I have somewhat of the same quandry publishing in my blog trees for the Blake families. However, I have decided to do it in a limited way using the wills and available BMD/CMB information. When I can link larger branches together with proofs then I will do that otherwise it will just be linked families through wills. I feel that I need to start putting the information together that I have acquired. Injuring my back last summer has rather put me on the sidelines for nearly six months and made me aware that I really should do this in case I find that I can not keep up with genealogy in the future! Elizabeth (Blake) Kipp BA PLCGS Website: http://www.kipp-blake-families.ca/elizabethmain.htm Blog: http://kippeeb.blogspot.ca/ Guild of One Name Studies #4600 (Blake, Pincombe) The Surname Society #1004 (Bedard, Dumoulin, Gregoire, Prevost, Blake, Pincombe, Knight, Rawlings, Cheatle, Butt, Buller, Taylor, Gray, Farmer, Lywood, Rew, Routledge, Welch, Coleman, Lambden, Arnold, Peck, Rowcliffe, Siderfin, Cobb, Beard) On 2015-01-03 11:33 AM, Colin Stevenson via wrote: > It depends on why you want to publish the tree. If you claim it is the > definitive family history you need to be very certain of your facts. At > the other end of the spectrum if it is published as a work in progress > with appropriate caveats then it is a useful research tool for you and > others. Personally I think there is more to gain from 'early ' > publication rather than striving for accuracy. I can see no harm from > publishing a speculative tree provided it is described as such. > > Colin Stevenson (Cavie & Monnington) > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thanks so much to everyone who has replied about publishing family trees. It has inspired me to just go for it, starting with my own family line. I have a wordpress blog (free) that I have added a couple of "pages" to, to make into a limited website. I'm not sure how far I can take it before it gets to the point where I need to pay for webhosting, but for the moment it does me. I added a new page for family trees and intend at the moment to produce basic 3-4 generation charts as .jpegs through legacy charting, and embed these into a kind of blog-type commentary. No doubt it will develop as I go. I'm a bit nervous to promote it still, but biting the bullet, I invite comments on what I have done so far, and on my blog generally. Link is in my signature. Thanks again for all the wonderful supportive advice. Corinne Curtis #5579 http://sennettfamilytree.wordpress.com/ On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Elizabeth Kipp via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I have somewhat of the same quandry publishing in my blog trees for the > Blake families. However, I have decided to do it in a limited way using > the wills and available BMD/CMB information. When I can link larger > branches together with proofs then I will do that otherwise it will just > be linked families through wills. I feel that I need to start putting > the information together that I have acquired. Injuring my back last > summer has rather put me on the sidelines for nearly six months and made > me aware that I really should do this in case I find that I can not keep > up with genealogy in the future! > > Elizabeth (Blake) Kipp BA PLCGS > Website: http://www.kipp-blake-families.ca/elizabethmain.htm > Blog: http://kippeeb.blogspot.ca/ > Guild of One Name Studies #4600 (Blake, Pincombe) > The Surname Society #1004 (Bedard, Dumoulin, Gregoire, Prevost, Blake, Pincombe, Knight, Rawlings, Cheatle, Butt, Buller, Taylor, Gray, Farmer, Lywood, Rew, Routledge, Welch, Coleman, Lambden, Arnold, Peck, Rowcliffe, Siderfin, Cobb, Beard) > > On 2015-01-03 11:33 AM, Colin Stevenson via wrote: >> It depends on why you want to publish the tree. If you claim it is the >> definitive family history you need to be very certain of your facts. At >> the other end of the spectrum if it is published as a work in progress >> with appropriate caveats then it is a useful research tool for you and >> others. Personally I think there is more to gain from 'early ' >> publication rather than striving for accuracy. I can see no harm from >> publishing a speculative tree provided it is described as such. >> >> Colin Stevenson (Cavie & Monnington) >> _____________________________________________ >> >> RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

All my trees are on line except one I have done where I have no relation, except totally speculative to a famous person ( Emily Davison, suffragette) I make no claims of accuracy for them, but I have attached all the citations I have to enable other people to evaluate them, and they are my best efforts. I use ancestry, and in deciding whether to add information from other people's trees I look at how tidy they are, eg no multiple automatically added families with our review, if they have children born ages before their apparent parents or if they have ancestry back before 1600ish I ignore everything in them, if they have photos of relatives closely related to the home person, I tend to believe their close family, and the more citations the better Chris Usher, researching Gilhome - please get in touch if you have ever even met someone with this surname! On Sunday, 4 January 2015, Elizabeth Kipp via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I have somewhat of the same quandry publishing in my blog trees for the > Blake families. However, I have decided to do it in a limited way using > the wills and available BMD/CMB information. When I can link larger > branches together with proofs then I will do that otherwise it will just > be linked families through wills. I feel that I need to start putting > the information together that I have acquired. Injuring my back last > summer has rather put me on the sidelines for nearly six months and made > me aware that I really should do this in case I find that I can not keep > up with genealogy in the future! > > Elizabeth (Blake) Kipp BA PLCGS > Website: http://www.kipp-blake-families.ca/elizabethmain.htm > Blog: http://kippeeb.blogspot.ca/ > Guild of One Name Studies #4600 (Blake, Pincombe) > The Surname Society #1004 (Bedard, Dumoulin, Gregoire, Prevost, Blake, > Pincombe, Knight, Rawlings, Cheatle, Butt, Buller, Taylor, Gray, Farmer, > Lywood, Rew, Routledge, Welch, Coleman, Lambden, Arnold, Peck, Rowcliffe, > Siderfin, Cobb, Beard) > > On 2015-01-03 11:33 AM, Colin Stevenson via wrote: > > It depends on why you want to publish the tree. If you claim it is the > > definitive family history you need to be very certain of your facts. At > > the other end of the spectrum if it is published as a work in progress > > with appropriate caveats then it is a useful research tool for you and > > others. Personally I think there is more to gain from 'early ' > > publication rather than striving for accuracy. I can see no harm from > > publishing a speculative tree provided it is described as such. > > > > Colin Stevenson (Cavie & Monnington) > > _____________________________________________ > > > >