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.
Well, I've downloaded the family tree stuff from the LDS site, but I'm not completely sure it will do what I want it to do (show a complete family tree including aunts, uncles, cousins, etc). I'm using it to get started though. I'm also running into a problem with what to do about a situation in which the father listed on the birth certificate isn't the actual father (this is a known fact). I'm unsure whether to list the biological father or the legal father. I guess that could really be a preference, but I don't want to make this more complicated than it is, in case someone uses this tree I'm starting in the future. Any ideas?
There is software that will allow you to record any kind of familial situation, and show a "complete family tree." When you're dealing with multiple parents -- I think you do need to show them both. Our biological heritage gives us our physical nature, but our cultural heritage (who raised us) gives us that aspect of our lives. Besides, if a person was important in our (or our ancestors) lives, I think that needs to be recorded.
The program I use (The Master Genealogist) allows me to track them both (as do many others). I have to choose one to be "primary", but the information is there about both of them. You also, though, need to document, or explain, exactly how and why you know that the information in the birth certificate is incorrect. Again, a good program will allow you space to include that explanation/argument.
I had a confusing situation with an uncle. He divorced, remarried, and basically whited out the existence of his birth children. In his obituary, his step-children were listed as if they were his biological offspring. What solidified the confusion was the fact that the woman he married had the same surname as my uncle (how often does that happen? ) so it did appear as if those non-blood kin were his.
If it was a common name, I could see that happening now and again. Since it was her first married name and not her maiden name, have you ruled out the possibility that her first husband was a relative of the second?
Quote:
Originally Posted by michimaize
Well, I've downloaded the family tree stuff from the LDS site, but I'm not completely sure it will do what I want it to do (show a complete family tree including aunts, uncles, cousins, etc). I'm using it to get started though. I'm also running into a problem with what to do about a situation in which the father listed on the birth certificate isn't the actual father (this is a known fact). I'm unsure whether to list the biological father or the legal father. I guess that could really be a preference, but I don't want to make this more complicated than it is, in case someone uses this tree I'm starting in the future. Any ideas?
I've just downloaded and installed Legacy and I have to say, it's TERRIBLE. I consider myself pretty good with technology (I'm a photographer and have no problems learning advanced Photoshop methods) but it took me a while to simply add a gedcom (the universal family tree file format). It pretended like it would but then when I selected my gedcom, instead of opening/importing it, the window flickers and suddenly I can only select Legacy files. Since I was only testing it, I thought I'll just manually put some names in - after a few, I thought I'd try the gedcom import again. It suddenly worked but only if I merged it with the existing tree. It appears you can't actually just import a gedcom, you have to first create a tree by entering at least one name and then import and merge the gedcom into it. Very annoying.
So I merge the trees but the pedigree view looks the same. Then it dawns on me that it hasn't properly attached the individuals I manually put in to the imported individuals so the two trees aren't actually linked (none of the actual duplicates showed up when it asked me to review and merge duplicate individuals, which would have linked the two trees). So I tried "index" (a simple list of all names in the tree) and deleted the individuals I manually input so only imported names exist - back to pedigree view and FINALLY, I have my tree.
If you're just starting your tree, you won't have this problem, of course. You'll just be manually building your tree. But wow, they sure make it difficult for someone with an existing tree wanting to import it! While you won't have to deal with this, it is very telling of what a poorly designed piece of software it is.
I also think the interface just isn't very user friendly. The navigation of the pedigree view is very clunky. I really would not recommend it. I think the free software from myheritage.com is much easier to use.
You can view your extended tree though, with aunts, uncles and cousins. Select the individual whose descendants you want to view - like a grandparent - and click on "charting" and select "standard". This should show your grandparents, all their children (your parents and parent's siblings), and all their children (your cousins). However, it only displays that one descendent line - so only the aunts, uncles, cousins on one side of your family.
