Avoid Mistakes When Adding PEOPLE to Ancestry Family Tree

[@shelleymonson8750]

Re adding parents of spouses, I usually do this, because in my mother’s family, there is a lot of tree collapse. I add those parents, because sooner or later, I’m going to find another marriage to that same surname, and having their parents names is a head start on finding out if these two spouses are related to each other. This has happened repeatedly.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

That's definitely a valid reason to add the extra persons. I wish to stress the point I made in the video, Be Thoughtful about who you're adding to the tree so that you do not distract yourself from your research goals. If you have found tree collapse and the need to add groups from a specific time and place to your tree, that's a thoughtful reason to add those folks to your tree. Is it not?

[@shelleymonson8750]

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Indeed. I rarely go further than the parents unless I need to find out if their children are related; usually after the third time the surname surfaces!

[@RudyRamsey]

I also add the spouses, though not the children. But I do it because I frequently find myself wanting to research the spouses, or at least look at the hints, in order to get a better handle on the person they’re the spouse of (couldn’t think of a better way to say this. :) ).

[@ArdenAngel]

My family has overwhelming lived in the same small geographic area for more than 150 years so I add every relative and their relatives - even parents of cousin's spouses. This has helped me close gaps and break down barriers. I have one large tree with lots of rabbit holes which I enjoy researching as a break from times of difficult research. Also, FTM has a duplicate person finder tool.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

You're research makes sense to have one tree.

[@JasonTHutchinson]

Sometimes there is more than 1 person out there with the same exact name, born in the same place and time period. I typically take everyone in the census record, and then go back and merge the profiles if they are the same person. When you do a merge in Ancestry, it saves the other name as an alternate fact automatically so both names are still there. It can be a real pain to unmerge someone if you accidentally merged the wrong people so I only merge people when I am certain they are the same. Sometimes there are people in the family with the same or similar names. I have seen it on a few different occasions where one of the children named died young and the same parents have another baby with the same name. I try to find birth records first to see if the dates are the same. If they are off days, weeks or a couple of months, that could be caused by a clerical error. When birth records are not found, a christening date may be used instead. If you happen to find an earlier DOB, then that may be the actual birth date. The same goes for death dates. You may see 3 different death dates for a person, which can be the actual date of death, the burial date, or the probate date. One other thing that may be confusing is that the month and day are the same, but the year is off by 1. I'm not sure what causes that, but it is fairly common, especially when researching pre-1800 people. Another thing to be aware of is old style dates. Some people had different dates of birth depending whether or not they were born when the Julian calendar was still in use. When the Gregorian calendar was adopted, the calendar was actually moved ahead several days so you may run into old style dates on some very old gravestones.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Thanks for sharing all of your thoughts. From my understanding of the Genealogy Proof Standard, we should - analysis and correlation of the collected information; - resolution of any conflicting evidence; and - write a soundly reasoned and coherent conclusion. Thus when we put forth our family tree, put forth the likely date, place, fact, and relationships that form our conclusion. We should mention the other dates, places, facts, and relationships that are in conflict and discuss why they are not the most likely answer. So, if we have a research tree that is private and has all of the dates and facts you've mentioned, that's fine. When we share our findings with others, it is my understanding and recommendation that we need to finish the genealogy research process and share our conclusions. Is that not your understanding of the genealogy proof standard?

[@JasonTHutchinson]

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics I don't disagree with that. There definitely is a science to genealogy. My late uncle was researching our family and was only able to get so far using traditional methods. I have had some success with DNA testing.

[@joonzville]

I’m so glad you brought up not adding the spouses of more distant relatives! I stopped doing that a couple of years after I started at Ancestry when I realized how massive and unwieldy the tree would become. I still run across those I did add early on and remove them.

