Questions...

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

I wonder how many of the 16 are the results of our research and how
many the research of others, albeit some of them reproven by us. To
say they were inconsistent with your methods would be an
understatement. And descendant printouts are little more than one-name
studies.

Why not start (or rework) our genealogy with gedcoms of each line in a
separate data base as we find them? Doesn't that make it easier to
merge, organize, research and assure consistency, at least within each
data base?

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

2. What are the pitfalls in doing one-name genealogy as long as
you have a data base for each of the 16 aforementioned lines?

3. If restructuring a large data base is too impractical, why not
clone your data base and do a one-name on your earliest ancestor in a
separate data base? (and the spouse's of course)!

Hugh

[Dave Hinz]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:41:28 GMT, J. Hugh Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote:

Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

Because in my case, the fellow who came here from somewhere in Germany,
with my last name, is proving to be completely elusive. I work on a
line until I get stuck, and then move to another in the same
language/country/etc, and work my way through. In England now which is
a refreshing change - they have a nearly readable language over there in
the timeframe I'm working in.

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

What is gained by breaking it up? I don't want to have to close down &
go elsewhere just to switch train of thought. I'm nowhere near
Reunion's limit for database size, so I just don't see that there's
anything to be gained by limiting what's in the file.

[Herman Viaene]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

I wonder how many of the 16 are the results of our research and how
many the research of others, albeit some of them reproven by us. To
say they were inconsistent with your methods would be an
understatement. And descendant printouts are little more than one-name
studies.

Any genealogist worth this name will share their findings with you, that's
at least what's happening here in Belgium by the confederations.

Why not start (or rework) our genealogy with gedcoms of each line in a
separate data base as we find them? Doesn't that make it easier to
merge, organize, research and assure consistency, at least within each
data base?

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

Female ascendance and descendance is as worthwile as male. It is true that
all(?) researchers stop at some time taking the female lines in their
trees, but completely leaving these out is not very "polite" in respect to
these people. Often descendants of female line do attend to family
gatherings and feel very much related to their family.

Beside, your whole idea of single line - one name family tree falls short in
different cases:
- name changes
- what with the past (ad still present as in Iceland) where fixed family
names don't even exist. Only nobility had fixed family names and the habit
was slowly taken up in other ranks of the society, sometimes up to
Napoleonontic time when civil registration became compulsory.

Herman Viaene

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On 22 Feb 2006 16:47:59 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:41:28 GMT, J. Hugh Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote:
Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

Because in my case, the fellow who came here from somewhere in Germany,
with my last name, is proving to be completely elusive. I work on a
line until I get stuck, and then move to another in the same
language/country/etc, and work my way through. In England now which is
a refreshing change - they have a nearly readable language over there in
the timeframe I'm working in.

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

What is gained by breaking it up? I don't want to have to close down &
go elsewhere just to switch train of thought. I'm nowhere near
Reunion's limit for database size, so I just don't see that there's
anything to be gained by limiting what's in the file.

Hoping others will join the discussion...

I'm nowhere near the capacity of my data bases in any program either.

I'm a nut for organization and consistency. I downloaded a gedcom and
all the facts/events were in the notes section. I don't know how many
days it would take to organize them properly. FTW doesn't gedcom
properly except RootsMagic has just programmed to allow for that. I
find it difficult to check every person in a 7,000 name db to see that
input is consistent - and I agonize if it isn't.

If there are obvious errors in the db of another it's easier to merge
with a smaller db than a large. And it's easier to grasp all the names
in the db you are working on if it small enough.

Also I work on one line at a time. If I dl a gedcom I can as easily go
to a separate data base as a combined one. And I'd have to go back to
when the Irish didn't speak English before I had to hablo, parle,
spriechen or igpay atinlay.

I'm looking for near perfect and absolute consistency in my paternal
line...

Thanks for the response - and the next one, too.

Hugh

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:41:28 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

I wonder how many of the 16 are the results of our research and how
many the research of others, albeit some of them reproven by us. To
say they were inconsistent with your methods would be an
understatement. And descendant printouts are little more than one-name
studies.

Why not start (or rework) our genealogy with gedcoms of each line in a
separate data base as we find them? Doesn't that make it easier to
merge, organize, research and assure consistency, at least within each
data base?

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

Interesting interrelationships. If your ancestors lived a long time in

one area 9for example), cousins intermarry, making for interesting
relationships. As a lark, I let RM calcuclate the relationships of
myself to myself 9as an example). There are 128 calculated
relationships, ranging from third cousin once removed to ninth cousin
twice removed. I'd not see that if I used multiple databases for the
different lines.

2. What are the pitfalls in doing one-name genealogy as long as
you have a data base for each of the 16 aforementioned lines?

None that I know of.

3. If restructuring a large data base is too impractical, why not
clone your data base and do a one-name on your earliest ancestor in a
separate data base? (and the spouse's of course)!

But why do that? My database is only 20-something thousand

individuals, and it includes "all" the descendants of the earliest
Hoffpauir that I can find, plus all of my ancestors as far back as I
have found, and all of my wife's ancestors as far back as I can find.
The size is easliy handled by any genealogy program I've tested.

Hugh
Charlie Hoffpauir

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:56:43 +0100, Herman Viaene <[email protected]>
wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

I wonder how many of the 16 are the results of our research and how
many the research of others, albeit some of them reproven by us. To
say they were inconsistent with your methods would be an
understatement. And descendant printouts are little more than one-name
studies.

Any genealogist worth this name will share their findings with you, that's
at least what's happening here in Belgium by the confederations.

I'm not inclined to share all the results of my research with anyone.
I prefer to give just their line and some hints - they need to sweat
and bleed a little just like I did. If everything was in a book why
would I be doing genealogy? That's just my personal opinion.

Why not start (or rework) our genealogy with gedcoms of each line in a
separate data base as we find them? Doesn't that make it easier to
merge, organize, research and assure consistency, at least within each
data base?

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

Female ascendance and descendance is as worthwile as male. It is true that
all(?) researchers stop at some time taking the female lines in their
trees, but completely leaving these out is not very "polite" in respect to
these people. Often descendants of female line do attend to family
gatherings and feel very much related to their family.

For clarification, I would keep the female lines but I find it
difficult to get interested in my grandfather's second wife's sister's
line for example. And once people move 2,000+ miles away they seldom
return for a family gathering. My paternal grandfather had 58
grandchildren and 21 are still living. I never saw 42 of them and only
8 of the other 16 are still living. The closest one to me is about 400
miles away.

Beside, your whole idea of single line - one name family tree falls short in
different cases:
- name changes
- what with the past (ad still present as in Iceland) where fixed family
names don't even exist. Only nobility had fixed family names and the habit
was slowly taken up in other ranks of the society, sometimes up to
Napoleonontic time when civil registration became compulsory.

Herman Viaene

Obviously the situation in the US is different. I have not found any
provable ancestors who were not born in this country. I have found
more than 100 ways to spell Sullivan but I only spell it one way in my
genealogy - I use AKAs for other spellings when they arise.

Interesting thoughts - thank you.

Hugh

[Denis Beauregard]

Le Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:41:28 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) écrivait dans soc.genealogy.computing:

Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

I wonder how many of the 16 are the results of our research and how
many the research of others, albeit some of them reproven by us. To
say they were inconsistent with your methods would be an
understatement. And descendant printouts are little more than one-name
studies.

Why not start (or rework) our genealogy with gedcoms of each line in a
separate data base as we find them? Doesn't that make it easier to
merge, organize, research and assure consistency, at least within each
data base?

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

You won't do the same search twice.

2. What are the pitfalls in doing one-name genealogy as long as
you have a data base for each of the 16 aforementioned lines?