As for the father issue - in Ancestry.com's FTM, there is a way to add step/adoptive fathers in addition to a biological father. Unfortunately, I can't find a way to do so with Legacy. It appears that once an individual has a father, the option to add another is greyed out. Another point against it. Maybe I just didn't look carefully enough but I don't see any way to do this. If I recall correctly, there is a way to do it with Family Tree Builder from myheritage.com but I'm not entirely sure - maybe someone who still uses it can let you know. I strongly recommend you check it out as a free alternative to Legacy: Family Tree Builder - Free genealogy program - MyHeritage.com
As for the father issue - in Ancestry.com's FTM, there is a way to add step/adoptive fathers in addition to a biological father. Unfortunately, I can't find a way to do so with Legacy. It appears that once an individual has a father, the option to add another is greyed out. Another point against it. Maybe I just didn't look carefully enough but I don't see any way to do this. If I recall correctly, there is a way to do it with Family Tree Builder from myheritage.com but I'm not entirely sure - maybe someone who still uses it can let you know. I strongly recommend you check it out as a free alternative to Legacy: Family Tree Builder - Free genealogy program - MyHeritage.com
I'm sure you're able to do it with Legacy. I'm guessing you just haven't figured out how.
I looked at Family Tree Builder's website. Doesn't look very impressive to me. It's always a big turn-off when among the first things they're pushing is the ability to "match" your tree with "millions of others." And they seem to push the doo-dads associated with genealogy (maps, making websites, pictures, etc.) and not the actual genealogy.
I'm sure you're able to do it with Legacy. I'm guessing you just haven't figured out how.
I messed around with it a bit more and yes, there is. I still find it poorly designed because it's not in the first place most people would look for it but there is a more detailed way to do it. Under the "family" tab, click the "parents" icon. In the field "relationship to father" select "biological" or "adopted" or whatever. Then to add another, click "add new parents" and fill in the correct relationship. You'll then have two parents with different relationship statuses.
However, I still wouldn't recommend it.
When in pedigree view, if I jump to an older generation and then want to go back to a younger generation, using the button to jump down a generation then displays the oldest child rather than the child I descended from. I may not be explaining that well but if you try it out yourself, you might see what I mean. This was partly what I meant about the navigation being clunky and not easy to use.
And then of course there was the annoyance of importing my gedcom.
Quote:
I looked at Family Tree Builder's website. Doesn't look very impressive to me. It's always a big turn-off when among the first things they're pushing is the ability to "match" your tree with "millions of others." And they seem to push the doo-dads associated with genealogy (maps, making websites, pictures, etc.) and not the actual genealogy.
Just because they have a lot of other features doesn't mean their software isn't any good. You don't have to use any of those features - I didn't. Have you even tried it? At least I made an attempt with Legacy before panning it.
I just test ran RootsMagic Essentials and that was pretty good. Easy to import gedcom, much easier to navigate and easy to add second parents (right click individual, choose "add > parents" - this same option is greyed out in Legacy). I would recommend it for a good free option.
Just because they have a lot of other features doesn't mean their software isn't any good. You don't have to use any of those features - I didn't. Have you even tried it? At least I made an attempt with Legacy before panning it.
I just test ran RootsMagic Essentials and that was pretty good. Easy to import gedcom, much easier to navigate and easy to add second parents (right click individual, choose "add > parents" - this same option is greyed out in Legacy). I would recommend it for a good free option.
It disturbs me, though, when the guts of the program aren't even featured on their webpage. Only bells and whistles. It lends me to believe that there isn't much substance to the program, because if they were there, wouldn't you want to show it to people?
And no, I haven't tried it (Family Tree Builder). I began to download the program, but when it indicated it would be 30 minutes, I cancelled it.
RootsMagic, to me, looks like it's probably the best of the free options.
And I must say, I don't find a program not being intuitive a real problem. We have to learn how to do genealogy properly, so learning how to use a good genealogical program to record it all is something I'm willing to do. I can day that, knowing that when I got the program I use (TMG), there wasn't even a manual written yet (it was in the testing phase). So I did have to learn to use it kind of intuitively.