[@shamusosullivan5650]

The benefit of adding spouses of more distant relatives is that it’s a good way to quickly check relationships for even more distant family in fan system. Especially if common names in old records. Having that spouse name in there can offer a quick search of that name to see if it’s the same family that could be from the same area or the same area your family member was from before they moved there.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Joonzville... I mention this for those who want to target and be efficient in their research and projects. That doesn't mean we NEVER expand the family tree to the more distant relatives. On the contrary, when a need to expand the family tree to add friends, neighbors, and extended family is warranted, I advocate expanding the family tree. However, if we constantly add 'everyone' into 'our tree,' many people become distracted by distant relatives rather than progressing on their desired projects and objectives forward. Since Ancestry has a limited free family tree or requires a subscription, I suggest people put all the 'extra' relatives on a free tree-building website like FamilySearch or WikiTree. That way, you're spending our genealogy budget wisely while also taking advantage of the connections that might happen through distant relatives that folks like Shamus mentions in his comments.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Shamus, I do not disagree that when a genealogy research project warrants adding the extended relationship that they can help. However, since Ancestry has a limited number of people that you can add to a free account or it costs several hundred dollars for the subscription, people should be thoughtful about who they are adding to their Ancestry family tree. However, FamilySearch and Wiki Tree are free tree-building platforms that can help people track their Cluster and F.A.N. Club members until they are needed within an Ancestry project. But, the main purpose of asking people to slow down when adding new people to the tree is to invite them to be thoughtful rather than careless. For those who want everyone in one tree and they are being thoughtful about it, there really isn't anything that's in disagreement. Is there?

[@ValorieZimmerman]

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Is this a new Ancestry policy? Last time I checked, there was no limit on free family trees on Ancestry; only on MyHeritage.

[@mysticalmatt4130]

@@ValorieZimmerman Hi there, no I don't believe anyone is saying anything about this being a policy. It's more a courtesy not to have multiple versions of identical trees. A friend of mine has 6 versions of a tree listing himself, his parents and grandparents. Six identical versions. I don't think he even knows he's got them there, and every time he returns to do his tree he starts a new one.

[@d.t.r.8036]

One reason I had for adding and exploring the in-laws, etc is that I was finding where more than one blood kin of mine would wind up marrying into the same family tree of in-laws. Things got out of hand over time so now I'm doing it ONLY when I see an in-law surname that catches my attention as being one that I've seen before (actually helped solve a DNA match mystery because of that practice --- an adoptee matched two different branches of my tree & it was only when I saw a familiar surname from branch#1 show up as an in-law in branch#2 that the adoptee started to make sense in my tree) My current practice is to immediately "ignore" any hints (from the show all hints interface) that are put forth for someone that ancestry says is an "in-law" because I know if I have reason later to suspect a situation like above, I can always find the ignored hints on the person's profile page.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts about how you're staying focused. One tip: Use FamilySearch to track those extended family lines to continue finding the interconnectivity. That way you're Ancestry tree is super focused but you're saving research that may be relevant later. Plus, you can do Random Acts of Genealogy Kindness. Something I mention in this video kzbin.infoiCs2tx5fEKU

[@Elke_KB]

Generally, the only time I add spouses parents is if there are siblings who also married into the family, but I don't include other extended family. That being said, I do have some extras on my tree because they have some historical/famous connections. Eventually I would like to move them off. The tree I'm working on right now is a large family. Loyalist settlers, the families all inter-married so a lot of similar names (even found a possible connection to my husband's family, small world). I'm being so much more methodical in how I build this tree compared to when I started my own. It's paying off. After I do add my research, I compare to other family trees. I've noticed a lot of lazy people, no birth/death dates even though they have a profile picture that shows the dates, maiden names missing, when again, it's right there in the documents, half the siblings missing or names that are obviously wrong. I'm proud that I've been able to build such a comprehensive tree so far.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

I am so proud of you for the level of confidence you're striving for in your research. I love your statement "I am being so much more methodical in how I build this tree compared to when I started my own." The point of this video was to invite people to slow down and be as thoughtful and methodical as you. I pointed out places were people tend to get into trouble as their adding sources to their family trees. Hopefully, videos like these will reduce some of the errors we make when we're new to genealogy or just careless.

