Weeding my Tree

[loribragg 0]

I have been doing genealogy for many years and along the way, as technology and knowledge got better, got into better habits than when I started. Certainly, TMG makes it easy to source and keep up with the records. However, some of my early efforts are still in my database - including (dare I admit it) data I merged from other distant cousins. Some of the people in there aren't even related! So I am trying to come up with an system for 'weeding' my file of those lines that really are completely superfluous and also any data the is either duplicate or unsourced and I should therefore go back and research.

 

I have started with the Audit Report (reminded of in the recent newsletter). Many of these people fall into the 'weed' category though and it might be easier just to whack them than try to fix them. So my question is:

 

Does anyone out there have experience with this and will you share your system for weeding your tree? People-weeds are the primary concern but also the other files: sources, places and any other weed types you find.

 

Thanks in advance, Lori Bragg

[AndyH3rd 0]

Lori,

 

People weeding from an audit report is easy.

1) run audit report.

2) creat custom Flag "Whack" with N,Y,?

3) use audit report to view each person and decide is they are to be kept or whacked

4) Set WHACKED Flag accordingly

5) when finished just created new project excluding all people who's whacked flag is set to Y.

 

Hope this helps

Andy hatchett

[Terry Reigel 0]

Lori,

 

Mainly, I don't worry about them. I don't see that they cause any harm, and occasionally it's useful to know that someone you "discover" is already known and not related.

 

But if you want to clean it up I think Andy's solution is a good one. When you do that sources, places, etc. that are not linked to the people you keep are not moved to the new Project.

[PiercysEtc 0]

Hi Lori

 

I had a similar situation - apparently irrelevant data from years back. I'm very glad I didn't weed, though, for at least two reasons.

 

My known ancestors are here in England, and you might have, say, two George BISHOPPs in adjacent villages (or even the same village), both farmers, both about the same age, both married to an Elizabeth. One is an ancestor, one is not. The very fact of having them both in the database warns me that I must be careful in identifying which one is which. In England this situation is not uncommon.

 

The second reason is that old, incorrect, data sometimes surfaces on the internet years later. If you have kept the original incorrect data, with notes about the original source and an explanation of why the data is incorrect, it enables you to explain to others why they have incorrect data.

 

So sometimes it's better to train the plants than to weed them!

 

Whoops! There's a third reason for 'training' rather than 'weeding' your database. You may be using TMG for writing a family history rather than just recording genealogy. TMG is surely, by head and shoulders, the best software for this. Sometimes the old 'inaccurate' stories, as well as having a grain of truth in them, reflect the ideas of the family and the times. They are part of the 'social history' of the family. Don't throw away these stories just because they are not literally 'true'; keep them in the database along with your own views of where they came from and how they throw light on the people and times.

 

Best wishes

Edited March 7, 2009 by PiercysEtc

[loribragg 0]

Thanks everyone for the insight. I probably don't need to weed then; it just seemed like it would speed things up. I have about 18000 names in my database now and maybe 3000 to 5000 are people who seem to be related to people who are related to people who married people who are cousins several times removed.

 

I will live with it for now and work thru other puzzles. See if that helps clarify. Lori