Straight up & down or left & right as well?

OU812

The family tree has grown considerably in the last number of weeks. There's a big family event coming up for a senior member of the family & distant relatives are coming out of the woodwork on Facebook.

I've nearly 1,200 people in the tree already, but I'm unsure of about half them asI think I added someone incorrectly which opened out a whole bunch of connections & other trees on Ancestry. I need to go back & look at that person as deleting them will bring me back in line with where I think I should be.

Working from my daughter's perspective we go back on one side to about 1785 (my side) & on the other to about 1840 (mother's side).

The problem I have is I started entering in siblings of great grandparents etc & then adding in their spouses/kids/etc which resulted in a tree that's extremely wide. I've got third cousins, wife of second cousin three times removed etc...

Do I trim them out & just continue in a linear maker & if I keep them what information is relevant?

pinkypinky

Well, if you have verified information, leave it in. To my mind, it doesn't matter how far they are removed if there is a connection, I leave it in.

But I do also maintain different versions of my tree. I have the full extended everyone, the only direct ancestors, the basic (family members up to grandparents, etc, the people I actually care about) and then I make subsets for when I'm sending bits to distant relations who are newly discovered.

It's utterly unprintable in its largest format. Even my direct ancestors takes 2 a4 landscape pages at this stage. I really need to get an A3 printer for this business!

The Chieftain

I research all those who are "of the blood" - my blood, that is. Apart from the fact that they are all relatives, taking the broader approach - left and right, as you put it - is also positively advantageous, perhaps even essential, to researching direct ancestors. The reason for this is simple. Key connections back to an earlier generation may lie in the documentation or knowledge base of collateral relatives, rather than in your own direct line. I know I have essentially "walked around" what would otherwise have been several "brick walls" by using such a broader approach.

VirginiaB

From an Irish-American point of view, I have gotten back to the townland of origin for multiple great-great grandparents--starting with zero information, not even a county--by casting the widest possible net for blood relatives. One bit of info for a second cousin here, another bit for a grandchild there, the accumulation of data can lead to amazing information.

The four great-great grandparents whose origins remain a mystery are those for whom I have no associated names. So all are welcome in my tree.

The Chieftain

VirginiaB wrote: »

From an Irish-American point of view, I have gotten back to the townland of origin for multiple great-great grandparents--....

I believe this step across the Atlantic is challenging, and one that many Irish-Americans are unable to achieve, so congratulations, and good to hear that your hard work paid off.

Jellybaby1

I have included everyone I have found no matter how distant. Unfortunately, those distant relatives alive today never knew of my branch due to the fact that my grandfather died young and was one of the eldest of his family which means that the younger members of the very large family grew up, married and raised their own families without passing on any knowledge of my grandfather as they probably didn't have much memory of him. So to those distant cousins, I am a revelation as they never knew anything about my branch on the tree.