It disturbs me, though, when the guts of the program aren't even featured on their webpage. Only bells and whistles. It lends me to believe that there isn't much substance to the program, because if they were there, wouldn't you want to show it to people?
And no, I haven't tried it (Family Tree Builder). I began to download the program, but when it indicated it would be 30 minutes, I cancelled it.
RootsMagic, to me, looks like it's probably the best of the free options.
And I must say, I don't find a program not being intuitive a real problem. We have to learn how to do genealogy properly, so learning how to use a good genealogical program to record it all is something I'm willing to do. I can day that, knowing that when I got the program I use (TMG), there wasn't even a manual written yet (it was in the testing phase). So I did have to learn to use it kind of intuitively.
Well, I've downloaded the family tree stuff from the LDS site, but I'm not completely sure it will do what I want it to do (show a complete family tree including aunts, uncles, cousins, etc). I'm using it to get started though. I'm also running into a problem with what to do about a situation in which the father listed on the birth certificate isn't the actual father (this is a known fact). I'm unsure whether to list the biological father or the legal father. I guess that could really be a preference, but I don't want to make this more complicated than it is, in case someone uses this tree I'm starting in the future. Any ideas?
There is a problem with not needing to prove lines with at least 2 citable sources (per standard genealogy) on LDS and many other sites. On at least Ancestry, you can make a comment if you have personal knowledge: in my case, that has all been name spelling of family wrong on censuses. However, on Ancestry and LDS, one link (* our brick wall - we have been looking for citation info -- vital records, etc-- for 2 generations on this ) is arbitrarily put in. Granted, it is an odd name. Granted, there are 3 of the same name. Granted, we know family says they are son, father, grandfather. BUT.... it isn't proven. In any case, anyone who puts it down and says a 1790 census "proves" it is wrong. (One guy was not born until after 1790)
Mistakes will be made. Errors are almost impossible to correct once someone picks up the wrong info. We keep our tree private.
It disturbs me, though, when the guts of the program aren't even featured on their webpage. Only bells and whistles. It lends me to believe that there isn't much substance to the program, because if they were there, wouldn't you want to show it to people?
And no, I haven't tried it (Family Tree Builder). I began to download the program, but when it indicated it would be 30 minutes, I cancelled it.
Well, then your judgement of it unfair. If you're not willing to try it, you can't possibly know what it's like and can't pass valid judgement on it.
As someone who has used it, I can justifiably say you are incorrect about it not having substance.
Quote:
And I must say, I don't find a program not being intuitive a real problem. We have to learn how to do genealogy properly, so learning how to use a good genealogical program to record it all is something I'm willing to do.
Of course we should be willing to learn to use a good genealogical program but Legacy isn't a good genealogical program. Why use something difficult to use when there is something easier to use out there for free?
On genealogy.com site I think? There is a PAF forum that people post questions about how to use the paf software (and other software programs) if they can't figure it out. Perhaps you could search and find out questions on how to use the software better.
There is software that will allow you to record any kind of familial situation, and show a "complete family tree." When you're dealing with multiple parents -- I think you do need to show them both. Our biological heritage gives us our physical nature, but our cultural heritage (who raised us) gives us that aspect of our lives. Besides, if a person was important in our (or our ancestors) lives, I think that needs to be recorded.
The program I use (The Master Genealogist) allows me to track them both (as do many others). I have to choose one to be "primary", but the information is there about both of them. You also, though, need to document, or explain, exactly how and why you know that the information in the birth certificate is incorrect. Again, a good program will allow you space to include that explanation/argument.
I use the family tree program and you can designate parents as adopted or biological. It also gives like 6 or 7 options for parents, like married, engaged, friends, partners, etc.
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.
) so it did appear as if those non-blood kin were his.
