your ancestors? .......

I can't realistically include everybody, but I'm wondering how far do you go?


I also add any folks that are connected peripherally to my line. I have found that in Quebec and Newfoundland - you may end up being related to that person eventually. I'm sure this holds true in other places where either by geography, religion or other constraints - there is a greater chance of interconnectivity.

Cheryl

Blaise A. Darveaux
28 September 2006, 11:50 AM
I guess this is a bit different from most of the other responses which seem to say "Put everyone in your database." but my suggestion is to think about what the scope of your research is and what do you want your investigations to accomplish. Maybe my own example will demonstrate.

I began my research when I was 20 and attending my grandmother's funeral. The very next day I set out with a clear goal to document all the descendants of my Darveaux great-grandfather. I was able to accomplish much of this from lots of letter writing. It came out to be about 850 people (with spouses).

A few years later a second cousin, whom I had never met, wrote a letter to me. He said he had seen my research and was curious, so when his next business trip took him to Quebec he did some research of his own and found our great grandfather's ancestry back to the original Darveau who came from France. At first when he found that person he wasn't sure if he was connected to us so he followed a few of the descendant lines (skipping the female lines, of course, because of the name change) until the direct line was made.

He gave me everything he found (he was no longer interested in continuing) and I immediately re-set my goal as "to document all the descendants of the first Darveau and spouse (male and female lines)". This is something that continues to this day. The count of people within this scope is 9,444.

Somewhere in the 1990's, I decided to work on my ancestry (versus the descendants of my Darveau ancester), thus the scope of my research changed again to "All people related to me". Of course, as ancesters are discovered I tried also to collect their descendants (my cousins). The count is now up to 24,636. IMPORTANT: This number would be much larger if I had collected names of people who were related to my relatives. (I collected several thousand names from a database of about 250,000, all of which would have been "linked" to me somehow, but not actually "related" to me.) But I had set the scope of my research to only my relatives (and spouses).

I changed my scope once again when I had kids and began doing my wife's side. Now my database includes "all people who are related to my children". I do have a rule that is different from most people, I suspect, and that is to not include names of spouse's parents. I record those names in a field, but they are not included in the database. Why? They don't fit within the scope that I have set. They are not related by blood, marriage, or adoption. Although I do admit the information MAY be useful, at times, which is why I record them in a field.

So that is my story. I hope it helps you to discern the path you choose to take.

--Blaise A. Darveaux
"I am against intellect without discipline. I am against power without constructive purpose" --Mr. Spock, 'The Squire of Gothos' STAR TREK

Karen Peters
28 September 2006, 01:28 PM
You know, when I posted this question, I had the sinking feeling that the answers would make me feel inadequate. ;)

Seriously, I appreciate your responses. I gives me something to think about. I currently have 2371 people in my family file, of which 582 are my direct ancestors. I'm lucky that many of my lines are very well documented (Massachussetts and Rhode Island Quakers) and there are books available on-line through Heritage Quest about them. There are so many of them, that I sort of feel like I'm neglecting my other lines when I'm adding in people's cousins. :(

I may keep to my original strategy for well-documented lines where I have the book or a pdf of the book, and go further out where I have pieced the line together myself. I think the most important thing I've learned (esp. from Blaise's post) is to have a plan (and not to feel bad if I stray from it when I've hit a wall!)

Thanks!

marnen
28 September 2006, 03:58 PM
If it makes you feel any better, I only have 341 people in my family file, and only 228 entries are actually "mine" (the others are relatives of my fianc

Amelia
28 September 2006, 07:02 PM
You know, when I posted this question, I had the sinking feeling that the answers would make me feel inadequate. ;)


In that case, I should certainly chime in and say I am entirely too lazy to include everyone related in some fashion to me in my database. And, I just haven't gotten to the point where I care who my ggggrandfather's sister's husband's parents were. There are some exceptions for immigrant groups and common families, but otherwise I stick with people I actually care enough about to document correctly.

Which leads to my second point. You can distinguish between names you collect and names you actively care about. I'm sure none of the distinguished members of this board do this, but it drives me batty when people justify collecting every name they can find in the name of making connections, but then they justify not having any documentation and not being able to trace the information because "it's not my direct line." I can't tell you how many times I've emailed someone with interesting names on WorldConnect, only to get the response that they really have no idea where that information came from because it's not really their line. Whatever you collect, try to only post what you actually have some semblance of documentation for or actually care to discuss. Other than that, no one will come after you for neglecting any particular branch of the familiy ;-)

STEVE
28 September 2006, 08:09 PM
I do... not include names of spouse's parents. I record those names in a field, but they are not included in the database. Why? They don't fit within the scope that I have set. They are not related by blood, marriage, or adoption.

Research limitations can be set in any manner the researcher chooses. No such decision changes, or should change, the basic concepts of genealogy; i.e., A marriage signifies a merging of two bloodlines. "Related by marriage" is simply "related by the distaff bloodline." HIS grandparents should be no more and no less important than HER grandparents. Don't forget, from her family's viewpoint HIS family is related by marriage!

