Alias Smith & Jones

[Helen7]

That goes even beyond my own methodology Heather. Where on earth do you show Census 'visitors' and especially the more frequent 'lodgers/boarders' in your home Tree, or within Ancestry for that matter, even if LC entries do afford some categorisation under 'Miscellaneous' or 'Unknown'.

I imagine this is a case of entering everyone in a particular census household into LC whether they are in your tree or not. I generally do this, using LC categories of 'Visitor' or 'Lodger' or 'Employment' (for a servant). Obviously visitors, lodgers, etc. won't be in your tree (unless they are also relatives), but they can still be entered into LC with an appropriate description.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I have a slightly restricted version of Tim's approach. I have separate trees for each direct ancestor surname that are named appropriately and at least one parent for each family unit is a blood relative of the direct ancestor(s)

Last but not least Phil I note -and understand - what you say about separate Trees...but 'ye gods and little fishes' not my cup of tea at all. SEPARATE TREES FOR EACH DIRECT ANCESTOR. That sounds like the Labours of Hercules only in his case he only had twelve to contend with.

That is far to military and regimented for my taste and besides I have all that information without creating separate trees. I could perhaps accept separate Paternal and Maternal trees just as I can having a separate Tree for my wife, and even daughter as she was from my first marriage, plus those created specifically for cousins, and even friends. But sub-divisions for each director ancestor (in each Tree) is like creating a spreadsheet for each item of expenditure, when one can filter out the information from ONE spreadsheet, that is work for works sake surely?

As for your DNA comments; I'm afraid they go completely over my head. Sorry !

 

[Bob Spiers]

I imagine this is a case of entering everyone in a particular census household into LC whether they are in your tree or not. I generally do this, using LC categories of 'Visitor' or 'Lodger' or 'Employment' (for a servant). Obviously visitors, lodgers, etc. won't be in your tree (unless they are also relatives), but they can still be entered into LC with an appropriate description.

Yes I was not including how such get entered into LC which I know about even if I do not include visitors and such myself. But how they would be entered into a Tree, any Tree including Ancestry which I thought was what Heather meant.

 

[PhilGee]

SEPARATE TREES FOR EACH DIRECT ANCESTOR.
That is far to military and regimented ... that is work for works sake surely?

You missed a word, Bob - surname . So, yes there is a tree for my paternal line and my mother's paternal line, one for each grandmother's paternal line ... currently 37 trees plus the composite DNA tree

The bit of information missing was that there are three spreadsheet files for basic events (birth, baptism,... death, burial ...), census/1939 data and "facts" (education/occupation; banns/witnesses/minister ...) forming the database from which the trees are generated. It is simpler than it sounds and I can attach the "name" in the source record to each event with the variation in spellings etc. The system also provides a mechanism to automatically add a unique "REFN" tag to every individual and family and I use that to identify supporting documents.

As for your DNA comments; I'm afraid they go completely over my head. Sorry !

Yes, that's not clear I have a tree linked to my DNA data on Ancestry and use "partially validated" (ie not definitely wrong) entries corresponding to the "Thrulines" data to "connect" my matches to an entry in my tree when I consider the link is correct.

 

[Bryman]

Last but not least Phil I note -and understand - what you say about separate Trees...but 'ye gods and little fishes' not my cup of tea at all. SEPARATE TREES FOR EACH DIRECT ANCESTOR. That sounds like the Labours of Hercules only in his case he only had twelve to contend with.

Please don't reject this approach out of hand, Bob. I am sure that Phil would not use that if it does not provide benefits.

Indeed, I go even further with a separate tree for each surname within my 'global' tree and probably have about 600 currently. It does not add greatly to the effort required and using the capabilities within the software (GenoPro) I can link between trees with a single click and avoid a lot of tedious scrolling as most trees and branches are arranged to fit readably within the screen's display area. In that respect, each tree appears more like a branch. It also avoids there being many crossed relationship lines on the displayed charts, especially when cousins marry, so can provide multiple clarity benefits as compensation.

 

[Heather]

Yes I was not including how such get entered into LC which I know about even if I do not include visitors and such myself. But how they would be entered into a Tree, any Tree including Ancestry which I thought was what Heather meant.

No Bob I did mean entering into LC, sorry if I confused you, Helen hit the nail on the head, I would not add them to my tree unless I find out that they actually fit in somewhere.

 

[Bob Spiers]

You missed a word, Bob - surname . So, yes there is a tree for my paternal line and my mother's paternal line, one for each grandmother's paternal line ... currently 37 trees plus the composite DNA tree

Yes touché Phil (and continuing in French) je comprends. Adding surname makes a difference and in my Tribal Pages (TP) I do relate to paternal and maternal (mother's paternal lines) if only to placate cousins who relate only to that line and request to view same. You obviously take it further doing the same for grandmothers, which is a bridge to far for me, but at least I can understand why this might not be a bad idea and one I may have considered in TP were it not for the fact to do each justice I would need to advance away from a free introductory Tree to at least a 'Premium' subscription. TP fees are modest by comparison to Ancestry or FMP but could not really justify the additional cost.

