unrelated entries on genealogay progs

[Ed McKie]

Not exactly a beginner, but have beginning to wonder of late if I have been wrong all these years :-)

when we first started some 15 years ago, I decided for whatever reason I cant recall, not to enter anyone on to my family database until I was sure of a connection. No lifting miles of stuff from the IGI for me says I.
So I just made a note on research logs or other bits of paper, exercise books and so on.

However, I now have masses of this stuff and no chance of fitting in those odd bods who are probably connected, or I have more information about scattered on those bits of paper.

I also find that it is the practice for a number of people to include everyone on their database, and hope to link them later, as it were. On reflection this seems a better idea than what I have.

What do other folk do with the "perhaps" people they find along the way, in the same parish, on the census with the "wrong" birthplace etc ?

Cheers..Ed

[Guy Etchells]

When I started researching family history, I lived so far away from any source of records that, I used the scatter gun approach and collected any reference to the names I was interested in whether they fitted or not.
Years later when computers arrived on the scene I copied all these onto my computer database and over the years some have eventually been shown to fit.

That is one of the joys of a database, they allow records to be stored which are not linked into the tree but may be linked in relamessage=When I started researching family history, I lived so far away from any source of records that, I used the scatter gun approach and collected any reference to the names I was interested in whether they fitted or not.
Years later when computers arrived on the scene I copied all these onto my computer database and over the years some have eventually been shown to fit.

That is one of the joys of a database, they allow records to be stored which are not linked into the tree but may be linked in relatively easily when the evidence shows the connection.

Perhaps I should add a warning, my approach has proved so addictive that now, not only do I collect possible ancestors, but, have enlarged the method to include registers of villages and hundreds to enable remote connections to be formed in my one place study. (Framland Hundred).

[Peggy]

Hi Ed,

I enter them as unrelated individuals. Over the years, as I've gotten more information, I've been able to link up quite a few of them. Sometimes I'll learn that Sam born in X was really my Sam born in Y, and be able to merge the two.

My program often objects to names I enter, which may even be something like "Sams bpt St Mary Smith." :) But I figure I paid for it and I can use it in any way that helps me to keep track of research. "Elka Park Cemetery" is a person in my database, and "his" notes contain all family tombstone data there.

As long as you keep it clear which are known family, I don't see how it can hurt.

Peggy

[Geoffers]

I'm in a similar boat to Guy. Living a long way from records, it initially made sense to me to record every entry for my name that I found, as trips to record centres were few and far between. I recorded every entry in a card index (this was some time ago, but then the card index has never had a power failure and I don't get problems with the software!). My interest has extended over time to now having one-place studies for a group of villages where my family lived over a long period.

Looking at all records for the area has helped me to much better understand how it developed over time. This extension of researrch may not be practical for everyone; but I would still suggest extracting all entries relating to the name(s) you research. If you don't, you're bound to reach the stage where you think you remember reading something of use somewhere, but can't remember what, or when.

You may want to keep your genealogy programme as simple as possible and just record definite matches there. But rather than just record the extra information on bits of paper/note books, an alternative is to create table(s) in a WP doc, or use spreadsheet(s) and store the information chronologically. If you are recording masses of extra information, you may consider using a specific programme such as 'Custodian' http://www.custodian3.co.uk/

Geoffers
Charlbury, Oxfordshire

[Diane Grant-Salmon]

In my Family Tree Maker Programme, I enter all 'my so far unconnected' people into the Unrelated Individuals section too. I don't consider them to be clutter or anything, as they only show up in the Index.

I entered every baptism from my Wendron, Cornwall CD, for the surname MOYLE, as this lot lived there for years and years according to Censuses.

Over the years, I've managed to trace about 50% of the U.I ...... all related to my lot! :D

[Procat]

TMG has the ability to have a number of "Data Sets".

I have in the past had my "main" data set and then created another one for all my odds and sods. At least this way I can let the computer do the searching for information that "I am sure I have something somewhere" rather than scrabbling around on the floor.

Excuse me I have to go - there is an interesting newspaper cutting jutting out from behind the bookcase. :)

[Mary Young]

Keep it separate or chuck it all together? Perhaps it depends on whether your main family moved about, or remained settled in one area.
If they were settled, they're probably related in some way to half the people in the parish, so it makes sense to put every detail you glean into one database. Then let your genealogy programs help find possible duplicates and matches. (I'm using Legacy in conjunction with GenViewer.)
Yes, I too have a "Individual" for each of the 3 graveyards, one for snippets of information about emigration ... at last count, 237 unconnected trees ... just noticed one named "Uninhabited House", I wonder what that's for? :D

[LynA]

Keep it separate or chuck it all together?
If they were settled, they're probably related in some way to half the people in the parish, so it makes sense to put every detail you glean into one database. Then let your genealogy programs help find possible duplicates and matches. We all have our own favourite methods. I use Family Tree Maker. I keep all my own proven family links in one file. I use a separate file (imaginatively called "Misc":) ) for all possible future links, as well as for families any of my correspondents are researching.

