Emphasis: (Robert - do you accept "personal family knowledge" as a documentation?)
Yes, I do, provided that I believe the person giving me that knowledge is not habitually forgetful or anything, and is alive. <g> If I have something like, "My mother told me that Aunt Sarah used to make pork soup," then I use: "Descended family knowledge" as my source. "Descended family knowledge" is not one of Legacy's default's, you will need to add it if you want to use this. Doing this helps me to keep separate items I was personally told face to face, and items I was told via another person. At 2009-12-27 09:03 AM, you wrote: >Connie, > >Thank you for a fine (and very clear) >explanation of your methods. I certainly like >your idea of using the Title Prefix, and will >use it. It solves a dilemma I have experienced >for some time, and seems exactly right. I do >have a question about what you say about adding >"people (who may or may not be connected to your >tree (I'm assuming what you call "tree" is what >Legacy calls "family file" and I think of as >"data base") Do you have a separate tree for >each person, or do you have one tree that is for all such people? > >I do like Robert's idea of having one pristine >and documented tree/family file, as well. I am >just not sure how I would document those I KNOW >from my own family experience, are legitimate >family members, but have never gotten official >documentation such as birth certificates, >etc. For ex.: I knew my Aunt Zua all my life, >and know her to be my grandfather's sister, so I >have never spent time tracking down official >proof of her parentage. (Robert - do you >accept "personal family knowledge" as a documentation?) > >I asked for the training tapes of Legacy for >Christmas, so perhaps later I won't have so many >newbie questions (I have actually used Legacy for a year or more). > >Thank you so much for taking the time to explain >your method so well. And thanks to all those >who so graciously came to my rescue on a >question that has bothered me from the beginning. > >Jane S. > > >On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Connie ><<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote: >Not every person I come across with a same surname, timeframe and location >ect do I add into my family tree. Some will only make it as far as in >research notes, or will be added in their own tree which is NOT linked my >main family tree. Those people are ones who reoccur in my research but I >have NO IDEA how they might connect to my family line > >But then there are others Iâll find who Iâm family certain they do belong, >but have not found concrete proof Those I handle a bit differentlyy as >explained below: > >I link them in my main database where I believe they fit, adding a notation >in the _Title Prefix_ placeholder (this field is normally reserved for >titles such as Sir, Knight, King etc.; > >First name: John >Last name: Powers >Title Prefix: [possible son of Adam] > >-or- > >First name: Jane >Last name: Smith >Title Prefix: [possible wife of Adam Powers] >And so on > >It is easy via the search function to locate anyone with a '[' in their >name. ( Search>Find>Individual>Prefix>Contains>[ ) > >Linking them allows me to see at a glance where >I âthinkâ they belong within >the tree structure, yet at the same time making it clear (as it will show up >as part of their name) the relationship is unproven requiring more research >to confirm. > >I have found it the easiest way for me to keep track of them, whereas >keeping them only in notes or in a separate tree or database Iâd likely >forget all about them for the most part > >I have also used this same tactic (adding a note to the Title Prefix spot to >families I have researched and determined are not part of my family line >even though they are living in the same area; same timeframe and with same >surname etc.  They will be entered into their own tree, not connected to my >family tree as; > >First name: Jane >Last name: Smith >Prefix Title: [NOT my family line] > >This allows this Jane Smith to sort with the >âotherâ Jane Smithâs and yet >will be easily recognizable that this particular Jane is not part of my >family line. It also keeps me aware of who I have researched and determined >to NOT be my family very helpful with some of my families who havve common >surnames such as Smith, Williams, Gibson etc. > >Not saying this is the BEST way, but works well for me. I hope I've >explained my method clearly. It's easy to do, but not nearly as easy to >explain :-) > > >Connie Spindel 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