[@eldoen]

I originally inherited my family tree, from a mostly undocumented. as I started to fill in the documentation. since I came from mostly offline work to Ancestry about the time That The Master Genealogist stopped prodction, (was on before but mostly for research) that work in documenting my inherited tree, led into a issue of Newspaper Articles and my Husemann family, an article listed a person with my 3rd Great Grandfather's name, this led into the Rabbit hole of figuring out that there were 6 Untrelated Huseman(n) families in my county and surrounding county, with that I started tracing at least 3 generations on in law families. for two reasons. several familes married between the Husemann families, seperating those in laws also helped to seperate when Husemann family it was (I swear, I can see the meeting of the elder Ladies laying out that the names for the children need to be in this order for the year they were born) I did make it back to Germany recently and those 6 Unrelated families are now down to 3.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Wow! That's a lot of work. So glad you have had as much success as you have had thus far. Way to go to recognize that when we inherit family trees we should validate what we're given. People are human and make mistakes so we're not ungrateful for the work that has gone before. At the same time, we validate what prior researchers have found thanks to all the available records found online.

[@Salamon2]

That all said, I don't mind going down rabbit holes as I trace out cousins because that's usually how I find other living cousins to connect with and compare notes. Typically that cousin has information I need on a part of the tree my family wasn't as connected to, so it's usually a win-win.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

I wish I had time for rabbit trails. 😔😑 I suppose that's why I keep rabbit trails in a platform like FamilySearch or WikiTree. That way, when I'm trying to be focused, I can keep my Ancestry account targeted on specific research projects.

[@fyreflye100]

Who gets put on my family tree...1) Ancestors (duh), 2) Other spouses of my ancestors if they were married more than once, 3) All siblings and half-siblings of my ancestors 4) All legal spouses of my aunts/uncles/cousins, 5) Any children they had, biological or adopted. Who does NOT get in the family tree...1) Parents of spouses, 2) Other spouses of spouses, 3) Other children the spouses may have had -- e.g. step-siblings of my blood relatives, 4) Romantic partners where there was no marriage and no children, 5) Close friends.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Perfect!

[@jdeang3531]

Staying focused and adding siblings is a double edge sword. Siblings can assist in identifying the mother’s maiden name if it is used as a name of a child. I sometimes will add children and later delete them. Some of my ancestors were prolific with over 10 kids.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Thanks for being honest about the double edge sword nature of adding siblings and such.

[@jeslookn5470]

I like the way you explain what you're doing. Very important advise. My tree is not a typical family tree. It's about pioneer settlers and their families. Mildred or Dilly could have already been in my tree as a wife. I would have added the boarders to see where they lead too. It's very interesting to me to see how these families married into every other pioneer family. There were not that many people during the 1800s. The town I'm working on has no cities of villages. Just hamlets. It's all rural farmlands.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

You've created a project tree. The guidelines for what you do or don't include would be different than what others add. But all valid. Thanks for sharing. Good luck with your work.

[@jeslookn5470]

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Yes. It is a project. I'm retired and it keeps my mind busy. I get everything I can from ancestry and newspaper articles. The newspaper articles confirm what I get from ancestry. I taught myself how to design electronic circuits and printed circuit boards and use that thought process to research and document people on ancestry like a math test. Show your work so others know where I got the information I have.

[@MikeDial]

Good suggestions. I also learned how to properly add nicknames to a person.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Perfect! Glad I could help.

[@suzannemcclendon]

My main tree is also my DNA match research tree. I have all sorts of people in it that don't need to ultimately be in it, but they need to be there for now. I also have a biological pedigree tree. It will likely end up being my main tree eventually, without all of the in-laws of in-laws that the current main tree has. In regards to nicknames, although I sometimes use the alternate name feature, I usually put the nickname in the suffix field in quotation marks. I was told that Ancestry ignores the suffix field, so I can see the nickname at a glance and not freak out Ancestry's search engines. Thanks for another great video, Devon!

