-
Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!
-
It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here
Adding additional families
- Thread starter Maly
- Start date
Have you used FTAnalyzer? It will list everyone that you can add, and also add them. You then just need to check them once they're loaded.
The program was written by a Forum Member, Alexander.
The program was written by a Forum Member, Alexander.
Bryman
LostCousins Megastar
I saw this new discussion just before I went to bed after watching the NZvWal rugby. Overnight (in NZ) I see that Tim has suggested FTAnalyser which I think is brilliant. However, you are now indicated as a LC Superstar after just a few hours so you must have done something right since your first post. Congratulations, you have already jumped ahead of most of the crowd and achieved a high match potential. It looks like Red Dragon should have some very good news for everybody at the end of the week. I hope that you get lots of matches from all your hard work.
Hi Bryman
I've have been studying my tree for many years, back then I realised that I needed a way of working out what I knew or needed to find out about each individual in the tree. So I created a spreadsheet which I still use, It has a row of entry for birth, baptism, marriage (one line for each extra marriage) and a row for death I also record where the events took place, who their parents were. Also fields for each census year from 1831 (there is the odd one) through to 1921 and the 1939 Register I note those which fit with Lost Cousins, those listed and those I need to enter (which was the reason for starting this exercise) and details of any will.
Pauline
LostCousins Megastar
This thread has got me thinking about the different ways we research our family trees, and how that impacts on the number of people we enter at Lost Cousins.
Having started my research back in pre-internet times, I have always focused primarily on taking my direct line backwards rather than spreading out very far sideways. I guess this was largely because of the time it could take (and the distance I might need to travel) to find, say, just one marriage or one census entry. Consequently, I spent most of my limited time and money researching my direct line, and my tree reflects that.
I do now, whenever possible, try to follow lines forward in the hope of finding descendants in a relevant census, so that I can add them in at Lost Cousins, but I still tend to focus most of my time on my ancestors and their immediate families.
Having started my research back in pre-internet times, I have always focused primarily on taking my direct line backwards rather than spreading out very far sideways. I guess this was largely because of the time it could take (and the distance I might need to travel) to find, say, just one marriage or one census entry. Consequently, I spent most of my limited time and money researching my direct line, and my tree reflects that.
I do now, whenever possible, try to follow lines forward in the hope of finding descendants in a relevant census, so that I can add them in at Lost Cousins, but I still tend to focus most of my time on my ancestors and their immediate families.
Entering relatives on your My Ancestors is simply another way of researching in your direct line - because the cousins you find will be researching the ancestral lines that you share.
Pauline
LostCousins Megastar
Yes, that’s why I do take lines forward, as and when I get some spare time, hoping that I will make connections via Lost Cousins.
But the point I was trying to make is that because the focus of my research is to go directly back in my ancestry rather than sideways, I’m never going to have vast numbers of people in my tree, nor a ready supply of census entries to enter at Lost Cousins.
Your ultimate objective is precisely the same as mine - I just think that my way of going about it is more likely to succeed.
It's doubly important to find documented cousins now that DNA is the main way to knock down 'brick walls'; it's also the main (often the only) way we can verify our records-based research. But whether you're using DNA or not, go back 7 generations and there are 128 ancestral lines to follow - quite a challenge. The good news is that on average there are 200 LostCousins members who share at least one or, more likely, two of those lines.
However, it's not just about sharing the workload: when you find a 'lost cousin' you're also going to benefit from the research they've done in the past, from any connections they've made in the past, and from any records or stories that have been passed down in their family.
Pauline
LostCousins Megastar
I guess it’s just a different way of going about things, and it depends on what your objectives are. Despite focusing primarily on my direct line I’ve connected with lots of cousins over the years, done plenty of collaborating, been given copies of things like old photos and family bibles (very little having survived in my family), while at the same time enjoyed the challenge of investigating my early ancestry.
There is an excellent colour report in FTAnalyzer that shows you missing censuses.
Bryman
LostCousins Megastar
FTA does have that effect on most people.