Why stoppping at 16 ? My first 511 ancestors are known. In the
following generation, I have 480 out of 512 possible more ancestors.
Except for duplicated ancestors, I descend equally from all of them,
depending on the generation. There are in my opinion 2 special lines,
by the men (giving my name and since I am a man, this is a continuous
Y-DNA line), and by the women (giving the mtDNA line of my mother).
Otherwise, why focussing on only 16 lines and not all those that can
be found ?

3. If restructuring a large data base is too impractical, why not
clone your data base and do a one-name on your earliest ancestor in a
separate data base? (and the spouse's of course)!

How many names do you have in your own database ? Suppose your name
is Smith...


Denis

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:38:25 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:41:28 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

I wonder how many of the 16 are the results of our research and how
many the research of others, albeit some of them reproven by us. To
say they were inconsistent with your methods would be an
understatement. And descendant printouts are little more than one-name
studies.

Why not start (or rework) our genealogy with gedcoms of each line in a
separate data base as we find them? Doesn't that make it easier to
merge, organize, research and assure consistency, at least within each
data base?

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

Interesting interrelationships. If your ancestors lived a long time in
one area 9for example), cousins intermarry, making for interesting
relationships. As a lark, I let RM calcuclate the relationships of
myself to myself 9as an example). There are 128 calculated
relationships, ranging from third cousin once removed to ninth cousin
twice removed. I'd not see that if I used multiple databases for the
different lines.

Aside from curiosity would there be a major demand for that?
I think I'll try it!

2. What are the pitfalls in doing one-name genealogy as long as
you have a data base for each of the 16 aforementioned lines?


None that I know of.

3. If restructuring a large data base is too impractical, why not
clone your data base and do a one-name on your earliest ancestor in a
separate data base? (and the spouse's of course)!

But why do that? My database is only 20-something thousand
individuals, and it includes "all" the descendants of the earliest
Hoffpauir that I can find, plus all of my ancestors as far back as I
have found, and all of my wife's ancestors as far back as I can find.
The size is easliy handled by any genealogy program I've tested.

Hugh
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

The size is not the problem - it's my desire for consistency. I want
every fact/event treated the same way for every person in the data
base. I find some facts in notes and some notes in facts, where I'm
using the data of another, plus a lot of comments from others that I
don't want in my data base. Many people use too much white space and
others can't spell. And the way people source (or don't source) runs
the gamut from Alpha to Omega.

Thanks, Charlie.

Hugh

[Hugh Watkins]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

I wonder how many of the 16 are the results of our research and how
many the research of others, albeit some of them reproven by us. To
say they were inconsistent with your methods would be an
understatement. And descendant printouts are little more than one-name
studies.

Why not start (or rework) our genealogy with gedcoms of each line in a
separate data base as we find them? Doesn't that make it easier to
merge, organize, research and assure consistency, at least within each
data base?

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

2. What are the pitfalls in doing one-name genealogy as long as
you have a data base for each of the 16 aforementioned lines?

3. If restructuring a large data base is too impractical, why not
clone your data base and do a one-name on your earliest ancestor in a
separate data base? (and the spouse's of course)!

I have just exported the Jones of Raglan MON WLS
and all my LAPHAM and am researching those two lines

distant cousins and name brothers regularly find me and share their data

but these one-name or one-place studies are irrelevant to my own tree

just another aspect of our hobby

I have fulfilled my primary aim of linking the living back 150 to 200 years
the next stage would involve extensive archive work at places too
remote to visit for weeks at a time

Digitising records and giving a helping hand (eg onusenet) are equally
as enjoyable as pure research onmy own pedigree

Hugh W

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:02:56 -0500, Denis Beauregard
<[email protected]> wrote:

Le Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:41:28 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) écrivait dans soc.genealogy.computing:

Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

I wonder how many of the 16 are the results of our research and how
many the research of others, albeit some of them reproven by us. To
say they were inconsistent with your methods would be an
understatement. And descendant printouts are little more than one-name
studies.

Why not start (or rework) our genealogy with gedcoms of each line in a
separate data base as we find them? Doesn't that make it easier to
merge, organize, research and assure consistency, at least within each
data base?

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

You won't do the same search twice.

2. What are the pitfalls in doing one-name genealogy as long as
you have a data base for each of the 16 aforementioned lines?

Why stoppping at 16 ? My first 511 ancestors are known. In the
following generation, I have 480 out of 512 possible more ancestors.
Except for duplicated ancestors, I descend equally from all of them,
depending on the generation. There are in my opinion 2 special lines,
by the men (giving my name and since I am a man, this is a continuous
Y-DNA line), and by the women (giving the mtDNA line of my mother).
Otherwise, why focussing on only 16 lines and not all those that can
be found ?

I merely stopped there for simplicity in asking the questions. 32 or
64 or 128 would have done equally well. I start missing some names in
the ggg generation.

My line is tough to track, not because of the name, but because they
left few tracks. My ggg named Polly and children in his will - the two
generations before and three after didn't have wills. Only one of the
nine generations before me passed any land to a descendant and the
linkage of 5 of those generations is not proven except by my logic.
And both the 1790 and 1800 censuses left some of my ancestors out - I
pick them up from other sources. I could link more if I accepted fairy
tales by a few people. Most of the gedcoms I find have MAJOR
errors.

3. If restructuring a large data base is too impractical, why not
clone your data base and do a one-name on your earliest ancestor in a
separate data base? (and the spouse's of course)!

How many names do you have in your own database ? Suppose your name
is Smith...

My wife's maiden name was Smith...and a gg grandfather was Johnson.

Hugh

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:41:28 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)
wrote:

Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

I wonder how many of the 16 are the results of our research and how
many the research of others, albeit some of them reproven by us. To
say they were inconsistent with your methods would be an
understatement. And descendant printouts are little more than one-name
studies.

Why not start (or rework) our genealogy with gedcoms of each line in a
separate data base as we find them? Doesn't that make it easier to
merge, organize, research and assure consistency, at least within each
data base?

Why stop at 16?

Why not 32? 64? 128? 266? 512? 1024?

Why not a separate database for every single person in your family?

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

Because that's the idea of a database, so that you can see the relations
between them. So you can print a pedigree chart for your child showing all its
ancestors as far as you can find them, instead of having 64 pedigree charts
showing one line only

2. What are the pitfalls in doing one-name genealogy as long as
you have a data base for each of the 16 aforementioned lines?

If you're doing a one-name study, then thats a different kettle of fish,
because you collect everyone of that name, whether related to you or not.

3. If restructuring a large data base is too impractical, why not
clone your data base and do a one-name on your earliest ancestor in a
separate data base? (and the spouse's of course)!

Why shouild it be too impractical?

Why do you need to "restructure" it, unless you entered everythin g wrongly to
begin with?

The first genealogy program I used, Roots/M, forced us to split our family
into four different trees, because it kept all its data in memory and the
computer only had 64K. It was a pain, because we had to type lots of things in
twice, or sometimes four times.

I do have a couple of one name databases - those are the ones where I've
exported everyone of that name (or related) from my main file, and import
GEDCO(MS from anywhere, merge all likely prospects to see if there are matches
and connections, and then try to verify them, and THEN transfer to my main
database.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:39:48 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)
wrote:

On 22 Feb 2006 16:47:59 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:41:28 GMT, J. Hugh Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote:
Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

Because in my case, the fellow who came here from somewhere in Germany,
with my last name, is proving to be completely elusive. I work on a
line until I get stuck, and then move to another in the same
language/country/etc, and work my way through. In England now which is
a refreshing change - they have a nearly readable language over there in
the timeframe I'm working in.

