Cleaning the Augean Stables

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Cleaning the Augean Stables

Dave Hamilton

For over fifty years I have dabbled with various pieces of genealogy software and dabbled with recording my family tree and history using that software. Now in retirement I have discovered GRAMPS and found a little time to pursue my pursuit. Along the way I have accumulated the names of some 6000 people and 2000 families, a lot of them from various bulk loaded GEDCOMs. However, for most them I do NOT have any form of verification as to why they are there.

 

I am considering doing a major clean-up and getting rid of stuff for which I do not have a reasonable proof for its retention and so, the questions.

 

Firstly, should I? Should I just retain it all in the database and gradually add the proof that is lacking – at least it would be a starting point.

 

If I should clean the stables, how? Obviously, I take a GRAMPS readable backup so I’ve got the detail when I find Charlie Teevan in 1790’s Scotland really was part of the family, but then what? How do I get rid of the unverified data? Methods that spring to mind are filters on data without sources. Or tagging of direct ancestors/descendants and then removal of the untagged.

 

Or as the most radical option, simply start again!

 

Any suggestions and/or recommendations as the what to do as well as what not to do would be most appreciated.

Cheers

Dave

 

 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cleaning the Augean Stables

Craig Treleaven
On Jul 17, 2018, at 8:04 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

For over fifty years I have dabbled with various pieces of genealogy software and dabbled with recording my family tree and history using that software. Now in retirement I have discovered GRAMPS and found a little time to pursue my pursuit. Along the way I have accumulated the names of some 6000 people and 2000 families, a lot of them from various bulk loaded GEDCOMs. However, for most them I do NOT have any form of verification as to why they are there.
 
I am considering doing a major clean-up and getting rid of stuff for which I do not have a reasonable proof for its retention and so, the questions.
 
Firstly, should I? Should I just retain it all in the database and gradually add the proof that is lacking – at least it would be a starting point.
 
If I should clean the stables, how? Obviously, I take a GRAMPS readable backup so I’ve got the detail when I find Charlie Teevan in 1790’s Scotland really was part of the family, but then what? How do I get rid of the unverified data? Methods that spring to mind are filters on data without sources. Or tagging of direct ancestors/descendants and then removal of the untagged.
 
Or as the most radical option, simply start again!
 
Any suggestions and/or recommendations as the what to do as well as what not to do would be most appreciated.

So far, how much wrong information have you found?  If you have found multiple errors where large lines have been connected to your tree based on bad assumptions, you might be best to start fresh.  OTOH, if you have only very occasionally found dubious information, you will probably want to keep what you have and fill in sources that verify its accuracy.

Craig


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cleaning the Augean Stables

Dave Scheipers
In reply to this post by Dave Hamilton
Hi Dave

I too have a lot of records that I imported from GEDCOMs in the early
days of the internet. When I migrated to Gramps, I started the process
of documenting what I have.  I did not do any bulk deletes but will
(and have) deleted people when I cannot find any information. More
often than not I find that the person did not marry the spouse I have
them with but it was another cousin they married. More often than not
I find that John Smith did marry Nancy Doe. But is it MY Nancy Doe and
who is John Smith.

Don't know is this helped, Dave

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:04 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> For over fifty years I have dabbled with various pieces of genealogy
> software and dabbled with recording my family tree and history using that
> software. Now in retirement I have discovered GRAMPS and found a little time
> to pursue my pursuit. Along the way I have accumulated the names of some
> 6000 people and 2000 families, a lot of them from various bulk loaded
> GEDCOMs. However, for most them I do NOT have any form of verification as to
> why they are there.
>
>
>
> I am considering doing a major clean-up and getting rid of stuff for which I
> do not have a reasonable proof for its retention and so, the questions.
>
>
>
> Firstly, should I? Should I just retain it all in the database and gradually
> add the proof that is lacking – at least it would be a starting point.
>
>
>
> If I should clean the stables, how? Obviously, I take a GRAMPS readable
> backup so I’ve got the detail when I find Charlie Teevan in 1790’s Scotland
> really was part of the family, but then what? How do I get rid of the
> unverified data? Methods that spring to mind are filters on data without
> sources. Or tagging of direct ancestors/descendants and then removal of the
> untagged.
>
>
>
> Or as the most radical option, simply start again!
>
>
>
> Any suggestions and/or recommendations as the what to do as well as what not
> to do would be most appreciated.
>
> Cheers
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cleaning the Augean Stables