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Regarding who you put in your tree, if you're conscientious of why you're putting them in your tree, then that's being thoughtful and not creating a mess. Unfortunately, people just keep collecting people without reason and then they wonder why they are not making progress on their genealogy research. They are doing work on the 'rabbit trail' lines rather than their main research projects. I try to help people stay focused, which is why we should all stop and think, "Do I really need this person in my family tree?" Yep. Ancestry ignores the suffix field. However, I strive to have a tree that can transfer between platforms with ease. So, I leave the suffix field free and clear of anything other than Jr, Sr, III, etc. Nickname fields transfer between databases and other online platforms more easily, so that's why I ignore platform by platform recommendations and stick to what can be transferred universally. Does that make sense? Just something to think about.

[@suzannemcclendon]

I didn’t realize that using the suffix field as a notepad, more or less, would cause problems with the gedcoms, so thank you for letting me know this! I will try to remember to use the alternate name field instead for nicknames and custom filters for the other things that I have been putting in the suffix field. Have a blessed day!

[@denisewhite1426]

Since virtually all of my great-grandparents came to the country from Ireland or Germany, I started with them and took an approach of "down and out" - I add their children and their spouses, then all of their children and their spouses, etc. I don't add family members of spouses who married into the family, with two exceptions. One of my father's aunts married a man with the same last name, and both of their fathers had the same name and came from Ireland. I see these families mixed up and in different combinations in lots of other trees, so I made sure to include the other couple as the groom's parents to show that they were two different people, and whose spouse was which. The other is my mother's stepmother, who raised her and I was close to as a child; I wanted her family included in my tree, too. Luckily, I haven't had to merge people too often, but sometimes one creeps in, lol. I don't know if it was one of your videos, or Ancestry's, but a tip was to look at the alphabetical list of people on your tree to try to identify duplicates. Also very useful for checking location formats, because it's so easy to accept one that doesn't fit your preferred format. Thanks for another great video!

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Down and out is perhaps what is called descendancy research. That's a valid and thoughtful approach to adding people to a family tree. And I love how you have a standard regarding not adding the family of the married ins with the exception you provided. That sounds extremely well thought out and you've met the standard I invite people to consider. I think someone else gave you the look for duplicates by the surname list. However, I often find that duplicates are buried under different surnames. The larger your family tree, the more surname approach doesn't work alone. But it's a great starting point to be sure. I'm glad you liked the location tips that I provided. I would prefer people not to need to watch my cleaning up place name series if they can stop it at the onset. Thanks for the feedback and conversation.

[@gracierose3076]

This new AI format is driving me up a wall. I have seen so many mistakes already and I have been doing this for two days now. I want to add an aunt on my mom's side of the family, not one tree so far has added her. I know her well and am shocked that others have not added her. I did write a note to a spot that said something like is this correct. Not sure of the wording and not sure it got to the right place. How do I add her? ... Also I'm having problems with the mistakes I made. You make it look so easy. I don't know how to correct things yet. I want to quit already but my husband gifted this to me. I know it is expensive. I already had an account and had to start all over. They charged me full price on this special and should have put me back onto my other tree.

[@shamusosullivan5650]

Agree with adding people but having to be really careful merging in ancestry. It’s such a pain But I do believe it’s for the better of all names known are added on a forum like ancestry. As long as you have your citations. It’s better to have them for a later time if another reference of the spouses name comes up from long ago when the families could have been traveling together from Europe to US or more likely from initial groupings of families would migrate across early US together. Many times I’ve found that other family’s name in another source and searched tree to find that spouse which led to the generation before’s location for both families.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

There are two camps of thought One Tree to Rule Them All or Targeted Research Projects. Since I strive to not be distracted by a large number of individuals, but instead focused on targeted projects, I believe in having trees that are targeted in nature on a paid subscription site. I prefer to put the 'they might be related to me and I'll figure out it later' folks on places like FamilySearch or WikiTree. I can tap in to them at a later date and perhaps others have contributed to the body of research while I'm working on focused projects. But which ever approach someone takes, it's important to be thoughtful about what you're doing. And, to ensure we're also not adding duplicate profiles for single individuals.