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

What is gained by breaking it up? I don't want to have to close down &
go elsewhere just to switch train of thought. I'm nowhere near
Reunion's limit for database size, so I just don't see that there's
anything to be gained by limiting what's in the file.

Hoping others will join the discussion...

I'm nowhere near the capacity of my data bases in any program either.

I'm a nut for organization and consistency. I downloaded a gedcom and
all the facts/events were in the notes section. I don't know how many
days it would take to organize them properly. FTW doesn't gedcom
properly except RootsMagic has just programmed to allow for that. I
find it difficult to check every person in a 7,000 name db to see that
input is consistent - and I agonize if it isn't.

If there are obvious errors in the db of another it's easier to merge
with a smaller db than a large. And it's easier to grasp all the names
in the db you are working on if it small enough.

Now there I agree with you.

I never merge other people's GEDCOMs into my main file. I import them into a
separate file and TYPE them in to my main file if they fit.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:20:19 +0200, Steve Hayes
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:41:28 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)
wrote:

Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

I wonder how many of the 16 are the results of our research and how
many the research of others, albeit some of them reproven by us. To
say they were inconsistent with your methods would be an
understatement. And descendant printouts are little more than one-name
studies.

Why not start (or rework) our genealogy with gedcoms of each line in a
separate data base as we find them? Doesn't that make it easier to
merge, organize, research and assure consistency, at least within each
data base?

Why stop at 16?

Why not 32? 64? 128? 266? 512? 1024?

I answered in a previous post - but just for simplicity in asking my
questions.

Why not a separate database for every single person in your family?


1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

Because that's the idea of a database, so that you can see the relations
between them. So you can print a pedigree chart for your child showing all its
ancestors as far as you can find them, instead of having 64 pedigree charts
showing one line only

2. What are the pitfalls in doing one-name genealogy as long as
you have a data base for each of the 16 aforementioned lines?

If you're doing a one-name study, then thats a different kettle of fish,
because you collect everyone of that name, whether related to you or not.

I do that for VA and NC if there are several generations. If there are
just 2 or 3 I track them on a word processor.

3. If restructuring a large data base is too impractical, why not
clone your data base and do a one-name on your earliest ancestor in a
separate data base? (and the spouse's of course)!

Why shouild it be too impractical?

Why do you need to "restructure" it, unless you entered everythin g wrongly to
begin with?

I don't unless I decide to go with a separate db for each line.

The first genealogy program I used, Roots/M, forced us to split our family
into four different trees, because it kept all its data in memory and the
computer only had 64K. It was a pain, because we had to type lots of things in
twice, or sometimes four times.

I do have a couple of one name databases - those are the ones where I've
exported everyone of that name (or related) from my main file, and import
GEDCO(MS from anywhere, merge all likely prospects to see if there are matches
and connections, and then try to verify them, and THEN transfer to my main
database.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Sounds like no one goes the one-name route.

Hugh

[Paul Blair]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:20:19 +0200, Steve Hayes
[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:41:28 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)
wrote:

Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

I wonder how many of the 16 are the results of our research and how
many the research of others, albeit some of them reproven by us. To
say they were inconsistent with your methods would be an
understatement. And descendant printouts are little more than one-name
studies.

Why not start (or rework) our genealogy with gedcoms of each line in a
separate data base as we find them? Doesn't that make it easier to
merge, organize, research and assure consistency, at least within each
data base?
Why stop at 16?

Why not 32? 64? 128? 266? 512? 1024?

I answered in a previous post - but just for simplicity in asking my
questions.

Why not a separate database for every single person in your family?

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?
Because that's the idea of a database, so that you can see the relations
between them. So you can print a pedigree chart for your child showing all its
ancestors as far as you can find them, instead of having 64 pedigree charts
showing one line only

2. What are the pitfalls in doing one-name genealogy as long as
you have a data base for each of the 16 aforementioned lines?
If you're doing a one-name study, then thats a different kettle of fish,
because you collect everyone of that name, whether related to you or not.

I do that for VA and NC if there are several generations. If there are
just 2 or 3 I track them on a word processor.
3. If restructuring a large data base is too impractical, why not
clone your data base and do a one-name on your earliest ancestor in a
separate data base? (and the spouse's of course)!
Why shouild it be too impractical?

Why do you need to "restructure" it, unless you entered everythin g wrongly to
begin with?

I don't unless I decide to go with a separate db for each line.
The first genealogy program I used, Roots/M, forced us to split our family
into four different trees, because it kept all its data in memory and the
computer only had 64K. It was a pain, because we had to type lots of things in
twice, or sometimes four times.

I do have a couple of one name databases - those are the ones where I've
exported everyone of that name (or related) from my main file, and import
GEDCO(MS from anywhere, merge all likely prospects to see if there are matches
and connections, and then try to verify them, and THEN transfer to my main
database.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Sounds like no one goes the one-name route.

Hugh

No, Hugh, some do. But not all with computers!

While trying to figure my grandmother (my dad grew up in an orphanage) I
met a gent doing a one-name study. His interests enabled me to "find" her.

His system is based on 8x6 cards, and his remarkable memory. It is
international, and includes cops from New York and churchmen from
Cornwall. The ladies don't get much of a look-in, except as accessories
before, during and after the act!

Paul

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:26:09 +1100, Paul Blair <[email protected]>
wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:20:19 +0200, Steve Hayes
[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:41:28 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)
wrote:

Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

I wonder how many of the 16 are the results of our research and how
many the research of others, albeit some of them reproven by us. To
say they were inconsistent with your methods would be an
understatement. And descendant printouts are little more than one-name
studies.

Why not start (or rework) our genealogy with gedcoms of each line in a
separate data base as we find them? Doesn't that make it easier to
merge, organize, research and assure consistency, at least within each
data base?
Why stop at 16?

Why not 32? 64? 128? 266? 512? 1024?

I answered in a previous post - but just for simplicity in asking my
questions.

Why not a separate database for every single person in your family?

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?
Because that's the idea of a database, so that you can see the relations
between them. So you can print a pedigree chart for your child showing all its
ancestors as far as you can find them, instead of having 64 pedigree charts
showing one line only

2. What are the pitfalls in doing one-name genealogy as long as
you have a data base for each of the 16 aforementioned lines?
If you're doing a one-name study, then thats a different kettle of fish,
because you collect everyone of that name, whether related to you or not.

I do that for VA and NC if there are several generations. If there are
just 2 or 3 I track them on a word processor.
3. If restructuring a large data base is too impractical, why not
clone your data base and do a one-name on your earliest ancestor in a
separate data base? (and the spouse's of course)!
Why shouild it be too impractical?

Why do you need to "restructure" it, unless you entered everythin g wrongly to
begin with?

I don't unless I decide to go with a separate db for each line.
The first genealogy program I used, Roots/M, forced us to split our family
into four different trees, because it kept all its data in memory and the
computer only had 64K. It was a pain, because we had to type lots of things in
twice, or sometimes four times.

I do have a couple of one name databases - those are the ones where I've
exported everyone of that name (or related) from my main file, and import
GEDCO(MS from anywhere, merge all likely prospects to see if there are matches
and connections, and then try to verify them, and THEN transfer to my main
database.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Sounds like no one goes the one-name route.

Hugh

No, Hugh, some do. But not all with computers!

While trying to figure my grandmother (my dad grew up in an orphanage) I
met a gent doing a one-name study. His interests enabled me to "find" her.

His system is based on 8x6 cards, and his remarkable memory. It is
international, and includes cops from New York and churchmen from
Cornwall. The ladies don't get much of a look-in, except as accessories
before, during and after the act!