Doug-11
In reply to this post by Dave Hamilton
On 18/07/18 02:04, [hidden email] wrote:

For over fifty years I have dabbled with various pieces of genealogy software and dabbled with recording my family tree and history using that software. Now in retirement I have discovered GRAMPS and found a little time to pursue my pursuit. Along the way I have accumulated the names of some 6000 people and 2000 families, a lot of them from various bulk loaded GEDCOMs. However, for most them I do NOT have any form of verification as to why they are there.

 

I am considering doing a major clean-up and getting rid of stuff for which I do not have a reasonable proof for its retention and so, the questions.

 

Firstly, should I? Should I just retain it all in the database and gradually add the proof that is lacking – at least it would be a starting point.

 

If I should clean the stables, how? Obviously, I take a GRAMPS readable backup so I’ve got the detail when I find Charlie Teevan in 1790’s Scotland really was part of the family, but then what? How do I get rid of the unverified data? Methods that spring to mind are filters on data without sources. Or tagging of direct ancestors/descendants and then removal of the untagged.

 

Or as the most radical option, simply start again!

 

Any suggestions and/or recommendations as the what to do as well as what not to do would be most appreciated.

Cheers

Dave

 

 

I'd suggest not being too radical - you might discover later something you remember discarding was actually OK but you've now lost the associated information.

How about just marking stuff you're uncertain about with a coloured tag for 'unverified' or 'dubious'? It's obvious enough then in the appropriate view.
You can deal with that stuff as you become definitely able to accept or junk it as you go along.

Doug

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cleaning the Augean Stables

Harvey Nimmo
On Wed, 2018-07-18 at 10:00 +0200, Doug wrote:
On 18/07/18 02:04, [hidden email] wrote:

For over fifty years I have dabbled with various pieces of genealogy software and dabbled with recording my family tree and history using that software. Now in retirement I have discovered GRAMPS and found a little time to pursue my pursuit. Along the way I have accumulated the names of some 6000 people and 2000 families, a lot of them from various bulk loaded GEDCOMs. However, for most them I do NOT have any form of verification as to why they are there.

 

I am considering doing a major clean-up and getting rid of stuff for which I do not have a reasonable proof for its retention and so, the questions.

 

Firstly, should I? Should I just retain it all in the database and gradually add the proof that is lacking – at least it would be a starting point.

 

If I should clean the stables, how? Obviously, I take a GRAMPS readable backup so I’ve got the detail when I find Charlie Teevan in 1790’s Scotland really was part of the family, but then what? How do I get rid of the unverified data? Methods that spring to mind are filters on data without sources. Or tagging of direct ancestors/descendants and then removal of the untagged.

 

Or as the most radical option, simply start again!

 

Any suggestions and/or recommendations as the what to do as well as what not to do would be most appreciated.

Cheers

Dave

 

 

I'd suggest not being too radical - you might discover later something you remember discarding was actually OK but you've now lost the associated information.

How about just marking stuff you're uncertain about with a coloured tag for 'unverified' or 'dubious'? It's obvious enough then in the appropriate view.
You can deal with that stuff as you become definitely able to accept or junk it as you go along.

Doug

I would endorse Doug's suggestion.....unless you remember not being too rigorously accurate when entering the data at the time. 
It can be hard work unravelling the consequences of false clues.

Cheers
Harvey

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cleaning the Augean Stables

Martnal
Dave, (Hamilton),
(Only slightly tongue in  cheek,) I started seriously on my family history
three years ago.  I set out purely to find the source of my grandfather's
middle name.  I found out that, by way of a family deception, he was
actually my great grandfather.  I now realise that, with 900 names,  and 250
marriages recorded, I only need one female ancestor to have been a bit
adventurous in her social life to jeopardise a significant part of the whole
tree.