;-) STEVE

Spyneyes
28 September 2006, 10:32 PM
I do have a rule that is different from most people, I suspect, and that is to not include names of spouse's parents. I record those names in a field, but they are not included in the database. Why? They don't fit within the scope that I have set. They are not related by blood, marriage, or adoption. Although I do admit the information MAY be useful, at times, which is why I record them in a field.
Very good post regarding the evolution of your methods as to what to collect, but I can't help but ask ... If you're going to go to the trouble of entering these additional names in a field, why not just put them in the database? There's nothing to lose and, as you wrote, "the information MAY be useful, at times."

Best regards,

RCarruthers
29 September 2006, 07:36 PM
In that case, I should certainly chime in and say I am entirely too lazy to include everyone related in some fashion to me in my database.Amen, Sister. You preach it, and I'll turn the pages.

Blaise A. Darveaux
29 September 2006, 09:39 PM
Very good post regarding the evolution of your methods as to what to collect, but I can't help but ask ... If you're going to go to the trouble of entering these additional names in a field, why not just put them in the database? There's nothing to lose and, as you wrote, "the information MAY be useful, at times."

Best regards,

Rick, thanks for the compliment and for asking your question.

It is probably as simple as the fact that when I see the number of people in my database, I instantly know how many are related to me and my children (by blood, marriage, or adoption). But also, those names would seem to me to be unnecessary clutter in a database that is already, admittedly, too large to do serious genealogy on every member. In the case of clutter, I guess I WOULD have something to lose, and that is the feeling that I'm running a "tight ship". After all, if I let them in, why not their whole families, and spouses, and so on, and so on. I may have such huge goals for my database that I will never complete it, but even I have some limits. :-) And the limits allow me to see the end of the tunnel, even though I may, actually, never get there.

Blaise A. Darveaux

Ginger Goodell
30 September 2006, 03:17 AM
I also include people who might one day turn out to be linked to me - for example if I'm searching the Scottish census, and find other Moffats in the same area as mine I will include them.

Roger

Can you tell me where you list those people, the other Moffats you find in the same areas as yours?
Thanks,
Ginger

theKiwi
30 September 2006, 06:27 PM
Can you tell me where you list those people, the other Moffats you find in the same areas as yours?r

I just put them into my main family file. For the first one I use the Edit ------> Add Unrelated person command, and then link the rest of that group up to that person.

Roger

jimsz
09 October 2006, 12:15 PM
I really add nobody that is not either directly related to me or more than one or two steps away.

There is enough work to research those directly related to me without having to spend time, money and energy confirming those I have little interest in.

theKiwi
09 October 2006, 12:32 PM
I really add nobody that is not either directly related to me or more than one or two steps away.

There is enough work to research those directly related to me without having to spend time, money and energy confirming those I have little interest in.

Yeah but if you include all these distant people in your file, and then publish it online, others who have done the research will contact you.

I've had contact come to me from a 4th cousin once removed, and a 4th cousin because I had our common ancestors listed online. They have provide whole new lines of relatives for me.

I also get contacts from distant relatives - 4th cousins or beyond about whom I know only their name who can help provide more information about their part of the family.

Like you, I don't have time to research it all myself, but I do feel a need to try and get it all linked up as far as possible :-)

Roger

MarilynKay
10 October 2006, 10:43 PM
Well, I long ago decided not to include anyone more recent than my own generation, since I figure that information will be easily available, should anybody want it. That's not to say I haven't included some names when they were available, but I'm not setting out to gather that information.

I usually don't go back further than the parents of siblings' spouses.

There are times when I simply enter the names of persons without any further information, just so I can come back if I feel I need to expand a person's information further. For instance, just last night I found a very distant step-cousin of my husband's who had been married five times. I entered the names of all the spouses so I'd have the basic information. I also noted where I got the names. But I didn't fill in birth dates and places, etc.

Maurice Mézière
14 October 2006, 11:17 AM
I include anyone who is in any way linked to me - even if they are no relation to me.
Roger
I tend to do the same, but so far the 23OOO or so of them lie in a circle whose radius is about 100 km !

I've just come across this last one and I don't believe I've a relation whatsoever to her though being hardly 50 km away from my birthplace. I thought I'd tell you about her as she could be of interest for any of you folks.

Here she comes: "In Alexain (Western France), on 30/01/1716, birth of Marie de QUENEDY daughter of Jean de QUENEDY, from Irland (from Mullingar ?)"

marnen
15 October 2006, 11:23 PM
Are these Irish Kennedys whose names were respelled when they came to France? Cool...er...I mean "coulle". :)

--Marn

Karen Peters
16 October 2006, 01:23 PM
Since posting this, I was searching through an article about the residents of Farmer's Castle at Belpre, OH. My fourth great-grandfather, John Cogswell was there and I was hoping to find my fourth great-grandmother there as well. No luck with her. However, I did find Lincoln Goodale. The street I grew up on in Columbus, OH was named for him. Just goes to show, we are all connected, somehow...