ROOTS-L ArchivesArchiver > ROOTS > 2001-03 > 144422
From: "MScheffler" <>
Subject: [ROOTS-L] Re: How many branches?
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 16:14:23 -0500
References: <200103170315.f2H3FOv03550@lists5.rootsweb.com> <004601c0af6e$87d4afa0$32f7fea9@mom>
With computers with huge hard drives and genealogy programs that
hold almost limitless numbers of family names, it make sense to follow
as many lines as one can, knowing that one can never have too much
information. Especially in colonial New England and other parts of the
eastern US, many families were related.
For example, if I have a spouses family who lived in the early to
mid 1700s, I tend to add that family back to the colonial period when I
find an outline of the lineage. As one keeps doing this, over a period
of time, one turns up all kinds of interesting relationships one might
never have found otherwise. I have even solved some thorny direct line
issues from using this approach.
Extra well researched information in a genealogy database "hurts" no
ones database and can well help in the future. If you want to print out
a "book" with only your direct line, extra information in the database
will not affect this at all.
A word of caution .... collected databases made of up unverified
multiple gedcom files with similar surnames is NOT what I am referring
to. I am referring to information that one finds in journal articles,
census documents, letters in a historical society collection, family
Bibles and diaries, etc. If one takes time to research documents in an
area or family, it makes sense to add what you found that did not link
directly, since a few months or years down the road, one may well find
they were on the right track.
And as an added bonus, if you share, the family information that may
be less helpful to you, may be really helpful to someone else.