[@joek5205]

Two things I do: Never, never, never, never add directly from someone else's tree. Look at the original document. For example, the censuses and do not assume the transcription/spelling is correct. You can add so much more info Ancestry sometime does or doesn't include in the 'record'; occupations, name of employer, actual street residence, actual date of census (those that have them)...and clues as to who's in the household or no longer (did they die, marry and move out, etc.) And did I mention never add directly from someone else's tree!

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

You did a good job of stating never add things from someone else's tree. Trust but verify is a great adage.

[@JT1358]

Phew - not just me then?! Verify everything. I would also say if you do decide to copy from existing trees, be very wary of those with thousands of people in - most likely not thoroughly researched (it takes a lot of time to do it thoroughly) and so probably riddled with errors. Leave well alone.

[@Salamon2]

I typically add parents of spouses because that's one way of determining who someone exactly was in a few centuries down the line. Especially if tracing a maternal line. I don't add a spouse's siblings, just their parents. And older family bibles and such would do the same thing by listing the parents of a spouse, so my rationale is I am continuing that trend. I can't say how much my butt has been saved in historical research by that tradition so I carry it forward for future members of the family.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Thanks for sharing your reasonings for who you add to your family tree. I like that you have a basis for who you add and a limit for how far you go out. And I like the element of tradition. You can't fault that.

[@BettyCarterFan]

Great vids! Very helpful for newbies ❤ I’ve come across a grandchild listed in an early census. Should you add them as a new person even though you don’t know the parent at that point? I’ve been skipping it and keeping a note for later… just in case. What would be the best practice?

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

If the person is a relative, I add them to my tree. If they're a boarder, servant, or other 'non-relative' in the home, I don't add them unless they're needed for additional research.

[@BettyCarterFan]

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Understood. But, will they come over as a GRANDCHILD? Or, will they come over as a child and then EDIT the RELATIONSHIP? That's what I'm thinking... thanks in advance!

[@kirstenh8839]

I never add parents of spouses. When putting alternate names of a person I use the tab "Name" insted of "Also known as". Then you see the alternate name on the top of the page insted of the bottom of the page.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

I know many people do that. However, unless you use the Suffix field for the alternative names, Ancestry has advised that this practice messes up the search algorithms. Just something to consider. Additionally, when sharing a personal tree to a collaborative one, the personal preferences becomes difficult to manage quickly. That's another thought to consider.

[@pattythompson1739]

I have researched a family line for twenty-five years and have nearly 25,000 linked names in my FTM. So you can say I have been down the rabbit hole a long time. At my age, definitely my winter years , I want to put all the information on Ancestry for all to share. I don't necessarily want all my notes in my Ancestry tree. Any advice?

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

I don't know how to not upload notes from FTM to Ancestry. That might be a Makiev (the software developer of FTM) question. Sorry.

[@celticbelle4004]

If I followed this advice, I would not have found connections to the Salem Witch Trials, William Clark of the Lewis and Clark expedition, three US presidents, an many other interesting connections.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Which advice? The advice to be thoughtful of who you add to your family tree? Or the advice to be careful that you do not add duplicates to your family tree? Are you taking issue that I invite you to not add people that you're actively researching to your family tree so you do not go on rabbit trails? If you are being thoughtful about who you add to your family tree, then you're following my advice, are you not?

