Building trees
| # | Post |
|---|---|
| 1 | I noticed that folk are building trees based on their DNA matches and not doing the hard expensive thing of following a paper trail. I can't see how that would work myself. Surely both would need to be done or the result would be so frustrating and inaccurate. jhan - 2019-12-25 08:28:00 |
| 2 | A DNA tree is proof and I agree it's the hard yards of researching that gives the most satisfaction and finding how they lived is what I enjoy, the bringing out of the closet those secrets. I guess they can compare what they have to what they have found with both ways It comes down to how you want to research your family crab2 - 2019-12-25 09:12:00 |
| 3 | Yes, quite right, it is just a hobby and people are time constrained these days. Merry Xmas jhan - 2019-12-25 10:49:00 |
| 4 | Merry Christmas to you too crab2 - 2019-12-25 13:23:00 |
| 5 | jhan wrote:
How do you know they've built their trees based solely on DNA matches? For example, anyone looking at my tree on Ancestry will see whole lines - maybe going 5 or 6 generations back - where each individual's profile pic says "Following the DNA" in bright yellow. But I'd built the tree long before I did a DNA test. To discover later on that I share DNA with another descendant on a particular line simply confirms I built that part of tree correctly. It's only then that I add my "Following the DNA" identifiers. Anyone looking at the whole tree for the first time will see a plethora of "Following the DNA" identifiers (instead of photos), and they can stretch back for several generations. It shouldn't be assumed those relatives are on the tree solely because a descendant shares DNA with me. I hope that makes sense? :-) ed65 - 2019-12-25 18:05:00 |
| 6 | oww, please don't shoot me I'm only the piano player. I belong to facebook groups where such things are discussed. People say what they are doing, I'm not making it up. You did yours differently. As i said, it's just a hobby though to me accuracy is most important. I'm going through a tree at the moment looking for errors, it's about 1200 names long. I could be all holidays doing just this tree. I might just get lazy and give it up. jhan - 2019-12-25 18:30:00 |
| 7 | My 10,000+ combined public tree carries a warning that it is for dna purposes and not everything is validated. It has the most recent 3-5 generations based on the DNA matches added to the content of my base trees and using the trees they have, or the hints ancestry provided as common ancestor matches with enough research along the way to believe it is close enough to include. I'm not interested in validating the trees of dna matches for them, that's their job, but their branches are reflected in my trees by the info that ties in with my own private validated trees through both main and lateral branches when appropriate to be able to place them. It's a bare bones tree just to allocate a place for the matches potential relationship to all our kits, it's not the full, documented ones. Lines of interest are generally researched as necessary and added to the private trees. I also mark each link in the public tree in every generation back to common ancestors with a large icon for easy visual identification so people new to the tree who want to understand the full scope of the content already there can see where they fit into the big picture. They can't see the living ones, but they should be able to see their own latest deceased generation to follow it back. Edited by morticia at 7:12 pm, Wed 25 Dec morticia - 2019-12-25 19:07:00 |
| 8 | jhan wrote:
Didn't mean it to come across as an attack. Just genuinely curious as to why you thought people were building trees that way. I don't do Facebook so the only genealogy discussions I see are on here (where I think we're all pretty nice!). ed65 - 2019-12-25 19:10:00 |
