Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would not necessarily accuse such a person of being sloppy. Their goal may be only to document their direct line. Some folks may be more resistant to genealogy addiction than others!
Adding all the sibs gets to be very time consuming, especially as you get further into the tree and the number of lines increases. A few of my lines have published books about them. If I want the info, I can look in the book.
I have one several times great grandfather who had no siblings. He was the first child and his mother died about 9 days after he was born. He did have step-sibs, and I have recorded them.
While you may not consider it sloppy, I do. Genealogy is the study of families. Or it can be just the study of lineages. But even if you're only interested in your direct ancestors ... can you really tell the story of their lives without considering their siblings? Were they an only child; were they the youngest of 12 children; were they the only child of a first wife who died only to have the father remarry and have many more children; did they come from a large family of children of whom only one lived to adulthood; were they the only child of a large family to marry and leave descendants. I've found all those kinds of situations, and they each tell me a lot about that one person.
If genealogists find it too time consuming to include information about the whole family, maybe I should have called them lazy rather than sloppy. I'm sure there are both kinds.
While you may not consider it sloppy, I do. Genealogy is the study of families. Or it can be just the study of lineages. But even if you're only interested in your direct ancestors ... can you really tell the story of their lives without considering their siblings? Were they an only child; were they the youngest of 12 children; were they the only child of a first wife who died only to have the father remarry and have many more children; did they come from a large family of children of whom only one lived to adulthood; were they the only child of a large family to marry and leave descendants. I've found all those kinds of situations, and they each tell me a lot about that one person.
If genealogists find it too time consuming to include information about the whole family, maybe I should have called them lazy rather than sloppy. I'm sure there are both kinds.
All I'm saying is perhaps we should not judge the motives of people we do not know.
There is room in the hobby for folks with all sorts of goals.
That includes those who do not necessarily want to document in the detail that you do. I do wish that I could find more of the details about some of my family members than I have been able to. But as I have gotten further into my tree I have recorded less about the collateral relatives who are not direct ancestors. I can go back five generations before I hit brick walls. I would rather spend my time and energy on those brick walls than adding more distant aunts and uncles and cousins. I do not think that makes me either lazy or sloppy.
I do look at the aunts and uncles when I am trying to break down those brick walls. That has been helpful in at least one case. But I cannot fault an amateur genealogist whose interest is more restricted than mine.
There may be people who literally are more interested in where they came from than who their ancestors were. That's fine with me, too.
I guess my problem with it is, why even bother sharing it somewhere on-line if you're only going to do partial genealogy. It's not going to make me trust the information that genealogist posts, because their information is what I consider to be sloppy or lazy.
And as I've said numerous times elsewhere in this forum - researching those aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. are very likely the keys to solving brickwall problems. I solved one decade-long brickwall by back tracking down an Iowa-born cousin to my Oregon ancestor, who'd moved back to New Jersey, where I found him living with a great-uncle who happened to be a brother to my ancestor's grandfather, who was born in Germany in 1800. His brother managed to live to 1900, and left a death certificate giving the place of his birth. If not for that, I'd still be wondering where my German ancestor came from.
I guess it's all part of my never-ending hopes to see an improvement in the state of genealogy on-line. I know they're futile, but I continue to have them.
All I'm saying is perhaps we should not judge the motives of people we do not know.
There is room in the hobby for folks with all sorts of goals.
That includes those who do not necessarily want to document in the detail that you do. I do wish that I could find more of the details about some of my family members than I have been able to. But as I have gotten further into my tree I have recorded less about the collateral relatives who are not direct ancestors. I can go back five generations before I hit brick walls. I would rather spend my time and energy on those brick walls than adding more distant aunts and uncles and cousins. I do not think that makes me either lazy or sloppy.
I do look at the aunts and uncles when I am trying to break down those brick walls. That has been helpful in at least one case. But I cannot fault an amateur genealogist whose interest is more restricted than mine.
There may be people who literally are more interested in where they came from than who their ancestors were. That's fine with me, too.
Well, this discussion leaves me wondering if I should persue this hobby beyond the safety of my laptop and home. I was going to join a local geneaology group that meets here at the library, but think perhaps best not least I be accused of "junk geneaology" because I don't have all my "bricks" in place
And I agree with the AP, I'm not so much interested in who as where. Let's face it, we all came from somebody, I just am curious as to where. I found I'm mostly Scott and German. Do I care if he was Uncle Harry Halcro, or that his niece # ????? Jane Erskine cleared out of Scotland, and became my gx? grandmother? S**t, someone had to be them! this is a snotty hobby, perhaps I will take up something else, like doing my taxes
Last edited by MaryleeII; 02-06-2012 at 11:59 AM..
You don't want those bricks "in place" ... better to have them smashed all around.
Genealogy used to be a snooty pursuit. People were only interested in showing connections to lofty or important people. It's not that way any longer, for most genealogists. I love the rascals and rogues. They're much more interesting than the bankers and lawyers.