Bob Spiers
LostCousins Superstar
Ye gods and little fishes...and I thought my Tribal Pages (which holds all my Tree statistics) report that my Tree contains c 8300 people was tolerably impressive. At the rate you -and seeing Bryman is a 'megastar' and likely exceeds even that figure - and he will soon be vying for the title of Deputy Supreme Leader with one of you his Assistant!
Mind you, long ago in my naive period and having a Tree on My Heritage, (tremble,tremble) I came across others (mainly Americans) who boasted Trees well in excess of 30,000 and -wait for it - one individual who claimed (if memory serves) 50,000+ people. He (and he was not alone by any means) claimed connections back to Charlemagne and earlier (I forget specific eras, but we are talking the dark and middle ages) and would you believe... even hinting at biblical ties. I used to laugh myself silly at the time (but kept things to myself of course) but it was only much later I realised that of course in truth, everyone is related to everyone if we go far enough back in time. It is just that most rational and sane people stop short of claiming it shows in their research.
I could of course advance my own figures if I combined my wife's Tree (she is not the mother of my children) and my daughter's with her additional sideways maternal line (my first wife) but I keep these separate, although all separately recorded on LC. I also do not include Trees researched for cousins and those related by marriage which extend beyond the basic information included in my own Tree.
It all comes down to each to their own methodology of course but my own Tree based on 5th generation or less -mainly less - (and direct line influenced) is close to its crest, give or take perhaps a hundred or so.
Last edited:
Bob Spiers
LostCousins Superstar
Sorry reading my posting again I meant to imply I mainly level off at the 4xGG level so that should be 6 generations. Anything above is a bonus.
Bob, couldn't figure out what this is supposed to mean - I'm not even going to try to guess. Perhaps you can elucidate?
Bryman
LostCousins Megastar
Sorry to possibly disappoint you Bob but I am nowhere near such heights and know of at least one other member, related by marriage, with MANY (double?) more individuals in her tree. I don't have an exact figure for my tree(s) due to the way that I have things separated by surname and linked via my GenoPro software. I don't believe that an exact figure is really very meaningful or important and probably only have a few more individuals recorded than you. Certainly only a fraction of the 150K+ that I once saw on Genes Reunited!
What probably is important is that I have tried to enter as many census references as possible from the 1841/1881/1911 censuses on to My Ancestors page as soon as I come across them. I use FTA to remind me later of gaps/holes that need to be 'repaired'. The more references that are recorded on My Ancestors page then makes it more likely that matches will be found with cousins, and others that I may be able to help. The last time that I checked, about a year ago(?), I think that I was getting a match at LC for every 5 0r 6 references recorded although in the early days I had a couple of hundred references and no matches. I currently have almost as many references recorded as I have individuals in my tree(s) and if all members tried to achieve a similar ratio then Peter's project would really fly, to the benefit of all members.
Bob Spiers
LostCousins Superstar
Strange you cannot follow that because whilst I am fully aware my prose may at times lack clarity of meaning -and I know of at least one other who has this effect on me- in this instance what I said seems perfectly clear. I believe my main Tree (number wise) is likely now at its crest (i.e. peak) but given time to research it further, may well increase by a further hundred or so names.
What this does not say is of course that I may well be engaged on researching other Trees, responding to other contacts, exploring DNA results, plus any extra-curricular work. Most of all whether I decide -with the Tree in question- to branch out (an appropriate choice of words), perhaps include more descendant families, step back a generation , resolve brick walls, etc etc. In short ..."I've taken it as far as I can for now"
Bob Spiers
LostCousins Superstar
Yes I totally agree figures have little or no meaning without knowing to what they relate. (Here I am mindful of Peter's expressed dislike of too many relationships by marriage included in My Ancestors). My Tree would grow in numbers greatly were I to include same, given they were researched and known to me in the first place.
As to 150K numbers, I would just comment that that is a ridiculous figure (I am not doubting what you saw) as indeed are even half or a third of such quantities found My Heritage Trees. To achieve that I would have to apply the 'Prince of Wales' technique derived from the old song with the lines.."I danced with the man who danced with the girl, who danced with the Prince of Wales". In short include the lodger, next door neighbours and add calling tradesmen for good measure. 'Bah Humbug' seems fitting I think.
I will comment separately on your second paragraph.