Does anyone else find it odd that they only usually look at 1/4 or less of the person's family tree? I realize it's hard to fit much into an hour, but I usually am left feeling like the person in question now thinks they know all about their family's history when in fact they've only traced a very small fraction of it. For example Susan Sarandon on the last one. She ends up saying she's from Tuscany. Well, from what we saw we know for sure her grandmother's father was from Tuscany and possibly her grandmother's mother. That's only 1/8 or at most 1/4 of her family history. Perhaps I'm nitpicking too much, but I never say "my family's from Scotland". I say "my Rennie family is from Scotland." To me it just feels like they're disowning/ignoring most of their family history and claiming a small piece as their whole history. Also, I see they tracked down Susan's grandmother's husbands nieces, but did they trace her grandmother's brother and sister, Rita and Joseph Rigali? Seems to me if they have living descendants they should be able to tell her more about Anita. I am a very detail-oriented person, so maybe it's just my neurotic "wanting to know everything" that makes me feel like what they're giving us in the hour isn't as much as it could be. Like how many churches did they have to search in Italy before they found her great-grandfather? Did they even check the naturalization records in the US to see if he said when he came and where he was from? Katie _________________________________________________________________ The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5