Abdul: Many (most?) experienced researchers recommend against breaking a tree into separate databases and I strongly agree. Having multiples means multiple location lists, surname lists, preferences, definitions, backups, and potentially multiple trees to manage online if you post. It can become a real hassle--and then merging becomes a hassle in itself. There are much better ways to handle your situation. I have one single database of roughly 10,000 individuals which includes six trees that are completely unrelated but I still wouldn't break them into separate databases.
As someone has already posted, you can add strays as unlinked people. It's easy, then, to see them in View > Tree Finder (click the Refresh button to update the list). Or if you add unconfirmed individuals to a family group you can use a tag to identify them and serve as a quick reminder of people you need to research further. Or you can do the reverse and tag those that you've definitely proven. There are many tricks to help in managing your data, but I'd say that breaking it into multiple databases is the least desirable. Kirsten -----Original Message----- From: Abdul Haqq [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 3:32 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [LegacyUG] Managing Trees Hi, I have started on my tree for about the last week and already it is getting cumbersome. 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