Paul

Unfortunately memories tend to decline with age. At one time I expect
I could remember my line without referring to anything. But, if I put
it away for a week now I almost have to be retrained.

The ladies are a different ball game since they change their name with
marriage. Too bad we didn't all marry cousins with the same last name.


I see gedcoms with 20,000 or more names and I figure, boy this will
really be screwed up - and it usually is. We seldom look back at what
we input and how we input it ten years ago when we use the computer.
In almost every gedcom someone had a child when almost 100 years old
that destroys the lineage. You look at Ancestry and find 20 trees
purporting to be the same line. Twelve are from the same person, four
are alike but incomplete and four have different links to a person or
three. I know the errors on my line at the LDS.

I have to get everything from the internet. I don't think anyone has
any pre-1900 data on my line that I don't have and, by preponderance
of evidence I'm 5 generations further along than anyone else. I've
worn out a chair in 7 libraries but I need to go back to Dallas.

I think I left the subject behind - sorry 'bout that!

Hugh

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:12:12 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:38:25 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir
[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:41:28 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

I wonder how many of the 16 are the results of our research and how
many the research of others, albeit some of them reproven by us. To
say they were inconsistent with your methods would be an
understatement. And descendant printouts are little more than one-name
studies.

Why not start (or rework) our genealogy with gedcoms of each line in a
separate data base as we find them? Doesn't that make it easier to
merge, organize, research and assure consistency, at least within each
data base?

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

Interesting interrelationships. If your ancestors lived a long time in
one area 9for example), cousins intermarry, making for interesting
relationships. As a lark, I let RM calcuclate the relationships of
myself to myself 9as an example). There are 128 calculated
relationships, ranging from third cousin once removed to ninth cousin
twice removed. I'd not see that if I used multiple databases for the
different lines.

Aside from curiosity would there be a major demand for that?
I think I'll try it!

2. What are the pitfalls in doing one-name genealogy as long as
you have a data base for each of the 16 aforementioned lines?


None that I know of.

3. If restructuring a large data base is too impractical, why not
clone your data base and do a one-name on your earliest ancestor in a
separate data base? (and the spouse's of course)!

But why do that? My database is only 20-something thousand
individuals, and it includes "all" the descendants of the earliest
Hoffpauir that I can find, plus all of my ancestors as far back as I
have found, and all of my wife's ancestors as far back as I can find.
The size is easliy handled by any genealogy program I've tested.

Hugh
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

The size is not the problem - it's my desire for consistency. I want
every fact/event treated the same way for every person in the data
base. I find some facts in notes and some notes in facts, where I'm
using the data of another, plus a lot of comments from others that I
don't want in my data base. Many people use too much white space and
others can't spell. And the way people source (or don't source) runs
the gamut from Alpha to Omega.

Thanks, Charlie.

Hugh

Ahha! I see what you're at now. I had exactly the same problem about
15 years ago when I started.... I quickly found that I caused more
problems with importing GEDCOMS than the time it saved (and I type
slow and with errors). After many many hours of correcting, I now only
enter data that I type in, never import someone elses data directly. I
will import it into a "new" database and drag and drop into mine....
if it's close to the techniques that I use. But even with that, I
enter sources and places myself (using my existing source list and
place list). With both, I have my own formats, and am consistant
throughout.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:20:35 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir <[email protected]>
wrote:

Ahha! I see what you're at now. I had exactly the same problem about
15 years ago when I started.... I quickly found that I caused more
problems with importing GEDCOMS than the time it saved (and I type
slow and with errors). After many many hours of correcting, I now only
enter data that I type in, never import someone elses data directly. I
will import it into a "new" database and drag and drop into mine....
if it's close to the techniques that I use. But even with that, I
enter sources and places myself (using my existing source list and
place list). With both, I have my own formats, and am consistant
throughout.

And that's what I do, too. I don't allow "foreign" GEDCOMS into my main
database.

I usually import them into PAF, and then enter the information by hand into
Legacy. I find it's easier to switch from PAF to Legacy and back than to
switch windows within Legacy.

That way I can ensure that place names are recorded the way I do it, and that
odd notes that turn up in place names or date fields can be put where they
belong.




--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:10:48 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)
wrote:

Sounds like no one goes the one-name route.

No, I do.

In addition to my "Main" database, I have a couple of "one name" databases --
Growdons and Greenaways from Cornwall, for example, and another for all my
ancestors from Lancs, which has Cottams and Herberts and related families. The
Growdon file has four separate lines, only one of whi8ch is mine, but if I add
every instance I find anywhere, i hope I'll one day find links between them

In those I put everyone of those names/places, as a research tool, to help me
find connections. When I find a branch is linked to mine, I add it to the main
database.

I quite happily import GEDCOMS from IGI, Census, etch, into the "research"
database, and match and merge like crazy. But I never merge or import GEDCOMs
into my main database.

So I do use one-name databases as well. I just don't see the two approaches as
mutually exclusive, and wonder why you seem to regard them as mutually
exclusive. If you are ONLY interested in a one name study, i could understand
that.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Herman Viaene]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:56:43 +0100, Herman Viaene <[email protected]
wrote:

snip a lot

Obviously the situation in the US is different. I have not found any
provable ancestors who were not born in this country. I have found
more than 100 ways to spell Sullivan but I only spell it one way in my
genealogy - I use AKAs for other spellings when they arise.

Well again, you might cause more trouble than you "resolve" by adopting one
spelling. I give an example from my own family.
My own name is Viaene, the tree goes back till about 1590. In the 17th and
18th century many people could hardly read or write and some clerk wrote
the name as thought fit. So the name could be Viaene, Viane, Vyane, Vyaene
or Deviaene....
When the civil registration started, the majority of the descendants of our
common ancestor had their name written as Viaene, but someone got Viane or
Vyaene. You will not favour these people's descendants (people tend to get
touchy as to the spelling if their name) or facilitate further research
when you note these in your database as Viaene.

To complicate matters further, around 1914 one Vyaene moved to another
town,and there the town clerks wrote his name Viane. The man took all
steps possible to have this error corrected, but with no result. Some
"higher authority" even claimed that all previous records is the man's
original home town were mistakes.

Wishing you lots of success.

Herman Viaene

[Charani]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:08:14 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

So I do use one-name databases as well. I just don't see the two approaches as
mutually exclusive, and wonder why you seem to regard them as mutually
exclusive. If you are ONLY interested in a one name study, i could understand
that.

I'm doing what amounts to a one-name study on one of my lines. I have
what I call a Root file into which every occurrence of the name Icome
across is entered together with a note of the source, plus I have
individual family files for that name as well. (IGI patron submissions
excepted.)

The other 6 lines that I'm doing are single family lines, not one name
studies.

I note the spouses and their parents, plus any siblings of the spouses
I might find and any of their children, but I don't trace every name I
come across, in every direction. To me that seems a waste of time and
expense. An uncle's wife's sister's husband's brother's wife's sister
and her husband maybe related (distantly) by marriage, but genetically
they have nothing to do with me. To add in so much data would make
for an extremely unwieldy database, IMO.

However, since there's no right or wrong way to do genealogy, no two
methods are necessarily mutually exclusive, any more than they are
mutually inclusive. It's all a matter of personal preference.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:49:37 +0100, Herman Viaene <[email protected]>
wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:56:43 +0100, Herman Viaene <[email protected]
wrote:

snip a lot


Obviously the situation in the US is different. I have not found any
provable ancestors who were not born in this country. I have found
more than 100 ways to spell Sullivan but I only spell it one way in my
genealogy - I use AKAs for other spellings when they arise.

