On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:59:56 -0000, bobg@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote: >In article <47b851c4.5237220@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, >J. Hugh Sullivan <Eagle@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>Am I chastising a deceased equine? > > Rather. > > That issue of the 5 known candidates for a slot in your tree, and >an unknown number of unknown candidates, is why my annoyance with >software that tries to push conclusions rather than evidence. One >should be able to collect and work with candidates, rather than >having the choice only of 'leave it blank' and 'pick one'. The >candidates, some at least, you may well be able to run a tree >back farther, reliably (for however you define reliability). While >it may turn out that the candidate whose tree you've run back >another 3 generations is not _your_ ancestor, he quite possibly >is _someone's_, so a service to others (if you share your work, >which you've mentioned you don't, but for those who do). > > One ancestor of mine, relatively recent even, prompted my interest >in method of multiple hypotheses (written up by T. C. Chamberlin >for geology in the 1880s) for genealogy. Common first name and >common last name, and was born in a large city/county. About >a dozen candidates. More than I'm going to try to handle without >some support. I don't publish trees. I share one on one or in a small group where I can help. I am working with 5 small groups at present. Any more I discuss theories with a very limited group of people - because they are just theories. I find two current genealogy programs sufficient for my purposes. I track every Sullivan line ( every Sullivan in the census) I can (with lots of help) in VA and NC up to maybe 1850, give or take. I keep each line in a separate data base ready to merge when neessary. I merged two until DNA tests cast some doubt. I write papers, for myself mostly, on theories and the facts that led to my unproven conclusions. That's the method that seems to work for me. Hugh