I check the indexes of both files for matches before entering new names in either file. This is a bit more time-consuming but stops my main file from becoming too cumbersome.

This works for me, but I'm always interested to see how other people tackle the problem.

Regards,
Lynda

[Mary Young]

I check the indexes of both files for matches before entering new names in either file. This is a bit more time-consuming but stops my main file from becoming too cumbersome. Wow, I don't think I could bear to do that - the names in my database are too common, e.g. 200+ Donald Mackays (entire parish is populated by Mackays and Sutherlands).
Maybe it all comes down to personality. I'm a sloppy cook - chuck it in, give it a good stir and see what happens! :D

[Diane Grant-Salmon]

Family Files eh? I have Family Tree Maker 2005 and I started with one file. However, my Cornish file got so big (particularly with all the Moyles, Bowdens and Treloars, not to mention the Roberts!) that I made this one separate.

It's my Father's paternal line, so I have a separate file for his maternal line, which was just Yorkshire, but has lately increased to include Somerset. My Mum's lines are all lumped together in my Yorkshire file, not forgetting my huband's file of course! :D

[arthurk]

I've decided to keep my genealogy program (Legacy) only for those who are related to me, or their very close connections. For other people I've picked up I originally used the database in MS Works, but because of the variety of sources I found this to be too constricting and so I'm gradually transferring data to a free form database called Maple, from http://www.crystaloffice.com/ (originally found on a magazine cover disc). There are other similar programs too.

The advantage of a program like this is that you can enter data in any way you want, so I have templates for certificates, census extracts and so on, as well as pages where I've just made notes in completely free form. Documents can be imported from other programs, and it handles hyperlinks both within the program and to the internet. One disadvantage to Maple is that it doesn't have an alphabetical index, though there is a global search facility. It may not suit everyone, but I'm very happy with it.

Arthur

[Mark]

I recorded every entry in a card index (this was some time ago, but then the card index has never had a power failure and I don't get problems with the software!).

Geoffers
Charlbury, Oxfordshire

But let a 5 year old loose, and it'll soon become a fully fragmented filing system.

And backing up a computer file is a lot easier ... and we all do that regularly ... don't we!

Mark

[Geoffers]

But let a 5 year old loose, and it'll soon become a fully fragmented filing system.
No 5-year old is getting anywhere near my card index - any child attempting same would die a horrible death.

Signed :eek:
The mad axe-murderer of Charlbury

[Peggy]

[one named "Uninhabited House"]

|laugh1| Please, Mary, check the Notes and tell us who "he" is. Maybe you suspected a Mackay of haunting the place?

I also started with one file that got too big. Now I have them broken out into 3 files on a geographical basis, with very little overlap. And in my days of innocence (ok, stupidity) I merged in a gedcom sent by a cousin, and had to start all over again to clear things up. (It was all good stuff, and sourced. But it included everyone in about 13 generations, for a name with a dozen variants!) Now I also have a bunch of files from gedcoms, against which I sometimes check new names. Learning the hard way is better than not learning at all, right? :)

Peggy

[Ed McKie]

Trust me to have been doing wrong all these years. Mark you when I first started there were not a lot of gene progs about, so being a bookkeeper by training I tried to adapt a bookkeeping programme, evolved my own dbase setup, spreadsheets and the like, all to no avail.

so I ended up with one programme strictly for the "family" and paper notes for all else. I am sure that I was not alone in underestimating the amount of information we were to collect over the years. File folders, one for each name a filing cabinet for other information, and boxes for the bits of paper. The theory of course was to regularly trawl through the bits of paper............

I wonder if you folk in darkest Manchester and the like realise quite how lucky you are to have those cold Northern Hemisphere winters, so you can spend cosy Sunday afternoons, sorting your paper work, nameing your photos, scanning the certs etc....... Out here where the sun shines most days and gives you a guilt complex to be indoors whilst the grass and the weeds grow as high as trees..................................

Cheers...Ed

[busyglen]

It's interesting to see what others do!

I have Brothers Keeper, and only put on what is proven, with a few exceptions where, I am 99% sure that the info is correct, but haven't managed to obtain proof. These are marked with `Special Notes' so that I don't forget to try an authenticate them later. The rest......well.....they all go in A4 folders in plastic folders. Everything from a print out of a message reply to a printout of a possible village, plus bits of Census, IGI records etc. Every so often.....well, not so often :( I go through these files to see if I have missed anything and also to throw out that which is no longer required. I am so glad that I saved a message from a year ago when someone was trying to help me, as it contained a `clue' that I had missed. This time around I spotted it and `eureka' I had found my family at last. So.....sometimes pieces of paper do help!! :)

Glenys

[Diane Grant-Salmon]

I wonder if you folk in darkest Manchester and the like realise quite how lucky you are to have those cold Northern Hemisphere winters, so you can spend cosy Sunday afternoons, sorting your paper work, nameing your photos, scanning the certs etc....... Out here where the sun shines most days and gives you a guilt complex to be indoors whilst the grass and the weeds grow as high as trees..................................