Going back more than 5 or 6 generations introduces inevitable
"genealogist-confusing social adventuring".  Start again from scratch.

Martin



-----
Martin, SW London

My Gedmatch DNA Kit# is H062246

I am using GrampsAIO64-4.2.6-1 on Windows 10.

Names: Loughborough and Loughbrough, (London, Hull, Pirton and Hartlepool), Watson, (Bedlington, Jarrow & H'pool), Ballard & Glassop (E. London),  Leggett (Corton, Scarborough, Hartlepool, & Barnington, Yorks.)  Young & Wilson, (Hartlepool).  I use GRAMPS 4.2.6 software.
--
Sent from: http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/GRAMPS-User-f1807095.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Martin, SW London

My Gedmatch DNA Kit# is H062246

I am using GrampsAIO64-4.2.6-1 on Windows 10.

Names: Loughborough and Loughbrough, (London, Hull, Pirton and Hartlepool), Watson, (Bedlington, Jarrow & H'pool), Ballard & Glassop (E. London),  Leggett (Corton, Scarborough, Hartlepool, & Barnington, Yorks.)  Young & Wilson, (Hartlepool).  I use GRAMPS 4.2.6 software.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cleaning the Augean Stables

Philip Weiss
In reply to this post by Dave Hamilton
I found it was more accurate to start over with a clean tree. I only added things for which I have solid documentation. It made it so undocumented stuff didn't stay in my tree "until I get to it later."

This does not mean that I deleted the old tree. I just treated it like I do trees I find online. Look at it, pull the documentation from it, if there is no documentation then find some, etc.

Note that this was a significant effort. I'd only been researching my family for 2 years when I started with a clean tree in the fall of 2012. I didn't finish copying over the stuff from the first tree until spring of 2017.

I've also found that my database has better information if I work in a source/citation first process. Take the record or document I have, save it to the hard drive, create a citation (and a source if I don't already have that), then create or find the events/names/relationships that these citations support.

Philip

On Jul 17 2018, at 5:04 pm, [hidden email] wrote:

For over fifty years I have dabbled with various pieces of genealogy software and dabbled with recording my family tree and history using that software. Now in retirement I have discovered GRAMPS and found a little time to pursue my pursuit. Along the way I have accumulated the names of some 6000 people and 2000 families, a lot of them from various bulk loaded GEDCOMs. However, for most them I do NOT have any form of verification as to why they are there.

 

I am considering doing a major clean-up and getting rid of stuff for which I do not have a reasonable proof for its retention and so, the questions.

 

Firstly, should I? Should I just retain it all in the database and gradually add the proof that is lacking – at least it would be a starting point.

 

If I should clean the stables, how? Obviously, I take a GRAMPS readable backup so I’ve got the detail when I find Charlie Teevan in 1790’s Scotland really was part of the family, but then what? How do I get rid of the unverified data? Methods that spring to mind are filters on data without sources. Or tagging of direct ancestors/descendants and then removal of the untagged.

 

Or as the most radical option, simply start again!

 

Any suggestions and/or recommendations as the what to do as well as what not to do would be most appreciated.

Cheers

Dave

 

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cleaning the Augean Stables

Simon C. Tremblay
In reply to this post by Dave Hamilton
Hi Dave,

I was in a situation similar to yours. I started 4 years ago with a gedcom that my aunt created and a paper fanchart from a cousin.  I decided to not start from scratch and instead validate in a structured way, all the info in my tree.  Before tackling anything, I attended a genealogy class and that was quite helpful in knowing what to do.

So first, establish what would be a sufficient proof for you.  That will vary depending where you're doing your research, mostly because the info available will vary. Here in Quebec, we are lucky enough to have an almost complete set of church records all the way back to 1628ish that include Baptisms, Marriages and Sepultures (Interment?) that were mandated by the Roman Catholic church AND the government. Every RC marriage church record includes the names of the parents of the groom and bride, the mothers being identified by their maiden names. Same goes for a Baptism record, which includes names of both parents (with the maiden name of the mother) and usually the birth date. So to me, I tagged all church records as "authoritative".