My only issue is, if you're going to do it, do it to the best of your ability. It's a great pursuit. And do join the local genealogy club. It's always helpful to have people who will be as excited for you over your latest find as you are, yourself.
I would hope that you don't limit your search to just knowing where Jane Erskine came from in Scotland. I encourage you to delve deeper and figure out what made her come to America. What was the world she was leaving like. What was her trip like. Who might she have traveled with. What kind of situation did she come to. That, to me, is what makes genealogy exciting. Learning about the people that our ancestors were, not just the bare facts and figures.
I found a family tree matching mine by quite a bit, with citations so I guess I lucked out on that. What I'm really interested in right now is my great grand mother. I know she was born in 1854 in Illinous. She married in Iowa as far as I know. She had four surviving children. Family legend says she had three who died very young first, out in the middle of nowhere. She was married at fourteen.
What I want to know is the inbetween and find my great grand father. My grandmother was the last child, born ten years later and much different, very tall in an exceptionally short family. And the cencus lists him as English, not Irish like the first. But he seemed to have vanished. I'm hoping to figure out how to look at the cencus records to see when she left Illinous, when she married, when he died and so on. I did find a record which COULD be her in San Antonio with someone who could be my grandmother, and I know my grandmother was raised in Texas. It was a very cool moment.
I just need to find some advice on the best places to go online to find this information. I can't afford to travel to look.
But what is exciting is after seeing a pbs show on Jessie James, and how Missouri was virtual anarchy during the civil war, I understand why she was an unrepentant confederate all her life. And how the founding two of my family came via the old bailey under transportation for stealing and trying resell a shirt. It makes them real people to know something of the world they came from.
Genealogy used to be a snooty pursuit. People were only interested in showing connections to lofty or important people. It's not that way any longer, for most genealogists. I love the rascals and rogues. They're much more interesting than the bankers and lawyers.
My only issue is, if you're going to do it, do it to the best of your ability. It's a great pursuit.
I would categorize myself as a researcher with the same zeal. It would make for a faster construction of many family trees, but one has to acknowledge that not all people are willing to put themselves through what can be a resource (time/money/PATIENCE) heavy pursuit. I just filled out another name on my family tree after spending several days of hour-by-hour research and then waiting several weeks for confirmation by a death certificate that came in the mail today. And this was for the wife of a great-great uncle on my mother's side of the family Not all people are interested in devoting that much time to an obscure family connection. And now I'm waiting on confirmation of a connection to a distant cousin. His mother was my great-great grandfather's sister. That distant cousin was a career military man, now buried at Arlington. We are both (perhaps) descended from an esteemed Revolutionary War participant. Did Distant Cousin pursue a military career because of tales that he might have heard passed down? That's what I speculate, but I'm waiting to hear from one of his descendants to confirm that. If so, there might be more oral family history that I can transcribe to our tree.
In connection to Ancestry.com, I am satisfied that I am completing a lot of lines that I see peter out. It is truly sad, to me, that so many people lose relevance a couple of generations after their death. If they have some connection to me, I enjoy spending the time trying to reconstruct their lives and documenting as much as I can. That, in a sense, is what makes a researcher into an historian as well as a genealogist.
Some people are content to collect names and dates; others want to be able to collect details of a life. That means digging into deeper detail of the more obscure connections, which some are just not that interested in doing. I believe history would be more complete for that effort, but not everyone has the resources for it.
Well, we all have our motives for pursuing this hobby. actually, I found a geneaology done by a cousin, back around 1940. I got interested, and found it tracks. Unfortunately, this cousin didn't document his sources, so I have no way to track it. Well, I'm not attempting to make a legal document of it!
I was interested in an aunt, my grandmother's sister. I never knew her married name, so tracked that down. In the process I found enough about her to write a book! I've found the old newspapers of the day to be an interesting insight into their daily lives. In one article, they were complaining about the high cost of food---raspberries went up to 14 cents a quart
The newspapers also talked about infantile paralysis---polio. Outbreaks sent the population into panic, causing many cases to be quarantined. Now I see why my mother panicked whenever the slightest thing went wrong with my health.
I'm truly not interested in tracing my lineage to some king or queen. I just like to know the daily lives of those who came before me.
i used it for the trial period for my dads side and it helped be get my dual citizenship. I found it to be a great site an very easy to use. But i did not need it after the 14 day trial so i did not sign up for memebership
I have tried the library for both Ancestry and Heritage Quest. I found that they didn't allow access to all the information they have. I have found more and more with the world subscription. I will see how long that information flow lasts. I can do a few look-ups if you like. It may take me a few days, but I will try.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not all people are interested in devoting that much time to an obscure family connection. And now I'm waiting on confirmation of a connection to a distant cousin. His mother was my great-great grandfather's sister. That distant cousin was a career military man, now buried at Arlington. We are both (perhaps) descended from an esteemed Revolutionary War participant. Did Distant Cousin pursue a military career because of tales that he might have heard passed down? That's what I speculate, but I'm waiting to hear from one of his descendants to confirm that. If so, there might be more oral family history that I can transcribe to our tree.
Ancestry.Com
