PDA

View Full Version : remote ancestors


Henry D. Shay
27 May 2005, 08:48 PM
In REUNION8 how can one show distant ancestors - that is, ancestors may generations back - without knowing and showing the intermediate ancestors?

Bob White
28 May 2005, 03:26 AM
Question to your question: How do you know these distant ancestors are your ancestors if you don't know the intermediate ancestors? In other words, if you can't establish the connection, they shouldn't be in your family file.

David G. Kanter
28 May 2005, 04:14 PM
. . .In other words, if you can't establish the connection, they shouldn't be in your family file.I can't agree with Bob on that point. I've entered into my Reunion Family File persons, and mini-trees of persons, when some purportedly creditable Source identifies them to be relatives, even if the exact linkage is not yet determined. (For example, persons who are known to be "cousins" to a member of my main tree, but there is only, at best, a hypothesis as to the connection.) I capture whatever information I can on such persons and enter it into Reunion. Each person, or the inital person of a mini-tree, would be entered using Edit->Add Unrelated Person. (The adjective "unrelated", in this instance, should be taken to just mean "not-yet-connected to the main tree".) I call such persons or mini-trees as being

Bob White
29 May 2005, 08:17 PM
I should have said what I do (in addition to what I think Henry shouldn't). I keep these "not yet connected" branches in separate Reunion family files. At such time as I make the connection, Reunion makes it pretty easy to bring the data into my main family file.

If you stop and think about this for a minute, this is precisely what any of us would have done before we had computers to record our information. (e.g. We would have filled out some family sheets and hand drawn a tree but we would have kept this information in a separate folder until we made the connection.)

I developed my habit long ago. My first efforts with genealogy predate the original Macintosh by about two years. The first piece of software I used was a DOS program on a pre-Windows IBM compatible PC and it was lots of work to "disconnect" data which turned out to be bad, wrong, whatever.

I don't know that your method or my method or some other method is the "best" method. The bottom line is that we should keep such information under control by some method.

martha
01 June 2005, 03:10 AM
...I keep these "not yet connected" branches in separate Reunion family files. At such time as I make the connection, Reunion makes it pretty easy to bring the data into my main family file...If I am nearly certain that there is a connection, but am missing information on a generation in between, I always enter the information in my main db and preface the name by [probable connection] John Doe; if I more or less deduce that someone is connected to a certain family but don't yet have the incontrovertable written proof, I preface their entry with [tentative connection] John Doe. So far, all of those entered in this way were later proven to be in the right place. If I had had them in another family file, I might not have made the actual connection. That said, I do have separate family files for nigling "maybes" that don't tickle my intuition or that don't feel right but just might be right in spite of it all. Certainly, I think that it is good research practice to have any "maybes" at your fingertips so that later you can keep track of them and use the information when the time comes.

Martha

Mary Moody
01 June 2005, 03:52 AM
if you can't establish the connection, they shouldn't be in your family file.I have been using Reunion since version 1 and have addressed this problem many times. I am sorry to disagree, but how you deal with remote ancestors would depend upon the reliabillity of the information. For example, my great-grandmother, whom I (as an adult) knew well, wrote memoirs that we came across after my mother's death leaving me the oldest member of that branch. GGM gave very full info back to her great grandfather, then cryptically referred us to a book by distant cousin that would give the accurate connections to "the immigrant" of 1635 (my 9 Great Grandfather) who was the progenitor of that line in the colonies. It took 15 years to track down that book and the exact connections, but I had entered him and left him attached, guessing the number of generations. Luckily, I was very close.
Also, I kept a person not attached whom I knew well growing up because I thought he was connected, but I didn't know how (my familly was protecting his family). I am very glad I kept that family card because I now find that he is actually a cousin.
You must make a judgement call about your sources - are they reliable?

Reiner L. Sauer
01 June 2005, 04:33 AM
I should have said what I do (in addition to what I think Henry shouldn't). I keep these "not yet connected" branches in separate Reunion family files...

... The bottom line is that we should keep such information under control by some method.I like to add my 2 cents worth to this discussion. I also disagree with Bob White about keeping this information about "not yet connected" branchen in seperate Reunion family files.

What better method is there to keep all "such information under control", than to keep it within a single Reunion file?

Long time ago, there may have been valid reasons to keep the information about different families in seperate genealogy files. These reasons may have had to do with DOS -genealogy programs, oder capacity problems of early versions of Reunion (e.g. only 99 source references).

...but today, I explicitely recommend to every beginner, NEVER EVER to split genealogy data across multiple files. I speak from experience. A long time ago, limitation in genealogy programs forced me to maintain seperate files. What a mess! Not only was I forced to datacapture maintain identical sources across many files (e.g. a book which made reference to many people in many different files), I also experienced drift in the database structure of various Reunion files. Adding new person-, family-, and source fields is awfully difficult and time consuming to be maintained across multiple files.

