Methods of Checking All My Ancestors have been added to Lost Cousins

[Tim]

That's very selfish of Pat, they obviously don't belong to this Forum! Did you get the Stevens off Pat then?

 

[trebor]

When I first saw this thread I thought what a fantastic and simple method for ensuring I have not missed anyone from LC.
I have downloaded FTA version 1.5.2.1 and loaded my gedcom file.
I use My Heritage Family Tree Builder and have one database covering both my family and my wife's - I am set as the Home Person so all relationships are to me.
I was delighted when I saw that FTA recognised this and in the various census reports only listed my ancestors - I have an entry for myself on LC and another for my wife.
I then changed the home person in FTB to my wife, saved the file and created a new gedcom. However when I import the new gedcom into FTA I get the same results as the first set of census reports - it (or the gedcom) has not recognised the change in Home Person. I note that in the list of actions on the Load Gedcom tab it specifies me as the starter person - is it possible to redefine this in any way? I have had a quick look at each other tab but cannot see anything so would assume that it would have to be done in the gedcom file.

Any suggestions would be appreciated as I think this looks like being a really useful tool and I would prefer not to have to break the database in to 2 families.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Hi Trebor,

As the author of FTA I'd be keen to find out why you are having an issue and solve this. The home person according to the GEDCOM file specification is the first person in the file. Can you check both files has My Heritage changed who the home person is ie: has it changed who the first person in each file is?

However there is a simpler way. A few versions back I introduced a feature to change home person. On the individuals tab select the person you want to make the new root person. Right click on that individual and select "change root person". This will then recalculate all the relationships and set them as appropriate for the new root person. One thing I do need to do is to make the options for various things more obvious and to write some proper documentation. It's not something I'm that good at so if anyone out there could help with documentation it would be massively appreciated.

Hope this helps.

 

[trebor]

As the author of FTA I'd be keen to find out why you are having an issue and solve this. The home person according to the GEDCOM file specification is the first person in the file. Can you check both files has My Heritage changed who the home person is ie: has it changed who the first person in each file is?
However there is a simpler way. A few versions back I introduced a feature to change home person. On the individuals tab select the person you want to make the new root person. Right click on that individual and select "change root person". This will then recalculate all the relationships and set them as appropriate for the new root person.

It looks like Family Tree Builder is causing the problem as the first person does not change in the gedcom after changing the home person. However your tip does the job admirably - many thanks.

One thing I do need to do is to make the options for various things more obvious and to write some proper documentation. It's not something I'm that good at so if anyone out there could help with documentation it would be massively appreciated.

Although I do not know your application well enough to write any documentation I would be more than willing to test any written instructions, amend where necessary and even put in to a workable format - I write software useage guides as part of my job.

Thanks again.

 

[cfbandit]

Oh how I agree with you all! I have been very good and have 491 blood relatives entered and have only 4 hits

Its possible to have a rare or died out family, though. I've got 332 ancestors listed, and I've only ever had one "hit" and it was on an employee of the family - and the woman said she had no further interest in talking to me, nor did she have any information about her ancestor's employer.

Every so often I go through and enter another dozen-ish ancestors. I think my match potential hit 1.5 at its highest and hovers around 1.15 right now. I've got mostly folks to enter from the US 1940 and just a few left to enter on the UK 1911 census. I've entered all my Canadian and UK cousins and got not much. My living cousins tell me its because many of my UK ancestors died without children, so I have a feeling mine is a family line that's all gone or so far removed from the original name its going to take awhile for people to find me.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

My living cousins tell me its because many of my UK ancestors died without children, so I have a feeling mine is a family line that's all gone or so far removed from the original name its going to take awhile for people to find me.

The original name??? Surely going back to the early/mid 1800s you have at least a couple of dozen different names all of whom are your direct ancestors? Have you traced all those lines forward to find every descendant who would be alive by the 1911 census?

 

[cfbandit]

The original name??? Surely going back to the early/mid 1800s you have at least a couple of dozen different names all of whom are your direct ancestors? Have you traced all those lines forward to find every descendant who would be alive by the 1911 census?

For the most part, yes. The boys mostly died young, in WWI and WWII. Then families had a girl or no kids at all, and then their girls had no children (or many deceased children), so in most cases, I'm three+ surnames away from the one I started with. I have been working steadily through every family name trying to see if there's anyone left. So far I haven't found but one person for my UK lines (Needham, Fairhurst, and Toon) and he's five surnames from where we started (and that wasn't through LostCousins, it was sheer dumb luck.). The only folks in the US I've met who are related are cousins I already knew, and I've only met one who was not known to me (five+ surnames away).

It does happen - I think Peter himself wrote about names dying out in the UK - my surnames are common in the UK but my particular lines don't go very far. Too many killed in coal mining, farm accidents, and wars.

I've even been entering employees hoping that there might be some new leads. None so far. Most people who are researching my family are on my dad's side (Dutch/Italian) or my husband's lines (German/Norwegian).

 

[cfbandit]

Just for laughs, I decided to put in the 30 families I have left on the 1911. I have 6 remaining due to lack of piece numbers - I downloaded the images at the library and forgot to save them, darn it. I have 153 families left to do in the US 1940, but I suspect most US people don't really know about LostCousins yet so I don't think I'll get many matches.

