RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: familydar on Tuesday 27 November 18 18:46 GMT (UK)
-
One of my DNA matches has 268,441 people in their tree (at least they have one attached to their results and it's public).
My sub is currently lapsed so I'm not able to check it out, but I'm sure it will be scrupulously researched and thick with quality sources ;D
Jane :-)
-
Grief - the largest I've got from a match is 60522 - and they'e got Adam and Eve in there! Yours must have all our ancestors too :o
-
It probably has all our ancestors several times over!
-
Could you PM me the link to it ;D
-
Done
-
I hope everyone has taken note that I've not named the website. You've all drawn your own conclusions. Should we have a poll? ;D ;D ;D
-
It's so big, it won't even do a 'list all' - although I can get up the diagram and do individual searches on surnames ::)
24990 items in the Media gallery,
-
Are you offering Gadget? Does it have an Unk, child of Unk, born before the birth of Unk snr? Perhaps a few Unk Unks? Is the root person Adam or Unk?
:P
-
No my large one starts with Adam ;D
Pretty pics though!
(My direct line minimalist one on there is all of 162 people, inc me)
-
Could you PM me the link to it ;D
Ditto please as I've been struggling for yrs to find links to some of mine & this could be my 'opening'? :D
P.S. You need to change your profile name from 'familydar' to family'RADAR' :D
Annie
-
Me too please. See if I'm on it.
-
and me please.
I need a good laugh on this dull rainy day ;D
-
Much as I'd love to circulate this far and wide, posting a link here isn't really appropriate and sending PMs to everyone who asks is more than a little time consuming.
I've sent PMs to those who have asked thus far, but please, no more.
I presume as nobody's come up with a bigger number, perhaps the owner of this tree truly does hold the record.
Jane :-)
-
Some of the trees on Ancestry are hilarious in their absurdity. I've no idea why people would waste their time typing in such rubbish on a public website. Obviously name collectors who have never actually researched the people in their tree.
I have almost 60,000 in my tree but each person is sourced before they go in. Having most of my ancestors from North Yorkshire has been very useful as the Dade records from the 1770's - 1812ish have been invaluable
Lyn
-
Some of the trees on Ancestry are hilarious in their absurdity. I've no idea why people would waste their time typing in such rubbish on a public website. Obviously name collectors who have never actually researched the people in their tree.
I have almost 60,000 in my tree but each person is sourced before they go in. Having most of my ancestors from North Yorkshire has been very useful as the Dade records from the 1770's - 1812ish have been invaluable
Lyn
My tree would be called mostly unsourced by anyone reading it as when I put it onto Ancestry I was too lazy to type up my sources. I am now slowly sitting typing in my sources (that I've had all along) because it upset me to think how badly people thought of me for having an 'unsourced tree'
-
I do agree that there are a great number of absurd trees out there. ;D ;D
Recently I had one of those numerous hints which linked with my late father and his family. Curious to find out if the owner could be a long lost "rellie" I contacted her just mentioning the family name. Back came the reply that as she had so many with that surname could I be more specific. I replied giving my dad's details as a starting point and asking her how she was related to him. Well he is grand nephew of wife of 1st cousin 4 x removed was the reply. I was also told in no uncertain terms to find my own proof and not just take what was in her tree. OK that is elementary research but I could not help myself when I replied stating that my proof was possession of his original birth certificate and also the fact that I had registered his death. Never heard a thing since. I wonder why. Her proof was taking the information from a public tree belonging to another relative of mine.
By the way there were over 200,000 people in her tree going back to Scottish/English kings and queens from the year dot. Unfortunately no Adam or Eve ------ Yet :-X :-X
Where am I going wrong perhaps someone could point me in the right direction????
Still laughing all the way to my next ancestral find - with relevant proof of course
Dorrie
-
I do agree that there are a great number of absurd trees out there. ;D ;D
Recently I had one of those numerous hints which linked with my late father and his family. Curious to find out if the owner could be a long lost "rellie" I contacted her just mentioning the family name. Back came the reply that as she had so many with that surname could I be more specific. I replied giving my dad's details as a starting point and asking her how she was related to him. Well he is grand nephew of wife of 1st cousin 4 x removed was the reply. I was also told in no uncertain terms to find my own proof and not just take what was in her tree. OK that is elementary research but I could not help myself when I replied stating that my proof was possession of his original birth certificate and also the fact that I had registered his death. Never heard a thing since. I wonder why. Her proof was taking the information from a public tree belonging to another relative of mine.
By the way there were over 200,000 people in her tree going back to Scottish/English kings and queens from the year dot. Unfortunately no Adam or Eve ------ Yet :-X :-X
Where am I going wrong perhaps someone could point me in the right direction????
Still laughing all the way to my next ancestral find - with relevant proof of course
Dorrie
I found a strange tree the other day. It has one of my great grandpa's on it, his siblings, parents and grandparents. I say stange because not one is connected to the other, in fact each of my relatives in the tree weren't connected to anyone at all. They did seem to be my relatives, DOB, DOD middle names etc all there
.
-
My all time favourite tree was one that traced my birth family back to Adam, via Charlemagne and through my most favourite ancestor, someone called “second chatelaine” who was apparently the unknown, unnamed paramour of Richard 1, sometime in the twelfth century. Meticulously researched and referenced, of course ;D
-
Back came the reply that as she had so many with that surname could I be more specific.
When I contacted someone to see how an ancestor of mine connected to them, I got the response that they hadn't found the connection yet but as they were sure there was a connection they'd put the person on their tree ::)
-
When I contacted someone to see how an ancestor of mine connected to them, I got the response that they hadn't found the connection yet but as they were sure there was a connection they'd put the person on their tree ::)
I've had something very similar!
It would be good if there was a way to find how a "person of interest" connects to the "home person". It would save wasting time contacting them with additional information etc if the relationship was too distant.