Then, In order to establish filiation, I started with my kids as the root and worked backward to find authoritative sources for all marriages. Once I found a marriage church record, I could confirm the parents and move up to the previous generation.

To see a list of marriages to be validated, I created a set of filters:
  • a person filter "Working group" that selects a single generation (2 filters, ancestors of Y up to x generations and ancestors of Y to less than x generations);
  • a source filter "authoritative sources" that filter sources tagged as authoritative;
  • an event filter "No authoritative sources"  that filter all events that DO NOT have sources matching the source filter;
  • To wrap it all up, an event filter "Marriages to be found" that match events of type "marriage", the "No authoritative sources" event filter, and the "Working group" person filter (include family events).
The ones I can't find readily, I Tag as "To Do" so I can see which one I need to spend more time on.

That's my way of working through it.  So far, I've got solid proof for 400 marriages, going back 10 generations, me being generation 1. (yeah it's slow, but I have a day job and a family...)

Hope this will help you, regards,

Simon

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 20:17, <[hidden email]> wrote:
For over fifty years I have dabbled with various pieces of genealogy software and dabbled with recording my family tree and history using that software. Now in retirement I have discovered GRAMPS and found a little time to pursue my pursuit. Along the way I have accumulated the names of some 6000 people and 2000 families, a lot of them from various bulk loaded GEDCOMs. However, for most them I do NOT have any form of verification as to why they are there.

I am considering doing a major clean-up and getting rid of stuff for which I do not have a reasonable proof for its retention and so, the questions.

Firstly, should I? Should I just retain it all in the database and gradually add the proof that is lacking – at least it would be a starting point.

If I should clean the stables, how? Obviously, I take a GRAMPS readable backup so I’ve got the detail when I find Charlie Teevan in 1790’s Scotland really was part of the family, but then what? How do I get rid of the unverified data? Methods that spring to mind are filters on data without sources. Or tagging of direct ancestors/descendants and then removal of the untagged.

Or as the most radical option, simply start again!

Any suggestions and/or recommendations as the what to do as well as what not to do would be most appreciated.

Cheers

Dave

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cleaning the Augean Stables

victorengel
Changing the subject slightly, what happens when a person fits into more than one generation? Perhaps that doesn't exist in your tree, but it does in mine. Just by way of example to illustrate what I mean, suppose person A marries person B and they have multiple great-grandchildren, including person C and person D. Person C marries the child of person D. That marriage results in one of your direct ancestors. In this scenario, person A and person B are in more than one generation.

Victor

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Simon C. Tremblay <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Dave,

I was in a situation similar to yours. I started 4 years ago with a gedcom that my aunt created and a paper fanchart from a cousin.  I decided to not start from scratch and instead validate in a structured way, all the info in my tree.  Before tackling anything, I attended a genealogy class and that was quite helpful in knowing what to do.

So first, establish what would be a sufficient proof for you.  That will vary depending where you're doing your research, mostly because the info available will vary. Here in Quebec, we are lucky enough to have an almost complete set of church records all the way back to 1628ish that include Baptisms, Marriages and Sepultures (Interment?) that were mandated by the Roman Catholic church AND the government. Every RC marriage church record includes the names of the parents of the groom and bride, the mothers being identified by their maiden names. Same goes for a Baptism record, which includes names of both parents (with the maiden name of the mother) and usually the birth date. So to me, I tagged all church records as "authoritative".

Then, In order to establish filiation, I started with my kids as the root and worked backward to find authoritative sources for all marriages. Once I found a marriage church record, I could confirm the parents and move up to the previous generation.

To see a list of marriages to be validated, I created a set of filters:
  • a person filter "Working group" that selects a single generation (2 filters, ancestors of Y up to x generations and ancestors of Y to less than x generations);
  • a source filter "authoritative sources" that filter sources tagged as authoritative;
  • an event filter "No authoritative sources"  that filter all events that DO NOT have sources matching the source filter;
  • To wrap it all up, an event filter "Marriages to be found" that match events of type "marriage", the "No authoritative sources" event filter, and the "Working group" person filter (include family events).
The ones I can't find readily, I Tag as "To Do" so I can see which one I need to spend more time on.

