Jump to content


Photo

Unproven relationships


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 BonSam

BonSam

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:06 PM

What is the process or best way to enter data for individuals who are possible relations? Is it best to keep such persons in a totally different database?
For example, I am trying to determine the relationship of several people of surname, Samuel, who all lived in the same county during a span of some years (1750-1840). There is a lot of data on all of these individuals, but nothing so far indicating their relationship to each other, although their lives are obviously connected!
Thanks

#2 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:56 PM

I would leave them in the main database and color them all gray or some other color.

#3 MVS

MVS

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts

Posted 23 April 2012 - 06:20 AM

I have posted an item on the Wishlist about the "Proof" coding feature : http://forums.rootsm...oo-restrictive/

I would guess that the Proof feature could be used to indicate a "possible" marriage as well as "possible" children in time. But perhaps the proof feature would need some significant enhancements (not only in the way such individuals were displayed on screen but also the ability to include or exclude them from reports) to allow users to comfortably add individuals but also leave a permanenet question mark over their relationship until definite proof arrived.

At the moment I tend not to put poeple on my tree unles I am sure - but it would be a great advantage if I could - PROVIDING I could exclude them from reports/charts etc.

MVS.

#4 Nettie

Nettie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts

Posted 23 April 2012 - 10:39 AM

Do add non related people to my database, if from a gedcom that has no documentation, I added a fact called "suggested" by relative or a gedcom _______ date and source of file from rootsweb or ?????. When I find a document to back up the relationship then I add the fact to the persons file and connect that person.

This is one way of keeping information all in one place and not little notes all over my desktop or in a surname hard copy file that I forgot I put it there.

Yes you many have many trees in your one database, but that's one nice thing about RM it is a working database. Like Laura said, create a group of non related people and color them gray or ....

Genealogy:
"I work on genealogy only on days that end in "Y"." [Grin!!!]
from www.GenealogyDaily.com.
"Documentation....The hardest part of genealogy"
"Genealogy is like Hide & Seek: They Hide & I Seek!"
" Genealogists: People helping people.....that's what it's all about!"
from http://www.rootsweb....nry/gentags.htm
Using FO and RM since FO2.0 


#5 mjski

mjski

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 23 April 2012 - 12:23 PM

There is a "possible" fact. I use it to record evidence I think may prove to be valuable. Many times, the "possible" clues I left myself have led to proof.

#6 Nettie

Nettie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts

Posted 23 April 2012 - 01:15 PM

Just to be clear about Suggested or Possible fact types. In my case the Suggested is my own created fact not part of the accepted fact list from RM.

Genealogy:
"I work on genealogy only on days that end in "Y"." [Grin!!!]
from www.GenealogyDaily.com.
"Documentation....The hardest part of genealogy"
"Genealogy is like Hide & Seek: They Hide & I Seek!"
" Genealogists: People helping people.....that's what it's all about!"
from http://www.rootsweb....nry/gentags.htm
Using FO and RM since FO2.0 


#7 ConnieS

ConnieS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 07:14 PM

What is the process or best way to enter data for individuals who are possible relations? Is it best to keep such persons in a totally different database?
For example, I am trying to determine the relationship of several people of surname, Samuel, who all lived in the same county during a span of some years (1750-1840). There is a lot of data on all of these individuals, but nothing so far indicating their relationship to each other, although their lives are obviously connected!
Thanks


To be perhaps brutally honest, I've never understood why so many people seem to want to avoid putting these people in their database. Doing so, as unconnected people, doesn't interfere with any feature I use, and has the added benefit of helping you look up, understand and remember who is who. It is especially helpful in situations like you describe, especially if some of the people have the same names. If I suspect John Doe may be the father of Mary Doe, but have no proof, I enter both into the data base and cross reference the two via a Note for each person, but I never, ever connect them as father and daughter until I have solid evidence. If I do have evidence of the names of some of John Doe's children, I enter and connect them to John, but not to my line (Mary).

I can't imagine how I would track who is who if I didn't do this. For example, I may never find a document stating John is Mary's father, but if I have something that "proves" John is Susan's father, and something else that "proves" Susan is Mary's sister, I probably would not realize or forget that would mean John is most likely Mary's father if I didn't have both John and Susan in my database.

As far as I'm concerned, collecting data and keeping it straight is what a database is for.

#8 John_of_Ross_County

John_of_Ross_County

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 670 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 08:53 PM

To be perhaps brutally honest, I've never understood why so many people seem to want to avoid putting these people in their database. Doing so, as unconnected people, doesn't interfere with any feature I use, and has the added benefit of helping you look up, understand and remember who is who. It is especially helpful in situations like you describe, especially if some of the people have the same names. If I suspect John Doe may be the father of Mary Doe, but have no proof, I enter both into the data base and cross reference the two via a Note for each person, but I never, ever connect them as father and daughter until I have solid evidence. If I do have evidence of the names of some of John Doe's children, I enter and connect them to John, but not to my line (Mary).

I can't imagine how I would track who is who unless I didn't do this. For example, I may never find a document stating John is Mary's father, but if I have something that "proves" John is Susan's father, and something else that "proves" Susan is Mary's sister, if I didn't have both John and Susan in my database, I probably would not realize or forget that would mean John is most likely Mary's father too.

As far as I'm concerned, collecting data and keeping it straight is what a database is for.


Assuming that you have checked [x] "Check for duplicates when adding people" under "Tools" "Program options," if you find real data for John Doe in the future, RM will flag the attempted addition. It is a good reminder and keeps you from having two instances of John Doe.

#9 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:27 PM

I only have two trees in my database. One is my main tree with everyone that is linked ultimately to me.

The second is for unconnected people.

Any unconnected persons are linked as a child to ZZ Unconnected. If there are family members linked to an unconnected person, I link the oldest ancestor of that family group as the child. That is usually a male but can be a female if the husband is not known.

ZZ Unconnected is entered into the surname so that it sorts to the bottom of the index lists.

If I Count Trees and have more than two I know I need to link that extra tree to my ZZ Unconnected person.

I Color code all descendants of ZZ Unconnected as Silver.

I add an Alternate name to married women [one for each spouse, sorted after the marriage and marked private], given name, surname as married name, prefix is Mrs., suffix is [h=Thomas Jones]. h=husband's name

If I find a woman's married name, and I find evidence that she is linked to my main tree, it makes it easy to find her in the index lists by married surname.

If I am exporting a gedcom of all my database for someone else and I don't want to include the ZZ Unconnected descendants, it is easy to do that. And it is easy to exclude those descendants from most reports.

If I do link an unconnected person or a family member of the person that is connected to ZZ Unconnected to my main tree, I unconnect the person that is the child of ZZ Unconnected.

#10 Glenn

Glenn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 562 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 10:47 PM

Peter Diffy is now a son of ZZ Unconnected, but he still shows up when using the Count Trees tool. I have unlinked him a couple of times where he is back to a one-person tree. Close and exit data base. Reopen DB and select Diffy. Add to UNCONNECTED.
Problem “that never was” is solved; but different question. Why is Diffy showing up as “Start Person” instead of UNCONNECTED? Could it be related to the fact that I changed Thomas Franklin TESTFILE's name (a one-person tree) to _______ ZZ UNCONNECTED?


Good real estate may be based on location, location, location;
but
good sources are based on citation, citation, citation!


Glenn


#11 Ashen37

Ashen37

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:05 PM

If it helps - I add those I'm not sure about into my main tree, but put the "source" as a nickname. That way they stand out (due to the length of the name), you know where the info came from and you can see where they may eventually prove to fit.

eg John "Bill Smith's Ancestry Page" Doe
A 37