Well again, you might cause more trouble than you "resolve" by adopting one
spelling. I give an example from my own family.
My own name is Viaene, the tree goes back till about 1590. In the 17th and
18th century many people could hardly read or write and some clerk wrote
the name as thought fit. So the name could be Viaene, Viane, Vyane, Vyaene
or Deviaene....
When the civil registration started, the majority of the descendants of our
common ancestor had their name written as Viaene, but someone got Viane or
Vyaene. You will not favour these people's descendants (people tend to get
touchy as to the spelling if their name) or facilitate further research
when you note these in your database as Viaene.

To complicate matters further, around 1914 one Vyaene moved to another
town,and there the town clerks wrote his name Viane. The man took all
steps possible to have this error corrected, but with no result. Some
"higher authority" even claimed that all previous records is the man's
original home town were mistakes.

Wishing you lots of success.

Herman Viaene

I provably start in 1789 - by preponderance of evidence I go back 6
more generations.

O'Sullivan, Sullivant and Sullivan were our 3 basic names - anything
else is due to the problems of illiteracy. I suspect some of our early
ancestors couldn't even pronounce their own names. Many people in the
south still pronounce Sullivan with a "t" at the end.

The spelling no longer bothers me very much - in fact I started a list
of different spellings just for fun. It's up to 120 ways and counting.
But they are all Sullivan in my data base.

First time I remember you posting... Welcome to the group. We're sorta
like a city limits sign about 30 miles from here - Home of 3,000 happy
people and a few soreheads.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:56:33 +0200, Steve Hayes
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:20:35 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir <[email protected]
wrote:

Ahha! I see what you're at now. I had exactly the same problem about
15 years ago when I started.... I quickly found that I caused more
problems with importing GEDCOMS than the time it saved (and I type
slow and with errors). After many many hours of correcting, I now only
enter data that I type in, never import someone elses data directly. I
will import it into a "new" database and drag and drop into mine....
if it's close to the techniques that I use. But even with that, I
enter sources and places myself (using my existing source list and
place list). With both, I have my own formats, and am consistant
throughout.

And that's what I do, too. I don't allow "foreign" GEDCOMS into my main
database.

I usually import them into PAF, and then enter the information by hand into
Legacy. I find it's easier to switch from PAF to Legacy and back than to
switch windows within Legacy.

That way I can ensure that place names are recorded the way I do it, and that
odd notes that turn up in place names or date fields can be put where they
belong.

Responding to both Steve and Charlie...

I do essentially what you two do as far as importing. I never find
anything else on my Sullivan line but I find earlier data on
peripheral lines. I load a new gedcom into an alternate program on a
second computer and compare with what I have using the two screens. I
cull it to the point where I can link without having to merge. I enter
"merge" data separately.

But that leaves the flaw you spotted, Charlie. Location and sources
are inconsistent and there may be multiple pages of notes that should
be facts/events. Then I have the additional problem of porting to my
main program - my alternate program doesn't source names and my basic
program does. I review Master Lists for consistency pretty often.

I made several mistakes in my early sourcing. I didn't source, then I
got almost clever - I used "census" for every census between 1790 and
1930. When I reveiwed a 10 volume set I just listed the name of the
set, not the volume and page number. If I got the data from someone
else that person was my source and I didn't inculde their source so I
could check if I wished. Finally I learned that the purpose of
sourcing was to prevent me from unwittingly researching the same book
again. Does every newbie go through this same comedic routine?

As for PAF the last time I tried it the data didn't gedcom very well -
too many proprietary entry types. When going from FTW to Legacy,
Legacy at least tells you what didn't cross properly and you can put
it into notes to be edited later. I gotta do that someday...

If nothing else there may be some lurkers who might benefit from
discussions like this. I benefit and I was never a lurker or a newbie.
Like Daniel Boone I was never lost, jusy mightily confused at times.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:08:14 +0200, Steve Hayes
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:10:48 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)
wrote:

Sounds like no one goes the one-name route.

No, I do.

In addition to my "Main" database, I have a couple of "one name" databases --
Growdons and Greenaways from Cornwall, for example, and another for all my
ancestors from Lancs, which has Cottams and Herberts and related families. The
Growdon file has four separate lines, only one of whi8ch is mine, but if I add
every instance I find anywhere, i hope I'll one day find links between them

In those I put everyone of those names/places, as a research tool, to help me
find connections. When I find a branch is linked to mine, I add it to the main
database.

I quite happily import GEDCOMS from IGI, Census, etch, into the "research"
database, and match and merge like crazy. But I never merge or import GEDCOMs
into my main database.

So I do use one-name databases as well. I just don't see the two approaches as
mutually exclusive, and wonder why you seem to regard them as mutually
exclusive. If you are ONLY interested in a one name study, i could understand
that.

I understand your method. I'm just rounding up opinions so I can make
the best decision how to proceed. I am not yet committed to change.
But I am more than willing to steal a good idea from anyone.

My thought was to continue the one data base I have. I thought I might
create a data base for every line and switch to that if I saw any
benefit. It looked to me like it would be easier to compare my data
with a new gedcom if I had a one-name study.

To respond to a post responding to Steve, I have no notion to
determine the "right" way to do things because no such standard exists
as you say. But, even though I am very good at planning and organizing
there is always the chance that someone has an idea I should
incorporate. Imitating someone may be the sincerest form of flattery
but the handle on their shovel might not be the proper length for me.

Hugh

[cecilia]

Charani wrote:

[...] An uncle's wife's sister's husband's brother's wife's sister
and her husband maybe related (distantly) by marriage, but genetically
they have nothing to do with me. To add in so much data would make
for an extremely unwieldy database, IMO. [...]

When I find that someone left a small legacy to his mother's cousin's
cousin's granddaughter, because of her kindness when his father had
died, I'll show the connections (as well as adding a brief explanation
to his notes). Genetically no connection, but it seems likely they
connected because of the families. (Rather like my mother pointing
out I didn't have to invite my grandmother's cousin's wife's sister to
my wedding, and my replying that I wanted to, because I liked her and
she had been kind to me.)

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:03:01 GMT, [email protected] (cecilia) wrote:

Charani wrote:
[...] An uncle's wife's sister's husband's brother's wife's sister
and her husband maybe related (distantly) by marriage, but genetically
they have nothing to do with me. To add in so much data would make
for an extremely unwieldy database, IMO. [...]

When I find that someone left a small legacy to his mother's cousin's
cousin's granddaughter, because of her kindness when his father had
died, I'll show the connections (as well as adding a brief explanation
to his notes). Genetically no connection, but it seems likely they
connected because of the families. (Rather like my mother pointing
out I didn't have to invite my grandmother's cousin's wife's sister to
my wedding, and my replying that I wanted to, because I liked her and
she had been kind to me.)

First of all it's your program...

The problem that has recently arisen is the differentiation between
genealogists and family historians. The methods for the former will
not always agree with the needs of the latter.

I'm not sure how one links a non-related person in a genealogy
program. I suspect you liked all the people you personally invited to
your wedding - but would you include all of them in your genealogy
data base? If not, how would you differentiate?

Seems to me like one is genealogy and the other is either a Kardex
file of friends or a contact list on a computer.

Am I missing something here?

Hugh

[Lars Erik Bryld]

Scripsit J. Hugh Sullivan:

I'm not sure how one links a non-related person in a genealogy
program. I suspect you liked all the people you personally invited
to your wedding - but would you include all of them in your
genealogy data base? If not, how would you differentiate?

A decent genealogy program (Legacy being the sad exception) will
permit addition of any person to any event as a witness. My criteria
for a person's inclusion into my DB is the occurrence of said person
in a written source related to the event. Besides, the person might
actually be an unrecognised family member, a cousin or an in-law of
the fosterparent or suchlike.

