I like the two suggestions I received. Thank you. I will start using the suggested approach instead of my current approach. I agree, it's misleading to have unconnected people linked as siblings.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Jenny M Benson <ge...@cedarbank.me.uk>wrote: > Robert Arens wrote > >> If someone has developed a better system for accomplishing this, I would >> greatly appreciate the help. >> > > I wouldn't claim to have a "better" system, but I can only point out that > the advised method of working is backwards from the known to the unknown, so > you should only link people where you have good reason to do so - eg, you > add a father to someone when you are fairly certain you have identified > someone as their father. If you cannot link someone, then add them as an > unlinked individual, or add a series of linked individuals as separate trees > within the one family file. > > Easy enough then to make links between people when you discover the > connection between 2 people in different trees. I don't really see any > advantage in having dozens of people linked as siblings when their may not > be any connection between them. > > I don't know, I should say, if there is a limit on the number of trees your > can have within one family file. > -- > Jenny M Benson > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp<http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Etiquette.asp> > Archived messages: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp<http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Help.asp> > To unsubscribe: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp<http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp> > > > > -- Bob Arens Vice President & Chief Financial Officer EagleVisions Energy LLC www.eaglevisionsenergy.com 1-952-430-7000
