Jump to content


Photo

Unconnected families, same surname


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Esse

Esse

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 02 November 2014 - 08:22 AM

Hello all,

 

My question is about the benefits and/or pitfalls to adding (so far) unconnected families of the same surname into my established database. I'd just about decided yes, to go ahead as it would be handy to keep all the info to hand, and then make the connections when I can substantiate them. But then..   are there any reasons not to do this, and are there best ways to go about it or anything to avoid that I haven't thought of?

 

For instance: I've got back into the 1700s on one line and have numerous instances of smaller family groups of the relevant surname, with perhaps two or three generations of proved links, living in the same general area, that I suspect probably are connected in some as yet undiscovered way to my tree. Should I add all these in too?

 

--

Sue



#2 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3521 posts

Posted 02 November 2014 - 08:57 AM

I collect and enter such people, and I suspect that most other users do as well. On a regular basis, I discover that I'm able to establish a connection that I didn't know existed. And when there is not a connection, it can be important to me to know that I've already looked at the people and determined that there is not a connection.

 

Jerry



#3 Esse

Esse

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 02 November 2014 - 10:08 AM

Thanks Jerry, that's what I thought.

 

I couldn't see a problem but I'd prefer not to start doing stuff one way only to find out there's an issue to reverse engineer, so to speak, when I'm half way through. ;)



#4 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6213 posts

Posted 02 November 2014 - 11:56 AM

Laura has a practice which I now follow and that is to create a Person named "Unconnected Trees" and link all the top persons in these loose trees as a child.

Tom user of RM7550 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#5 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 02 November 2014 - 12:16 PM

I created a dummy person with Surname as ZZ Unconnected. I add the beginning of the line ancestor for families and unconnected single persons to this person as children.

The dummy person and descendants are color coded Silver.

Instead of having my main tree and a bunch of mini trees, I have two trees at Tools, Count trees.

It is easy to exclude the dummy person and descendants from a gedcom and reports. Or, just include the unconnected persons.

I also have a user defined fact, Unconnected, description enabled, which I link to every descendant of the dummy person. I can enter various keywords in.the description to be.used as a search criteria, I.e. name of beginning of the line ancestor, surname I was searching for in general search, etc.

If I do link the family or person to my main tree, I change the color coding for each person and delete the user defined fact from each person. Then, unlink the dummy person as a parent for that family beginning of the line ancestor or single unconnected person.

I started using the user defined fact long before I connected unconnected families and people to a dummy person as a parent and before we had color coding. I have continued with the user defined fact as I do.find it useful at times for a search criteria for the description. But if I was starting fresh now, I probably wouldn't use it.

#6 Esse

Esse

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 04 November 2014 - 06:46 PM

That sounds interesting; I'll try something similar.

 

Many thanks, Laura & Tom.

 

--

Sue