I agree with many comments about erroneous family trees. A "relative" on Genes Reunited had over 12,000 relatives the last time l looked and it went up rapidly each week. Impossible to have done the research that fast. However, having seen the impossible some of these trees have value as a starting point. I have discovered great hints and connections by looking at the trees, considering the probability factor ( much like Adams Douglas's book Hitchhikers Guide to to Galaxy) then doing my own research. Although the trees aren't accurate they sometimes have useful clues and half truths that lead you to a relative. Researching Pernie, Wood, Lishman, Perry, Charnley, Wilson, Hunter in Lancashire Smith, Perry of Somerset Wood of Derbyshire Noreen Victoria, Canada

I agree, you can get clues on even the bad ones but you just have to be very careful and confirm what you find.  Even the worst are often correct on current generations.   Familysearch.org family tree is free, but it lets other records be added so that you end up with things on your tree that you don't want there, and it isn't easy to remove them.  I'm getting frustrated with that.   In any online tree, the key is to be very careful. On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 09:44:07 -0700 (MST), N NASH via wrote: I agree with many comments about erroneous family trees. A "relative" on Genes Reunited had over 12,000 relatives the last time l looked and it went up rapidly each week. Impossible to have done the research that fast. However, having seen the impossible some of these trees have value as a starting point. I have discovered great hints and connections by looking at the trees, considering the probability factor ( much like Adams Douglas's book Hitchhikers Guide to to Galaxy) then doing my own research. Although the trees aren't accurate they sometimes have useful clues and half truths that lead you to a relative. Noreen Victoria, Canada