[@whychromosomesmusic5766]

I ONLY add people manually. If I find new persons in a census at Ancestry I look at the "Suggested Records" column and carefully go through each one comparing data to have a better determination if they are the same person in that particular census (or other record). Sometimes they are not. I mostly do surname research so I will probably add them to that surname research report anyway even if they are not my specific family ;-) It may be helpful to another researcher. In fact I am so often doing surname research (or in the case of Italian research -- location research of ALL surnames) more than adding to my online family trees these days anyway. ;-) Or continuing my online Italian language lessons. It all helps.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Thanks for contributing to the conversation. I don't discount the convivence of adding someone from the source linker page but I can see the value in your reasons for not doing it. I also see the value of one tree with all surnames from a particular location.

[@whychromosomesmusic5766]

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics They are reports with all surnames. Not trees. Such as "Marriages of Prascorsano, 1823-1830" which includes ALL marriages with the date, name of the groom and name of the bride. Those are in a notebook. Or reports like specific surnames of interest (Baker, Beckwith...Chandler...Tubbs, etc.) in "Death Records of Kane County, Illinois" in Word reports that have specific templates of information for each person taken from the microfilms of the death records themselves. Putting these in trees would be massively more time consuming and probably not productive. Other reports are kept in spiral notebooks with columns and rows of information: "Lindsay/Lindsey Marriages of Jefferson County, Alabama," "Deaths of Cullman County, Alabama," etc. I generally use the "official" registers first rather than searchable databases created by Family Search, Ancestry, etc. But for years where there are NOT official registers I will supplement them with those databases. I cannot say that I am ever bored. ;-)

[@beowulfwheeler2580]

I try to add the parents of someone I’m researching spouse. For example, my cousins spouse. I would add their parents and any relevant information I can quickly find, not a detailed search for them. My rationale is, in the future someone reviewing my tree might really be researching this spouse or someone with the same/ near the same info. Having the parent info helps them or I to quickly determine ne isolate correct people.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

That's a great strategy. Just be careful not to get to far down these rabbit holes. But if you keep to the standard that you outlined, I think you're on the right path.

[@staceycoates1418]

I find it so much easier to merge from the record instead of merging two people.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

I so agree. Catching the details from the record view can prevent so many mistakes.

[@susanscheffel5008]

You overlooked what may be important info on the census. One of the individuals was listed on the census as being born in Arizona but your record shows New Mexico territory. No comment from you. You offer no sources for Dilly being Mildred other than your word. Dilly's record has no facts listed at all. Why would you claim Dilly and Mildred are the same person? Don't you need records showing the same birth dates or spouses or something before claiming they are the same person? Couldn't you have added the name Mildred Moss as an alternate name so you didn't need to re-add the name Dilly? Then you just make Mildred the preferred name. Why was Austin Parker Moss even added to your tree if you had no sources to back up the name and birth date/place? Where did his name come from so we know that Austin C and Austin Parker are the same person? It seems to me that many mistakes were made in this video that do not advance your stated reason for making this video.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

This is a part two from the previous video that had the sources and explained the New Mexico Territory issue. I wanted to focus on one thing at a time so as to keep people focused on the principle discussed in the video. Plus, when I make videos too long, people don't watch them. So, check out this video with the source and the location name issue. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nImphausmbGUj6M

[@susanscheffel5008]

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics I apologize for the rudeness of my first post, that was out of line. Why did you remove the source info? Why didn't you mention this was a part 2? I still maintain that if you are trying to teach about duplicate people in a tree and not making mistakes, then Dilly needed some facts and sources to indicate she was the same person as Mildred. Otherwise it seems like Mildred just replaced Dilly. I will put parts of families in my tree that have no relationship to me. For instance, when researching family A I discover that 2 or more siblings from that family married siblings from family B. In this case I will add the parents of the siblings from family B but not other children.

[@uptoncriddington6939]

Don’t add the roomers unless you prove that the rumours are right!

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Ha, ha. So true!