I personally couldn't care less about genetic qualifications. No
church record has ever proved who the father really was anyway...

--
Med venlig hilsen
Lars Erik Bryld

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:27:01 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:56:33 +0200, Steve Hayes
[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:20:35 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir <[email protected]
wrote:

Ahha! I see what you're at now. I had exactly the same problem about
15 years ago when I started.... I quickly found that I caused more
problems with importing GEDCOMS than the time it saved (and I type
slow and with errors). After many many hours of correcting, I now only
enter data that I type in, never import someone elses data directly. I
will import it into a "new" database and drag and drop into mine....
if it's close to the techniques that I use. But even with that, I
enter sources and places myself (using my existing source list and
place list). With both, I have my own formats, and am consistant
throughout.

And that's what I do, too. I don't allow "foreign" GEDCOMS into my main
database.

I usually import them into PAF, and then enter the information by hand into
Legacy. I find it's easier to switch from PAF to Legacy and back than to
switch windows within Legacy.

That way I can ensure that place names are recorded the way I do it, and that
odd notes that turn up in place names or date fields can be put where they
belong.

Responding to both Steve and Charlie...

I do essentially what you two do as far as importing. I never find
anything else on my Sullivan line but I find earlier data on
peripheral lines. I load a new gedcom into an alternate program on a
second computer and compare with what I have using the two screens. I
cull it to the point where I can link without having to merge. I enter
"merge" data separately.

But that leaves the flaw you spotted, Charlie. Location and sources
are inconsistent and there may be multiple pages of notes that should
be facts/events. Then I have the additional problem of porting to my
main program - my alternate program doesn't source names and my basic
program does. I review Master Lists for consistency pretty often.

I made several mistakes in my early sourcing. I didn't source, then I
got almost clever - I used "census" for every census between 1790 and
1930. When I reveiwed a 10 volume set I just listed the name of the
set, not the volume and page number. If I got the data from someone
else that person was my source and I didn't inculde their source so I
could check if I wished. Finally I learned that the purpose of
sourcing was to prevent me from unwittingly researching the same book
again. Does every newbie go through this same comedic routine?

As for PAF the last time I tried it the data didn't gedcom very well -
too many proprietary entry types. When going from FTW to Legacy,
Legacy at least tells you what didn't cross properly and you can put
it into notes to be edited later. I gotta do that someday...

If nothing else there may be some lurkers who might benefit from
discussions like this. I benefit and I was never a lurker or a newbie.
Like Daniel Boone I was never lost, jusy mightily confused at times.

Hugh

Actually, I've had "most" of the same issues you are writing about.
And they are the reasons I switched from PAF (my original computer
genealogy program) to FTM, and finally to RootsMagic. Now I can open
two different database with RM (my computer has two monitors) and
compare/copy/paste between the two. When I was using FTM I found that
you could open two copies of FTM at the same time under some
circumstances, and that worked a bit better than trying to have PAF
and FTM open together as you are doing. (I understand that the present
version of FTM allow you to have two databases open at the same time,
so my kludge isn't necessary).

IMO, FTM is "too user friendly". It allows you to be really sloppy
with places, for instance. After converting to RM I reviewed my place
list and found many many instances of misspelled place names, or
slightly different ways of entering the "same" places, especially
cemeteries.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:33:20 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:03:01 GMT, [email protected] (cecilia) wrote:

When I find that someone left a small legacy to his mother's cousin's
cousin's granddaughter, because of her kindness when his father had
died, I'll show the connections (as well as adding a brief explanation
to his notes). Genetically no connection, but it seems likely they
connected because of the families. (Rather like my mother pointing
out I didn't have to invite my grandmother's cousin's wife's sister to
my wedding, and my replying that I wanted to, because I liked her and
she had been kind to me.)

First of all it's your program...

The problem that has recently arisen is the differentiation between
genealogists and family historians. The methods for the former will
not always agree with the needs of the latter.

I'm not sure how one links a non-related person in a genealogy
program. I suspect you liked all the people you personally invited to
your wedding - but would you include all of them in your genealogy
data base? If not, how would you differentiate?

Seems to me like one is genealogy and the other is either a Kardex
file of friends or a contact list on a computer.

Am I missing something here?

No, and that is why I keep bleating to anyone who will listen that in addition
to a lineage linked genealogy program,, there is a need for an event-based
program, which would be useful for family historians, local historians,
biographers and others.

You enter events relating to your subject -- a particular family, village,
school, person, battle, or whatever.

Then you enter people linked to the events, who may or may not be related --
thyey could have been your best friend, a teacher at your school, a witness at
your wedding, your boss, the guy who ran over your dog.

If I knew enough about programming I'd take a stab at it myself.



Then you look at what you've entered
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[cecilia]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

[...] I'm not sure how one links a non-related person in a genealogy
program. [...]

It's quite easy to link non-related people if the connection can be
described in terms of blood and marriage relationships. <puzzled>

(As to whether I'm interested in genealogy or family history - look at
my email address <grin>)

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:13:18 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:27:01 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:56:33 +0200, Steve Hayes
[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:20:35 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir <[email protected]
wrote:

Ahha! I see what you're at now. I had exactly the same problem about
15 years ago when I started.... I quickly found that I caused more
problems with importing GEDCOMS than the time it saved (and I type
slow and with errors). After many many hours of correcting, I now only
enter data that I type in, never import someone elses data directly. I
will import it into a "new" database and drag and drop into mine....
if it's close to the techniques that I use. But even with that, I
enter sources and places myself (using my existing source list and
place list). With both, I have my own formats, and am consistant
throughout.

And that's what I do, too. I don't allow "foreign" GEDCOMS into my main
database.

I usually import them into PAF, and then enter the information by hand into
Legacy. I find it's easier to switch from PAF to Legacy and back than to
switch windows within Legacy.

That way I can ensure that place names are recorded the way I do it, and that
odd notes that turn up in place names or date fields can be put where they
belong.

Responding to both Steve and Charlie...

I do essentially what you two do as far as importing. I never find
anything else on my Sullivan line but I find earlier data on
peripheral lines. I load a new gedcom into an alternate program on a
second computer and compare with what I have using the two screens. I
cull it to the point where I can link without having to merge. I enter
"merge" data separately.

But that leaves the flaw you spotted, Charlie. Location and sources
are inconsistent and there may be multiple pages of notes that should
be facts/events. Then I have the additional problem of porting to my
main program - my alternate program doesn't source names and my basic
program does. I review Master Lists for consistency pretty often.

I made several mistakes in my early sourcing. I didn't source, then I
got almost clever - I used "census" for every census between 1790 and
1930. When I reveiwed a 10 volume set I just listed the name of the
set, not the volume and page number. If I got the data from someone
else that person was my source and I didn't inculde their source so I
could check if I wished. Finally I learned that the purpose of
sourcing was to prevent me from unwittingly researching the same book
again. Does every newbie go through this same comedic routine?

As for PAF the last time I tried it the data didn't gedcom very well -
too many proprietary entry types. When going from FTW to Legacy,
Legacy at least tells you what didn't cross properly and you can put
it into notes to be edited later. I gotta do that someday...

If nothing else there may be some lurkers who might benefit from
discussions like this. I benefit and I was never a lurker or a newbie.
Like Daniel Boone I was never lost, jusy mightily confused at times.

