On 27/08/2014 18:20, Jane Sarles wrote: > I have an ancestor from early Virginia, Timothy Redding. He is found > in early records along with others, Francis, John, William, Arthur, > etc. Their relationship is not named and there is no clue as to what > it may be. I know that I can put those other guys in as unlinked > people, but they will not show up when I study my data and am trying > to fit clues together as to who Timothy's parents or brothers are. > Am I correct in thinking that it is not possible to have the other > Redding men to show up in family view or individual chart (which is > what I use to do my major work and thought.) If they are in as > 'unlinked"? I seldom think to go to the list of unlinked people to > compare with data I am discovering as I research. > > Wondering how others handle this? > I do occasionally add unlinked people if I think they do belong *somewhere* but I would never add them as someone's relatives unless I was fairly sure they belonged there. There's too much scope for errors getting propagated that way. If an individual is unlinked then I know immediately there's more work to be done there. I would add a Research Note to my known relative to indicate that he may be linked to X, Y and Z. Probably also add a To Do to research those possible relationships specifically.
-- Jenny M Benson 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
