How far to expand tree

[Shelbyw]

This is a general question....I have been filling in the branches of my family tree, so that I could identify possible DNA matches. I know that you could probably go on forever, but I am wondering just how much is enough?? Anyone else with this problem?

[SGilbert]

My personal policy is to pursue direct lines as far as I can go. In the process, I come across information I normally would not look for, but I almost always do not turn down free info, and record it.

[Bob White]

Like SGilbert, direct line as far as one can go. I limit research on families of the spouses of cousins, uncles, aunts, etc.. to one generation. e.g., The spouse is only a relation through marriage; the spouse's relatives are not my relatives so there is no reason to pursue them.

[Blaise A. Darveaux]

How far you want to go depends on your genealogical objectives.

When I started compiling about 50 years ago, my objective was to record all descendants of my great-grandfather Darveau which I pretty much completed by writing letters. Then a cousin gave me the ancestral line back about 5 generations (to about 1650) and my objectives changed to gather all descendants of that earliest Darveaux. Then years later I started gathering ancestors in all the other lines as far as I could (some lines are short, some go way back). Recently, I have been adding descendants of those non-Darveaux lines (uncles, aunts, cousins) from 1650 up to about 1800 (about 45,000 individuals from one source!).

More to your question, where I stop is the spouses of blood relatives. I put the spouse's name in the database, but the names of spouses' parents I put in a Parents fact field, so I don't even add them to the database, because they are not related to me by either blood or marriage.

I haven't done anything with DNA yet. Haven't found a real need to use that in my research.

[Shelbyw]

Thank you so much! I appreciate the information....

[Scott_R]

It's easy to go down the rabbit hole, as one tidbit leads to another. Still, I stop myself from adding anyone not at least tenuously related by blood--though I might add a spouse's parents if I happen upon them via other research--e.g., Mr and Mrs So-and-So announce the marriage of their daughter to... (my relative).

[thomprod]

I add info on a relative's spouse's parents if I find a source document (e.g. the marriage certificate) showing them. Unless they are especially close to me personally, or someone else in the family asks for more details, I don't pursue searching for any other information about them.

[William Shaw]

As Peng Shepard said in her fine novel The Cartographers, all good maps start with the Maker's intent.

[Rob McNaughton]

I am working on my wife's French Huguenot side in South Africa ... one could think what a mess! You are not far wrong .. but I have found that I have actually restricted myself to the spouse and their issue only of blood relatives. And I am new to Reunion ...

[CONLEY Research]

Like most people who answered this, I generally don't pursue much information on the families of spouses. I will put in to Reunion what I come across as I research, but I don't go looking for more.

But sometimes, when I hit a real dead end, I will spread out more or dig deeper. Some people call this FANS or FAN club (family, associates, neighbors) research.

For DNA purposes, I think part of the question is how far down do you need to go? If there's a particular line that you're trying to prove via DNA, you may need to work all the way down from the common ancestor to the DNA matches. I've done this, so there are some very distantly related people in my Reunion file.

I use Reunion to collect and track in progress research on branches and people, not just the final "proven" ones. It all depends on how you use your database!

[Kim]

This is a choice you have to make. Unlike many here, I add almost everyone to my tree. Sometimes when I get to spouse's mother's cousin's wife's uncle, I will stop. But they I add a 'family' note indicating the name of the uncle and source so that I can pursue it later if I need to. I think this is especially important if you are researching in an area that the family has lived for several generations. While not related, I discovered a few years ago that my brother's wife's great-grandfather had a farm adjoining the farm of my great-great grandfather. I found in Italy that my great-grandmother's brother was married to a 2nd cousin twice removed of my great-grandfather. It really depends on how far you want to pursue it.
\

[bbousquet]

This is a choice you have to make. Unlike many here, I add almost everyone to my tree. Sometimes when I get to spouse's mother's cousin's wife's uncle, I will stop. But they I add a 'family' note indicating the name of the uncle and source so that I can pursue it later if I need to. I think this is especially important if you are researching in an area that the family has lived for several generations. While not related, I discovered a few years ago that my brother's wife's great-grandfather had a farm adjoining the farm of my great-great grandfather. I found in Italy that my great-grandmother's brother was married to a 2nd cousin twice removed of my great-grandfather. It really depends on how far you want to pursue it.
\

Agreed. In French Canada, pretty much everyone is related because of the small pool of settlers in the early days of the French colony. End result is we're all 6th-8th cousins at least. I therefore usually end up going up most lines and connecting them to the rest of my file. I can see this being a different story in other areas, of course.