Hugh

Actually, I've had "most" of the same issues you are writing about.
And they are the reasons I switched from PAF (my original computer
genealogy program) to FTM, and finally to RootsMagic. Now I can open
two different database with RM (my computer has two monitors) and
compare/copy/paste between the two. When I was using FTM I found that
you could open two copies of FTM at the same time under some
circumstances, and that worked a bit better than trying to have PAF
and FTM open together as you are doing. (I understand that the present
version of FTM allow you to have two databases open at the same time,
so my kludge isn't necessary).

IMO, FTM is "too user friendly". It allows you to be really sloppy
with places, for instance. After converting to RM I reviewed my place
list and found many many instances of misspelled place names, or
slightly different ways of entering the "same" places, especially
cemeteries.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

I have RM on my computer also - haven't dl'ed the last fix though. I
like the speed and the ability to simply delete people in gedcoms to
get to what I want to link.

I dl'ed PAF a while ago and I might play with it some (again).

I quit FTM when they insisted on using first name instead of an option
to use middle name on the tabs. Half the time I didn't know who they
were talking about. Down South your grandpappy might have been named
Joe Bob but his name was Bob - except when his maw was disgusted then
it was "JOE BOB SULLIVAN I said NOW.".

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:14:27 GMT, [email protected] (cecilia) wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
[...] I'm not sure how one links a non-related person in a genealogy
program. [...]

It's quite easy to link non-related people if the connection can be
described in terms of blood and marriage relationships. <puzzled

(As to whether I'm interested in genealogy or family history - look at
my email address <grin>)

With Cecelia as I name I'm glad the address isn't mythster.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:51:21 +0100, Lars Erik Bryld
<[email protected]> wrote:

Scripsit J. Hugh Sullivan:

I'm not sure how one links a non-related person in a genealogy
program. I suspect you liked all the people you personally invited
to your wedding - but would you include all of them in your
genealogy data base? If not, how would you differentiate?

A decent genealogy program (Legacy being the sad exception) will
permit addition of any person to any event as a witness. My criteria
for a person's inclusion into my DB is the occurrence of said person
in a written source related to the event. Besides, the person might
actually be an unrecognised family member, a cousin or an in-law of
the fosterparent or suchlike.

I personally couldn't care less about genetic qualifications. No
church record has ever proved who the father really was anyway...

Only mommy knows and she may not be too dadgum sure.

I'm not overly sympathetic with the purists who believe that every
child in a house in the1850 census was the offspring of the couple
listed as parents and use that belief to pontificate about bloodlines
being the only criterion.

Yet, because of medical histories, I think there should be some purity
in our data. My gg grandfather was shot and killed - I hope the doctor
will look for other symptoms to treat me.

Hugh

[Lars Erik Bryld]

Scripsit Dave Hinz:

Because in my case, the fellow who came here from somewhere in
Germany, with my last name, is proving to be completely elusive. I
work on a line until I get stuck, and then move to another in the
same language/country/etc, and work my way through. In England now
which is a refreshing change - they have a nearly readable language
over there in the timeframe I'm working in.

<shameless plug>

Do I detect some uneasiness with the reading of old German documents?
Then, you might benefit from the font I made available from my site in
producing nearly as illegibly writing on your own home system.

http://www.bryld.info/download.php

</shameless plug>




--
Regards
Lars Erik Bryld

[Sir Creep]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

Imitating someone may be the sincerest form of flattery
but the handle on their shovel might not be the proper length for me.

Hugh

Hugh:
Hope you don't mind if I borrow that one. Which kinda brings this
discussion around full-circle!

Patrick

PS: Events-based....well, my GG-Grandfather DeVore fought for the 49th
PA Inf form 1861-65 and survived. Was discharged in VA and on his way
walking back to PA in 1867 he stopped in Sharpsburg, MD, and hooked up
with some dame (Annie Savilla Benner) who's parents were once
slave-owners in the town. I don't know much about her brothers yet,
but I am still waiting to discover that her Union husband was once
shooting at her MD brothers (I know, MD was more Union than not, but
seeing as they owned slaves, well...)

PSS: My GGGG-Grandparents (Reel) farm in Sharpsburg is the site of the
National Cemetery for the battle of Antietam. How cool is that?!
R.E.Lee took over their farm as his HQ! I've never been there (yet)
but can't wait to visit.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On 23 Feb 2006 12:03:25 -0800, "Sir Creep"
<[email protected]> wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
Imitating someone may be the sincerest form of flattery
but the handle on their shovel might not be the proper length for me.

Hugh

Hugh:
Hope you don't mind if I borrow that one. Which kinda brings this
discussion around full-circle!

Adopt it and repeat it as your own.

To show my age there is an old story about the WPA (an org with a
reputation for extreme laziness) and the worker's complaint that the
shovel handles were not tall enough to lean on.

Patrick

PS: Events-based....well, my GG-Grandfather DeVore fought for the 49th
PA Inf form 1861-65 and survived. Was discharged in VA and on his way
walking back to PA in 1867 he stopped in Sharpsburg, MD, and hooked up
with some dame (Annie Savilla Benner) who's parents were once
slave-owners in the town. I don't know much about her brothers yet,
but I am still waiting to discover that her Union husband was once
shooting at her MD brothers (I know, MD was more Union than not, but
seeing as they owned slaves, well...)

PSS: My GGGG-Grandparents (Reel) farm in Sharpsburg is the site of the
National Cemetery for the battle of Antietam. How cool is that?!
R.E.Lee took over their farm as his HQ! I've never been there (yet)
but can't wait to visit.

SOunds like a treat - when the weather warms up.

Hugh

[Doug McDonald]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

Very very simple:

1) convenience

2) a dramatic reduction in total size, because you don't include
the same people who are ancestors through more than one line more than
once.

2. What are the pitfalls in doing one-name genealogy as long as
you have a data base for each of the 16 aforementioned lines?

Well, there are females, who have different surnames, so
for every generation the number of surnames increases .... until
the cousin marriages joining the 16 lines start!

3. If restructuring a large data base is too impractical, why not
clone your data base and do a one-name on your earliest ancestor in a
separate data base?

Well, he did't have a surname for one reason, he was
just called Niall.

************************************************************************

The who idea of separating your ancestors into multiple files
just seems totally bizarre to me.


Doug McDonald

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:20:19 -0600, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

Well, he did't have a surname for one reason, he was
just called Niall.

Ah, as in the burnt one?

The who idea of separating your ancestors into multiple files
just seems totally bizarre to me.

Agreed.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:20:19 -0600, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

Very very simple:

1) convenience

Convenience is a two-edged sword. It's not as easy to navigate if you
are updating several lines or studying several lineages.

2) a dramatic reduction in total size, because you don't include
the same people who are ancestors through more than one line more than
once.

Does size matter all that much? If the does wouldn't one-name be even
easier?

2. What are the pitfalls in doing one-name genealogy as long as
you have a data base for each of the 16 aforementioned lines?

Well, there are females, who have different surnames, so
for every generation the number of surnames increases .... until
the cousin marriages joining the 16 lines start!

If you follow the female spouse line the number of surnames inceases
also.

3. If restructuring a large data base is too impractical, why not
clone your data base and do a one-name on your earliest ancestor in a
separate data base?

Well, he did't have a surname for one reason, he was
just called Niall.

Was this the same as Niul, the 21st generation before Milesius whose
sons founded Ireland?... also the fourth generation after Japheth, the
son of Noah who had the big swimming pool for a few days?

************************************************************************

The who idea of separating your ancestors into multiple files
just seems totally bizarre to me.

I'm not advocating but I was curious.

Hugh

[Doug McDonald]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

Well, he did't have a surname for one reason, he was
just called Niall.

Was this the same as Niul, the 21st generation before Milesius

he was AFTER Milesius!