In the end, you even wind up in maintaining two or more physical filing systems for sorting and keeping your hardcopies of sources and books.

Now, I only maintain a database of more than 100.000 individuals of an entire township, where genealogical links go all over the place. The information is from more than 11.000 sources. Reunion 8 allows me now to keep this under control, in one file.

David G. Kanter and Mary Moody have already given many other reasons as to why one file only should be maintained. I never regret the day, when I finally merged multiple files. After years of weeding out duplicates, I never want to go back.

Therefore, merge your files as soon as you can.

Cheers
Reiner

theKiwi
01 June 2005, 07:56 AM
And here's another couple of pennies...

I too would, and do, keep all the data in one database. Many of the reasons are as noted above by Reiner and David.

One reason they haven't mentioned that I see as quite beneficial is if you publish your data online, you will also be publishing this data about people you're not sure about.

Maybe someone will find this information who knows more than you do about it and will be able to help you be more sure about it.

Cheers

Roger

AE Palmer
01 June 2005, 07:06 PM
If I am nearly certain that there is a connection, but am missing information on a generation in between, I always enter the information in my main db and preface the name by [probable connection] John Doe; if I more or less deduce that someone is connected to a certain family but don't yet have the incontrovertable written proof, I preface their entry with [tentative connection] John Doe.Another, perhaps more elegant, method of obtaining the same result is to use a "Child Status" tag that says: << NOT PROVED >>, or << TENTATIVE CONNECTION >>. This allows you to leave the name field as it should be -- without extraneous data.

In Reunion v8, it is a simple matter of going to OPTIONS --> DEFINE --> CHILD STATUS.

David G. Kanter
01 June 2005, 10:17 PM
Another, perhaps more elegant, method of obtaining the same result is to use a "Child Status" tag. . .This allows you to leave the name field as it should be -- without extraneous data..I wholeheartedly second AE Palmer's advice about avoiding non-name entries in the Name field, but do offer a word of caution regarding using the Child-Status tag to identify your not-yet-connected persons.

As I had said earlier in this thread, I'd recommend you use a Flag. Here are three reasons--with the third not being particularly relevant in the instant case.

(1) Because that tag is really couples-based data, it can't be shown in the Index. You can, however, choose one of the columns in the Index (or the other Lists) to display the Flag(s) assigned to a person. (There is a limit to just how much space you can provide for the column, so if you're heavy into the use of Flags, think about making their names fairly short so if more than one are assigned to a person, you'll see all the Flag names in the column without having to make it so wide you options for other columns is severely limited.)

(2) Again because it's couples-based data, you won't find Child Status in the search parameters in the People tab of the Find Anything (Cmd-A) window; it's only in the Couples tab. The result is that the Found List results will list the parents(s) of a child with the selected status(es), not the person--and that's too indirect a method for me.

(3) While the Child Status can appear in your reports, it isn

martha
03 June 2005, 02:20 AM
Another, perhaps more elegant, method of obtaining the same result is to use a "Child Status" tag that says: << NOT PROVED >>, or << TENTATIVE CONNECTION >>. This allows you to leave the name field as it should be -- without extraneous data.

In Reunion v8, it is a simple matter of going to OPTIONS --> DEFINE --> CHILD STATUS.Thanks for the tip. I didn't know about being able to manipulate the child status that way. However, for my purposes, I prefer the [tentative] John DOE solution in the name because then all the tentatives are listed together in the index [first name, last name] and I know immediately which ones I have try harder to find material on. When the connection is confirmed, I remove the bracked information.

Also, the tentative connections may not have known parents - they may be spouses, in which case I would not have a child status at all.

That said, I really appreciate your tip about the child status!

Martha

STEVE
03 June 2005, 10:56 AM
[QUOTE=David G. Kanter]I can't agree with Bob on that point. I've entered into my Reunion Family File persons, and mini-trees of persons, when some purportedly creditable Source identifies them to be relatives, even if the exact linkage is not yet determined. (For example, persons who are known to be "cousins" to a member of my main tree, but there is only, at best, a hypothesis as to the connection.) I capture whatever information I can on such persons and enter it into Reunion. Each person, or the inital person of a mini-tree, would be entered using Edit->Add Unrelated Person. (The adjective "unrelated", in this instance, should be taken to just mean "not-yet-connected to the main tree".) I call such persons or mini-trees as being

Bob White
03 June 2005, 06:31 PM
Heavens! I didn't realize that I would set off such a firestorm. I will just add one thing which is to say that, in my case, having the data in separate files is not a problem. I don't have 100,000 ancestors and cousins in my file. In fact, I have less than 2,000 and the extra files are generally pretty small and generally only one or two. I can see that for someone like Reiner my system wouldn't work because of the larger numbers whereas I can almost keep track of all the extra names in my head.

Note to Steve: Likewise, if you run across any Jenanyans, they belong to me. Do you have any Rands in Sacramento? I know one.