We have found several instances where it is clear that a person existed, but so far there has been no evidence of a name or familial relationship. The evidence and anecdotal information is strong enough that we want to put these people into Legacy because if I don't we'll probably lose track of them. And I do expect that sooner or later we'll stumble upon the rest of the facts. So, is there a convention for what to do with the name fields when you don't have even a guess about names, or AKAs?
I know this sounds rather off the wall to folks doing family trees, but I'm involved with a "Community History" project recording 300+ years of people who have lived in town. Legacy is really pretty useful for organizing this data because much of the data is truly the genealogy of a web of families who lived here a long time, intermarried, etc. but these "nameless" individuals are challenging us. -*RcR* * * 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 Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
<<attachment: image002.gif>>