Of course I accept Ancestry allows multiple Trees under one subscription (and have 9 already), but I do not use Ancestry in the way TP allows and even with synced FTM Trees would find it too time consuming and tedious. Each to his own I'm afraid but thanks for your further explanation.

 

[Bob Spiers]

No Bob I did mean entering into LC, sorry if I confused you, Helen hit the nail on the head, I would not add them to my tree unless I find out that they actually fit in somewhere.

Thanks for clearing that up Heather and so pleased to learn you would not add to your Tree unless you found a relationship that fitted.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Please don't reject this approach out of hand, Bob. I am sure that Phil would not use that if it does not provide benefits.

No need to worry on that account and have already posted a response to Phil which you can read.

Indeed, I go even further with a separate tree for each surname within my 'global' tree and probably have about 600 currently. It does not add greatly to the effort required

If I thought Phil with his 37 Trees was on a planet of his own, if I read you correctly with 600 (SIX HUNDRED) that puts you way out beyond the Milky Way...and I just love the add on tag "It does not add greatly to the effort required". That as they say in the UK is "Priceless".

Of course I am anticipating being told you did not mean 600 individual Trees (as in Ancestry for example) even though I can see no other way of interpreting same. However there is a sort of clue as you mention GenoPro which I also use but merely to produce family charts with annotations and NOT as a data base. So, second guessing I think you mean you have produced 600 such family relationship charts (if you like mini Trees) which when manipulated within GenoPro (know how I do not have or need) can be combined to form various Tree sub-sets. I can just get my head around that, and if that is what you mean, then that brings you back at least into the solar system.

Indeed if that is the way you work full credit to you and I know Peter also uses GenoPro but although I find it excellent for producing individual family charts which I often add to TP or convert to jpg format to send to family, I have never used it as a global reference data base. Perhaps I should have, but am happy working the way I do and too late now to change my ways.

 

[Susan48]

It can be useful to create a separate tree or trees as a sort of dumping ground for individuals or families which you think might be connected to your family although the link has yet to be found. This way your research is not lost and if at a later date you can fit them into your tree then it's a simple matter to export the data. Tim made this suggestion a few years ago and I've found it invaluable - thanks, Tim!

 

[Pauline]

Please don't reject this approach out of hand, Bob. I am sure that Phil would not use that if it does not provide benefits.

I think that will apply to everyone's input here. After all, for most of us family history is a hobby and there are no fixed rules as to how far and wide we should spread our research, or how we should record what we find in our tree(s). It's interesting to hear how other people do things, and sometimes we may pick up ideas we can use ourselves, but everyone's approach is equally valid.

am happy working the way I do

Good! That's how it should be.

 

[Bryman]

with 600 (SIX HUNDRED) that puts you way out beyond the Milky Way...and I just love the add on tag "It does not add greatly to the effort required". That as they say in the UK is "Priceless".

Technically they are separate trees but logically they are mostly all one big tree, with automatic links between them so really very little different from what everybody has set up. There is minimal extra effort needed in a few areas but those are offset by many usability benefits.

I started initially by using Genes Reunited but found navigating around a single tree became a pain in the back-side as the number of individuals recorded increased. I find that FTM often changes the sequence of individuals to make the drawing of charts that it does easier to do but sometimes the charts can still look a real mess with multiple crossing relationship lines. I have none of those. I like to use the power of the computer to achieve the links between charts and to give me the ability to decide on the layout that I would like, including the use of colours that I can choose to give me instant recognition of particular circumstances.

I am not trying to change what anyone uses but just give this as an example of capabilities which can become apparent when a user looks at things differently. I do not know of anyone else who has their tree set up similar to me but the way that I work may just be a carry over from my time as a software developer. There are now further enhancements that I would like to see in GenoPro but the developers of that software have now decided to perform a rewrite and go a different way, leaving me to continue with what I already have.

As an aside, I have just watched an edition of the UK Grand Designs programme where a professional heating consultant designed and built a house which relies on the sun to provide heat via the earth surrounding the house. I wondered why he did not use an extension of the heat transfer pipes to give more flexibility and the possibility of another heat source if his experiment fell short. At the end of the programme it became apparent that he had made such provision but the programme had glossed over that. There are many similarities between such an approach and how LC members do things differently but using similar tools.

 

[At home in NZ]

There are many similarities between such an approach and how LC members do things differently but using similar tools.

There is always more than one way to do things in a data collection base which, after all, is what a family tree program is.
We are all different and are entitled to do things the way we feel comfortable with.

I am not trying to change what anyone uses but just give this as an example of capabilities which can become apparent when a user looks at things differently. I do not know of anyone else who has their tree set up similar to me but the way that I work may just be a carry over from my time as a software developer.

Stick with it Bob.

 

[Britjan]

I imagine this is a case of entering everyone in a particular census household into LC whether they are in your tree or not. I generally do this, using LC categories of 'Visitor' or 'Lodger' or 'Employment' (for a servant). Obviously visitors, lodgers, etc. won't be in your tree (unless they are also relatives), but they can still be entered into LC with an appropriate description.

I've found it useful to add any or all three categories if I've thought the individual might eventually fit into my tree or to remind me of an address reference as well for a relative who was employed as a servant. In one case it was a mother-in-law listed as a visitor and reverting to her maiden name which I had forgotten.