Doug McDonald

[Ron Head]

Hi Hugh--
I think we've had some individual correspondence in the past, perhaps about
the SULLIVAN's.

It sounds to me that the problem you have is not because of using a single
database for all the individuals in your "tree," but because you've merged
other people's GedCom's into your database when you've received information
from them!

When I get data from others, I may receive a GedCom from them, but I NEVER
merge it into my own database (for several reasons). Instead, I enter each
bit of info from that GedCom into my database individually. That way, those
"consistency" issues disappear, since you are adding the information in
whatever method you like best. And in the process, you also find things
like typos, impossible relationships, illogical dates, and other "mistakes"
that might otherwise creep into your database without your realizing it.

Best regards,
Ron Head (Montgomery, AL)

"J. Hugh Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:38:25 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir
[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:41:28 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

Why doesn't everybody do one-name studies in genealogy? You have 16
GGGrands, why have one unweildy data base when you can have 16 more or
less "weildy" ones?

I wonder how many of the 16 are the results of our research and how
many the research of others, albeit some of them reproven by us. To
say they were inconsistent with your methods would be an
understatement. And descendant printouts are little more than one-name
studies.

Why not start (or rework) our genealogy with gedcoms of each line in a
separate data base as we find them? Doesn't that make it easier to
merge, organize, research and assure consistency, at least within each
data base?

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

Interesting interrelationships. If your ancestors lived a long time in
one area 9for example), cousins intermarry, making for interesting
relationships. As a lark, I let RM calcuclate the relationships of
myself to myself 9as an example). There are 128 calculated
relationships, ranging from third cousin once removed to ninth cousin
twice removed. I'd not see that if I used multiple databases for the
different lines.

Aside from curiosity would there be a major demand for that?
I think I'll try it!

2. What are the pitfalls in doing one-name genealogy as long as
you have a data base for each of the 16 aforementioned lines?


None that I know of.

3. If restructuring a large data base is too impractical, why not
clone your data base and do a one-name on your earliest ancestor in a
separate data base? (and the spouse's of course)!

But why do that? My database is only 20-something thousand
individuals, and it includes "all" the descendants of the earliest
Hoffpauir that I can find, plus all of my ancestors as far back as I
have found, and all of my wife's ancestors as far back as I can find.
The size is easliy handled by any genealogy program I've tested.

Hugh
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

The size is not the problem - it's my desire for consistency. I want
every fact/event treated the same way for every person in the data
base. I find some facts in notes and some notes in facts, where I'm
using the data of another, plus a lot of comments from others that I
don't want in my data base. Many people use too much white space and
others can't spell. And the way people source (or don't source) runs
the gamut from Alpha to Omega.

Thanks, Charlie.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:12:14 -0600, "Ron Head" <[email protected]>
wrote:

Hi Hugh--
I think we've had some individual correspondence in the past, perhaps about
the SULLIVAN's.

It sounds to me that the problem you have is not because of using a single
database for all the individuals in your "tree," but because you've merged
other people's GedCom's into your database when you've received information
from them!

When I get data from others, I may receive a GedCom from them, but I NEVER
merge it into my own database (for several reasons). Instead, I enter each
bit of info from that GedCom into my database individually. That way, those
"consistency" issues disappear, since you are adding the information in
whatever method you like best. And in the process, you also find things
like typos, impossible relationships, illogical dates, and other "mistakes"
that might otherwise creep into your database without your realizing it.

Best regards,
Ron Head (Montgomery, AL)

I remember.

I think the problem I have is that I never know when to stop
organizing and seeking absolute consistency. If County isn't
abbreviated every time, and two-letter state names used, my shorts get
all bunched up. Cemetery has to be Cem. and Tuscaloosa Co. AL doesn't
need a comma.

I have never merged a Sullivan gedcom into my data base. But I decided
not to work that hard on a number of non-Sullivan lines and I merged
several data bases in those - MISTAKE! I did a little research after
merger and found glaring errors in almost every one and I either
corrected the problem or deleted the people who were linked
incorrectly. Those records were where I found no consistency. I
recently deleted about 200 people because 3 gedcoms were just plain
wrong. When you look carefully you see how someone made the mistake
but It's not a mistake I would have made. It's also obvious that many
of the gedcoms I find just copied the data from someone else - it's
rare to find original research now.

As an aside I find that few people are happy about someone finding
errors in their work no matter how softly you approach it - it's
almost as if he never expected to use an eraser in his lifetime. It's
right because he did it, not because it's right. Or, I don't care what
the court record says, a friend of my grandfather told me he said...
Or, my 16 greats grand Aunt Cleopatra would NEVER have done anything
like that

I also find that my own ability in sourcing, to speak of just one
area, has improved. Where it used to be Johnston Co. WIll Book, it's
now Johnston Co. NC Will Book 6, Page 243, extracted by whoever - but
I still have those early entries that are not so specific.

So, like the rooster, every once in a while I peek over the fence to
see how many eggs the hens in the next yard are laying and if their
procedures could help my hens.

Proving or disproving the work of another and eliminating
inconsistency is what I do when I come to a fork in the road, take
both, and find myself going in circles.

Roll Tide,

Hugh

[cecilia]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

[....] I find that few people are happy about someone finding
errors in their work no matter how softly you approach it - it's
almost as if he never expected to use an eraser in his lifetime. It's
right because he did it, not because it's right. Or, I don't care what
the court record says, a friend of my grandfather told me he said...
Or, my 16 greats grand Aunt Cleopatra would NEVER have done anything
like that

Or "I'll accept your correction with regret, since I hate looking
foolish".

I find the best thing is to say "Oops!" to oneself (and often to the
person making the correction).

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:49:45 GMT, [email protected] (cecilia) wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
[....] I find that few people are happy about someone finding
errors in their work no matter how softly you approach it - it's
almost as if he never expected to use an eraser in his lifetime. It's
right because he did it, not because it's right. Or, I don't care what
the court record says, a friend of my grandfather told me he said...
Or, my 16 greats grand Aunt Cleopatra would NEVER have done anything
like that

Or "I'll accept your correction with regret, since I hate looking
foolish".

I find the best thing is to say "Oops!" to oneself (and often to the
person making the correction).

I don't get gedcoms directly from other people, I download them from
Ancestry or other places.

I finally decided that correcting errors of others was too
time-consuming and seldom fostered good relations. I keep my data as
accurate as possible and it is not available through any public means
- they have to come to me.

Hugh

[Gjest]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

Why not start (or rework) our genealogy with gedcoms of each line in a
separate data base as we find them? Doesn't that make it easier to
merge, organize, research and assure consistency, at least within each
data base?

Because that would mean massive duplication when you got far back.

1. What is gained by having all people in the same data base?

I am a big fan of the "all people in the same data base" approach. My
own database has somewhere around 700.000 individuals, half of which
where born in the 20th or 21st century. The rest go back for
centuries. Virtually all of those currently living are related to each
other and once you get back to 1700 or so, they share pretty much the
same set of ancestors.

Having multiple databases would mean tremendous duplication of data -
it is absolutely out of the question.

2. What are the pitfalls in doing one-name genealogy as long as
you have a data base for each of the 16 aforementioned lines?

1) Why 16, why not go one more generation back and have 32, or two
generations and have 64?

2) Going sufficiently far back you would find the same people in
multiple places, because of things like second (or third) cousins
marrying and such. With multiple databases, you would get a mess, or
duplicated data. both are bad.

3. If restructuring a large data base is too impractical, why not
clone your data base and do a one-name on your earliest ancestor in a
separate data base? (and the spouse's of course)!

Being from a country where family names are typically not used, I must
admit that I have never had any interest in one-name studies, so I am
going to ignore this question...

-frisk