Cheers...Ed
Hi Ed,

Yes, you're right! I spend more time on the computer and doing things in the Winter. I love the Spring best of all and the computer takes a back seat as I love gardening. I like the *normal* UK so-called Summers, so that I can garden then too.

However, the awful (to me only probably) Summer of 2003 nearly killed me! It was very, very hot to me ..... 30 degrees or so, anything above 25 degrees has me like a wilting wallflower. Not forgetting the migraines of course! This means that I can't go out at all to garden, only sit down in the shade and it kills me to see all the jobs which need doing.

By the way, air conditioning in the UK is not the norm, most people don't have it. :(

[Fulhamster]

Hi All,
Having only started my family history (I no longer call it my family tree) about ten months ago I am still amazed at the amount of material that one gathers in the course of our research! I am so grateful for the advice that I got from this site about referencing EVERYTHING. Some of those that I did not reference before getting this advice still comes back to haunt me.
So, I have one 'definite' file and ALL other information is kept on various files or in folders or whatever. This proved invaluable when one of my GG's married a cousin with the same surname, everything neatly fell into place once birth cert of other GG was checked. Once again thanks for all the help that I have received from various quarters on this site! :)

[AnnB]

I have various family groups on the computer (I use Family Historian) with the same names and coming from the same areas as my family names. I have them 'in case' I can tie them in with 'mine'. Trouble is, I can get so involved in tracking down these other families, my 'proper' family goes by the board.... :o I still have masses of bits of paper (which now has to be housed in a 3 drawer filing cabinet) on which is etched out various other little twigs all waiting to find a tree to hang on, along with all my original research from many years ago. Every time my other half says we should have a clear out (meaning a purge on my bits of paper) I always say I'll do it in the winter, but come winter my "cosy Sunday afternoons" are spent glued in front of the computer, trying to find a place for the bits of information on the bits of paper, and not being able to do so, putting the said bits of paper back into the filing cabinet...... |shakehead
Best wishes
Ann

[Mary Young]

[one named "Uninhabited House"]
Please, Mary, check the Notes and tell us who "he" is. Maybe you suspected a Mackay of haunting the place? Nothing so creepy! Now I remember ... I have a source for each household in the 1881 census, so they list in numerical order. The empty houses are attached to an "Individual" to make the series complete. ... Well, it works for me! :)

[Sheleen]

You all sound so professional!
I am not exactly a beginner, but I'm definately still very much a novice.
I have all my known rellies held in two programmes - Family Tree, and also GenPro.
GenPro is useful, because it shows everyone alltogether - brothers, sisters, step-parents... everyone added is shown - albeit a bit jumbled :)
I wouldn't add anyone to my tree unless I am 99% sure they are a relative - I can't say 100%, because I don't think I'll ever be 100% sure of what my relatives really got up to ;)
Everything (or should I say 'every one'?) else is carefully logged in box files and folders.
Granted, I realise that I'm doing things a bit different to a lot of people... concentrating on all the family back to a specific time, for the time being - rather than tracing back a specific line as far back as I can manage.
But I am careful not to add anyone to my tree that I'm not sure about - and am absolutely gutted when I discover I may have ordered a wrong certificate ... but not doing too badly thus far - only needed 24 certs for verification so far (two more just ordered though)... of those 24, 11 were given to me (or rather, left to me) by my grandmother... and of the ones I have ordered, only one is a definate (possible definate?) wrong certificate... and one is a possible no - may be father instead of son.
I'll keep those two certificates in a 'misc' noted file with a sticky label on the front to let me know what I've added.
I love using computer programs to help with my tree... but I do prefer hand-written notes and bits of paper to hold - something more tangible than flickering words on a computer screen.
White box files for birth certificates, red for marriage, and blue for death. I used to have four boxfiles, holding all certificates for my four grandparents seperately.... but I have found that three boxfiles, and lots of sticky labels on plastic holders is much more useful ;)

Reading some of the replies here, I suppose I'm a bit like Glenys or AnnB.. only throw it away if you definately know you'll never need it again. Which means I never throw anything away... :D

[busyglen]

Reading some of the replies here, I suppose I'm a bit like Glenys or AnnB.. only throw it away if you definately know you'll never need it again. Which means I never throw anything away... :D

Actually Sheleen, I have just got rid of three carrier bags of shredded paper, to the re-cycling bin!!

I found that I had been copying the same things over, without realising as this happened over a long period. I even found a file in a drawer of copy emails sent to people abroad 3 years ago when I was helping them with their research. Nothing to do with my research, but cluttering the place up, in case they came back for any reason. SO....I gave myself a talking to and have now got rid of anything that I know I won't need again!! I hope!!

Glenys