Ancestor/Ahnentafel number

[Tim]

When you add an ancestor, you have the option when selecting Direct Ancestor to add the Ancestor/Ahnentafel number.

Is there a report where you can check what direct ancestors you've added?

 

[Heather]

If you are on the " My Ancestors " page , at the top of this page next to My Ancestors there is + Add new household, Sort entries by Name, Type, Household and Date of entry. Choosing one of these will sort your list of ancestors in various ways, maybe this will help.

 

[Tim]

Thanks Heather, I've tried all those but they don't show the number, not even when I try the Show More Detail option.

 

[Susan48]

On your My Summary page under the heading My Ancestors (by relationship) the first category is Direct Ancestors with the number you've entered. You probably know this already but others reading this might not have looked at this feature so forgive me for mentioning it. Perhaps Peter could list Direct Ancestors individually as a separate category when as Heather suggests you sort your ancestors by Type on the My Ancestors page. I was surprised to find that I had entered as many as 49 Direct Ancestors, and with over 3500 Blood Relatives to search through it would take a long time to find those individual Direct Ancestors. For you, Tim, it would doubtless take a lot longer!

 

[Tim]

I've found a way to do it.

If you sort My Ancestors by TYPE, and then search for the word "Direct", all the people that you've added a number to is listed for you.

 

[Helen7]

I've found a way to do it.

If you sort My Ancestors by TYPE, and then search for the word "Direct", all the people that you've added a number to is listed for you.

I've also done this, Tim, and found all my direct ancestors listed together in order of increasing Ahnentafel number. I was surprised to find I had a total of 87 direct ancestor entries, but some of these are 'duplicates' i.e. the same ancestor in 2 different censuses. I counted 66 different direct ancestors that I'd entered, still a surprising number to me.

 

[peter]

It's worth trying out all the different types of sort - it's the easiest way to find out the pros and cons of each.

I was surprised to find I had a total of 87 direct ancestor entries

This information is shown on your My Summary page.

Perhaps it's worth spending a few minutes exploring the LostCousins site, to see just what's available?

 

[Helen7]

This information is shown on your My Summary page.

Yes, I had seen this before but had forgotten about it, so thanks for the reminder. I may have been misled into thinking there were 87 different direct ancestors entered, if I hadn't looked at the detailed list and seen the duplicates across different censuses.

 

[canadianbeth]

I have 58 listed on the summary page, and I think there are 42 in the detailed list.

 

[peter]

I have 58 listed on the summary page, and I think there are 42 in the detailed list.

I think you'll find that there are 58 in the list, but only about 37 different people (as some appear on two or three censuses). The My Summary page gives the number of census entries rather than distinct individuals.

 

[canadianbeth]

I think you'll find that there are 58 in the list, but only about 37 different people (as some appear on two or three censuses). The My Summary page gives the number of census entries rather than distinct individuals.

Thank you. I had trouble figuring out some, especially where there were 20 in one list.

 

[peter]

Thank you. I had trouble figuring out some, especially where there were 20 in one list.

They should all be in one list. Or are you referring to the 20 entries at the end of the list of your direct ancestors, all but one of which are from the 1841 Census?

A simple way to count entries is to copy them to a spreadsheet. Another option is to print out the Ancestor Chart and annotate it with census years. I find all sorts of applications for the Ancestor Chart, and whilst I could probably do most of them with a family tree program (and/or FT Analyzer) I find that doing it by hand acts as a useful reminder.

 

[canadianbeth]

I printed the chart, and discovered that I had a few numbers incorrect.

 

[whitebullwifezig]

Piggy backing off this to ask if anyone can advise about getting a larger chart. The tip says "The blank Ancestor Chart provided gives all the numbers you are likely to need" so I'm worried I'm doing this wrong.

To get around this, I printed my FamilySearch fan chart, and numbered each ancestor: https://imgur.com/jG72pSB I am ticking off the censuses of the people who were living in 1841/1881/etc. Sorry for only photographing a portion, but it's hard to see and just wanted to show the idea. I find I need some numbers even higher than 126 and wanted some reassurance I've done this okay and perhaps I've got more generations than most people alive in 1841/81?

 

[peter]

perhaps I've got more generations than most people alive in 1841/81

It's more likely that you're younger than most of us, so your ancestors are a generation (or two) further back.

This FAQ explains how to work out the numbers. A quick glance at your fan chart suggests you've already figured this out, but I'm posting the link for the benefit of others.

 

[whitebullwifezig]

Thank you. I need to work out what the numbers of the people above them would be because my chart doesn't go back far enough. I've recently got Familytreemaker I wonder if it can tell me the numbers?
I have been using a custom report to show me which censuses are missing.

One thing that's super handy is having the chart in front of you, whilst going through the lostcousins Ancestors section, sorted by number. It's easy to spot the wrong number for someone that way. Or see holes in which branches aren't on the website yet.
I'm up to 263 ancestors submitted. Is there a median number of what most experienced members have submitted?

 

[peter]

I'm up to 263 ancestors submitted. Is there a median number of what most experienced members have submitted?

Roughly 15% of the people in your tree would have been alive in 1881, so that's a good target to aim for.

 

[whitebullwifezig]

I mainly use FamilySearch so there's no section of the tree that's 'mine' with people to count. Some lines I've gone quite far back, another line is walled off in 1899. I put a few generations on FTM for reports purposes - apparently 1462 - I'm quite chuffed that I've got more than 15% of that lot! I'll have no hope in doing well in the competitions in years to come

 

[peter]

I put a few generations on FTM for reports purposes - apparently 1462 - I'm quite chuffed that I've got more than 15% of that lot!

The 15% figure I quoted was for the 1881 Census alone, so I think you've still got some way to go. But I suggest that first you focus on getting a family tree of your own, which - since you already have FTM - should be easy. Collaborative trees are a wonderful idea in theory, but can be a disaster in practice since people have very different levels of knowledge and experience.

I'll have no hope in doing well in the competitions in years to come

No need to worry - provided you follow the advice in my newsletters your tree will continue to grow.