I have tired both ways and the multiple trees for the same family is extremely combersome (at least for me) due to family members marrying from one tree to the other resulting in duplication work for me. When you say "not confirmed" do you mean you are not sure that the person is actually connected to your tree or do you mean that the person is yours but you just haven't confirmed some of the data (such as birth etc). In the first case, I make an 'unconnected person" in the same tree, there is a procedure for that within Legacy. This would be if I find an "uncle" who reported the birth of a child but I have no idea who's uncle he is. When I find the truth, I then connect him to the proper parents. To remind me of these "unconnected" people, I add a "to do" to the person so it shows up on my "to do" lists.
In the case of data that is not complete or confirmed, I make a "to do" for that person to confirm whatever it is, but I do add them directly to the tree. Many different pro's and con's of either way but I like this method and Legacy makes it really easy to navigate and mark the different items that need confirmed or connected at a later date. Lucy Abbott, Mill Creek, Washington, USA (Campbell, MacKay, Wares, Budden, Pastoret) ________________________________ From: Abdul Haqq [email protected] "Many entries are not confirmed so I see it as a sketch. Is it good practice or not to break down the tree into several separate trees and then merge them only when information is confirmed. Can the result in any problems?" Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
