> Most GEDCOM files from RootsWeb are next to worthless as they have > either no sources or the only sources are other gedcoms (which > usually have no sources). > > RootsWeb would do the world a favor if it deleted every Gedcom with > no sources or other gedcoms for sources. What would be left would > at least serve as a somewhat usable cluefinder to actual sourced > information. > > It would also serve to discourage name collectors and focus on > actual genealogical research. > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> For serious research you are correct. The gedcom files generally are only useful in suggesting where to search. (with some excellent exceptions). The majority of my ancestry never shows up because they were the "100 acres & a mule" type of country people who left few, if any, records. In addition the records that they did leave were burned when the courthouse burned or when the Union army came through Virginia. Ancestry has been very useful to me though, because having hit brick walls in all my US lines I am now looking at far out possibilities. Like a lot of other Virginians, I was told I was descended from Pocahontas. I thought it highly unlikely until I did the math. If you assume 30 years for each generation and a slowly declining birth rate the numbers I come up with are: 1. John Bolling and Mary Kennon had 6 children. 2 Next generation born 1730-60 had 6 children or 36 grandchildren 3. Born 1760-90 had 5 children or 180 great grandchildren 4. Born 1790-1820 had 5 children or 900 gggc 5. Born 1820-1850 had 4 children or 3,600 ggggc 6. Born 1850-1880 had 4 children or 14,400 gggggc 7. Born 1880-1910 had 4 children or 57,600 ggggggc 8. Born 1910-1940 had 3 children or 172,800 gggggggc 9. Born 1940-1970 had 3 children or 518,400 ggggggggc 10. Born 1970-2000 had 2 children or 1,036,800 gggggggggc 11. Born 2000-2030 had 2 children or 2,073,600 ggggggggggc That is a lot of cousins! I do tend to think that if you don't research original records or verifiable sources you are not researching you are just accumulating. Paulette "Paulette Smith" <[email protected]>