My match potential went up to 1.2889, but still no one new yet. I suspect I'm in a long term waiting game and it will take decades before I find any matches.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

I take it you don't have an Ancestry subscription? If so then you could lookup Ancestry's 1911 census info to get the piece numbers?

 

[Britjan]

My match potential went up to 1.2889, but still no one new yet. I suspect I'm in a long term waiting game and it will take decades before I find any matches.

Many of us cfb have wondered just how long it would take to find Lost Cousins and it is definitely a slow process but by ploughing through the 1911 UK census AND adding "cousins" who are on the 1911 census but would marry into families at a later date I have nearly doubled my match potential and found several new cousins. I posted two of my stories of finding cousins on the LC forum page on the subject and I've had some luck through Mundia and Genes Reunited (yesterday it was a fifth cousin once removed!) and of course LC itself. I have found people in the US quite responsive if they have a public Ancestry tree although sometimes as others have pointed out their information is not very accurate. Meanwhile it can be rewarding to find out as much as possible about the life and times of the places your ancestors lived in, and by the way you were lucky to hear back on an employer link because I've listed several and never got a bite.

 

[Liberty]

I've had some luck through Mundia and Genes Reunited .

I'd like to award a gold star for Britjan for pointing me to Mundia a few weeks ago. It is a source of both contacts AND further info. Some of the stuff in the trees is extremely dodgy (so I am turning into one of those irritating people who send messages saying 'I don't think that's who his parents were') but if you hit a tree that's full of details for the last 100 years, the tree owner probably descends from those people and knows what they're talking about. (I have found why I couldn't find an entire family - they'd emigrated en masse to Canada.) In several cases, a tree has offered a marriage that I hadn't detected, and thus another cluster of descendants who can be entered on LC. (By the way, I do check out the facts, and don't just accept them.)

 

[cfbandit]

I take it you don't have an Ancestry subscription? If so then you could lookup Ancestry's 1911 census info to get the piece numbers?

Yup, exactly. I've got to work nights this week so I won't be able to get there until Monday. I'm kicking myself that I missed the piece numbers on them.

 

[cfbandit]

you were lucky to hear back on an employer link because I've listed several and never got a bite.

It was when I first joined (around 2006) that I got the contact, and I'm afraid I wasn't the best help to her because I was still figuring out how my great-great-grandfather Carey Needham was present with the family she was working at in 1881.

Bembridge, William B1830 husband
Bembridge, Sophia1828 wife
Bembridge, Eliza 1792 mother
Needham (Bembridge), Mary 1853 adopted daughter
Needham, Carey Boot1865 boarder
Cox, Bertha 1862 cousin
Cox, Gertrude 1864 cousin
Cox, Lizzie S 1869 cousin
Cox, Ethel1868 cousin
Bennett, George H 1854 visitor
Jackson, Thomas W1854 boarder
Guy, Henrietta 1858 employee
Guy, Jane 1863 employee

Carey and his sister Mary were living there in 1881. Mary is adopted by the Bembridge family sometime between 1853 and 1861. Mary marries George in 1883. The contact that I got was for Jane Guy, the employee.

 

[Jacqueline]

I'd like to award a gold star for Britjan for pointing me to Mundia a few weeks ago. It is a source of both contacts AND further info. Some of the stuff in the trees is extremely dodgy (so I am turning into one of those irritating people who send messages saying 'I don't think that's who his parents were') but if you hit a tree that's full of details for the last 100 years, the tree owner probably descends from those people and knows what they're talking about. (I have found why I couldn't find an entire family - they'd emigrated en masse to Canada.) In several cases, a tree has offered a marriage that I hadn't detected, and thus another cluster of descendants who can be entered on LC. (By the way, I do check out the facts, and don't just accept them.)

Please what is Mundia? Genes R has been the source of some pure gold and a fair number of the genealogically challenged, but Mundia is a new one on me. If it 's so good, how did I miss it or never hear of it before?

 

[Tim]

Try here Jacqueline.

 

[mowsehowse]

A Blog about Mundia.

Re Mundia, it is clearly an off shoot of Ancestry, check out google, and this link especially. But good luck to all who sail in her.

 

[Britjan]

Iwould never put my tree on Mundia but I am certainly one of the people who have mentioned it in the forum and found it both frustrating and informative. Some Mundia trees are page after page of names and no corroborating information and in rarer cases other trees have meticulous and complete citations to every available census for an individual.
For my personal tree I have yet to find anybody on Mundia who has listed two of my great great grandparents on separate branches and thus their descendants. In both cases nobody has carefully trolled and documented existing baptism records at family search or the 1841 census. At least it made me go back and check my own research which is always valuable.
Now that I am looking for fourth and fifth cousins it can sometimes be worth a look. There is an occasional gem with a personal recollection or photo and I've found it useful for broad family migration patterns.

 

[peter]

It does happen - I think Peter himself wrote about names dying out in the UK.

I mentioned that many of the more unusual surnames have disappeared, but my theory is that people changed their names once spelling became important (because they got fed up with telling people how they were spelled). That was certainly how I felt when I was young!

 

[Liberty]

I mentioned that many of the more unusual surnames have disappeared, but my theory is that people changed their names once spelling became important (because they got fed up with telling people how they were spelled). That was certainly how I felt when I was young!

Also I think that some names disappeared becasue they became less acceptable/desirable. I have the surname Bastard in my tree but have never heard of anybody with that particular name nowadays

 

[Norman]

I was 6 years old before I realised that wasn't my surname.