Adding additional families

[peter]

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.

The only way I can interpret that is that you don't expect to add many more relatives to your tree. If that is what you meant then I'm struggling to understand why you're so pessimistic. The only factor that limits how many relatives I add to my tree is time - I simply don't have the time to add all the twigs and branches that I've found as a result of DNA.

But perhaps you were talking about direct ancestors. Adding an extra 100 direct ancestors would be much more of a challenge, because to add even one means breaking down a 'brick wall'. I doubt that I've added as many as 100 direct ancestors in the 2 1/2 years since getting my Ancestry DNA results, and that's from all sources, not just DNA.

 

[Bob Spiers]

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'.

Now here I have to own at lagging in this respect, especially of late. I began industrially and achieved much, then after a period of 'down-time' returned again and added many more names. But since then (a period of months) have not applied myself to adding more Ancestors nor again used FTA for detailed analysis, despite FTA being a superb program which I have used through its many incarnations since first introduced by Alexander.

So Bryman you stand head and shoulders above me as a good and dedicated Lost Cousin(er) and deserve praise for encouraging others to follow in your footsteps, and not forgetting Maly who started this posting, his enormous Tree and mind-boggling spreadsheet. I am truly in awe of you and others like you.

I cannot be so dedicated, it is not in my nature as I grow wearisome of repetition especially those I believe are of low priority - like manually adding 'Lost Cousins' as an Ancestry Fact for the umpteenth time (on being warned by FTA that 'n' numbers are still without such facts.). In the end I just gave up on this and my attention span also waned on being reminded a Census reference is missing for an isolated individual, perhaps because a death fact is missing to show he died the year before the Census (or other variations on a theme).

All that said I pay zealous attention to having my main bloodline ancestors, and a fair few of their descendants showing in MY Ancestors in all the Censuses that apply, with 1881 given priority. I also know I need to return to check with FTA that none of these need updates. I accept my limitations and know full well that I have entered into the LC spirit with as much enthusiasm as I can muster and better than many I am sure. By the same token my efforts will never match the Super or Mega-start status, but am quite content to have made 'Star'.

 

[peter]

By the same token my efforts will never match the Super or Mega-star status, but am quite content to have made 'Star'.

Given the size of your tree you should be able to reach SuperStar status.

 

[Bob Spiers]

The only way I can interpret that is that you don't expect to add many more relatives to your tree. If that is what you meant then I'm struggling to understand why you're so pessimistic.

I am not a pessimistic person by nature, but own to realism and knowing my own limitations. If my Tree equates to a bus, it is standing room only. All direct and bloodline family aboard (within pre-set generational limits) some with spouses and family, and additional buses laid on for those outside these parameters. On the main bus standing passengers yet to be added may just include the odd direct line and if lucky a handful of bloodline, but by far the largest bulk will be -as described in LC - those related by marriage. Many have still to be researched, or further researched and proven.

The only factor that limits how many relatives I add to my tree is time - I simply don't have the time to add all the twigs and branches that I've found ....

And that just about sums up my own situation, for different reasons, and different levels of 'time' but as Parkinson's law famously states..."work expands to fill the time available for its completion". Its just setting time aside for work to include adding names into My Ancestors. But it is on the list!

 

[Bob Spiers]

Given the size of your tree you should be able to reach SuperStar status.

Nice of you to say so, and it may yet come about, but won't hold my breath on it being any time soon.

 

[Franko]

Bob’s comment regarding the 30,000 + and Charlemagne reminded me that I saw a public family tree on Ancestry.co.uk a couple of years ago with a huge number of people in it. Didn’t take much notice of it at the time so I can’t remember who’s tree it was. So I did a Google search “Ancestry.com Charlemagne” and found a tree with 299,869 people. Quite a few more over 50,000 and over 100,000.

What I find intriguing is that the search Only brought up trees which were owned by people who had Charlemagne as one of their Christian names. It makes me wonder how many more trees there are on Ancestry with similar numbers.

I assume these trees are the result of the “cut and paste” method from other public trees, because just doing the maths on the time it takes to input 299,869 records into a database makes a nonsense of it. That’s without counting in the time it takes to find the record in the first place.

 

[Helen7]

It makes me wonder how many more trees there are on Ancestry with similar numbers. I assume these trees are the result of the “cut and paste” method from other public trees,

I reported in a previous thread that one of my DNA matches has an enormous tree: 274,530 when I first saw it, and I see it has now swelled to 282,423. This seems to be a result of mass copying from other trees, which has produced complete nonsense. I found our common ancestor in there 4 times with 4 wives (3 of them born after he died) and 40 children born over a 130-year period in Canada, Scotland and Bedfordshire. And, yes, Charlemagne is in the tree too...

 

[peter]

My favourites are the trees that go back to Adam & Eve.