That's my way of working through it.  So far, I've got solid proof for 400 marriages, going back 10 generations, me being generation 1. (yeah it's slow, but I have a day job and a family...)

Hope this will help you, regards,

Simon

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 20:17, <[hidden email]> wrote:
For over fifty years I have dabbled with various pieces of genealogy software and dabbled with recording my family tree and history using that software. Now in retirement I have discovered GRAMPS and found a little time to pursue my pursuit. Along the way I have accumulated the names of some 6000 people and 2000 families, a lot of them from various bulk loaded GEDCOMs. However, for most them I do NOT have any form of verification as to why they are there.

I am considering doing a major clean-up and getting rid of stuff for which I do not have a reasonable proof for its retention and so, the questions.

Firstly, should I? Should I just retain it all in the database and gradually add the proof that is lacking – at least it would be a starting point.

If I should clean the stables, how? Obviously, I take a GRAMPS readable backup so I’ve got the detail when I find Charlie Teevan in 1790’s Scotland really was part of the family, but then what? How do I get rid of the unverified data? Methods that spring to mind are filters on data without sources. Or tagging of direct ancestors/descendants and then removal of the untagged.

Or as the most radical option, simply start again!

Any suggestions and/or recommendations as the what to do as well as what not to do would be most appreciated.

Cheers

Dave

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cleaning the Augean Stables

Peter Merchant
In reply to this post by Dave Hamilton
On 18/07/18 01:04, [hidden email] wrote:

For over fifty years I have dabbled with various pieces of genealogy software and dabbled with recording my family tree and history using that software. Now in retirement I have discovered GRAMPS and found a little time to pursue my pursuit. Along the way I have accumulated the names of some 6000 people and 2000 families, a lot of them from various bulk loaded GEDCOMs. However, for most them I do NOT have any form of verification as to why they are there.

 

I am considering doing a major clean-up and getting rid of stuff for which I do not have a reasonable proof for its retention and so, the questions.

 

Firstly, should I? Should I just retain it all in the database and gradually add the proof that is lacking – at least it would be a starting point.

 

If I should clean the stables, how? Obviously, I take a GRAMPS readable backup so I’ve got the detail when I find Charlie Teevan in 1790’s Scotland really was part of the family, but then what? How do I get rid of the unverified data? Methods that spring to mind are filters on data without sources. Or tagging of direct ancestors/descendants and then removal of the untagged.

 

Or as the most radical option, simply start again!

 

Any suggestions and/or recommendations as the what to do as well as what not to do would be most appreciated.

Cheers

Dave

 


Not sure how valid people will consider my idea, but how about creating a 'working' Gramps database and importing all those gedcoms into it, and then going through the people and merging ones that are the same person. This might eliminate a lot of duplicates. Also you could  add an unverified tag  for all of those that you have no information. This would take a bit of time, but might give you a better picture of the structure of the family.

Like someone else suggests, I have an instance of a person marrying his second cousin,(not sure of that relationship without looking it up) but on a big printout that gave two identical sets of descendants.


Just my thoughts,
Peter M.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cleaning the Augean Stables

Simon C. Tremblay
In reply to this post by victorengel
It occurs a lot in my tree (I think one couple appears 8 times, at 3 different generations).  When it does, the family is dealt with the first time I encounter it. Depending on how they were entered in Gramps, they might be duplicated in the DB.  For that I merge the individuals when I detect the duplicate.  Depending on how much info each individual has, it can be a bit complex (cleaning up the events, are the parents duplicated too, cleaning the medias, etc.)

Regards,

Simon

On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 15:24, Victor Engel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Changing the subject slightly, what happens when a person fits into more than one generation? Perhaps that doesn't exist in your tree, but it does in mine. Just by way of example to illustrate what I mean, suppose person A marries person B and they have multiple great-grandchildren, including person C and person D. Person C marries the child of person D. That marriage results in one of your direct ancestors. In this scenario, person A and person B are in more than one generation.

Victor

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Simon C. Tremblay <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Dave,

I was in a situation similar to yours. I started 4 years ago with a gedcom that my aunt created and a paper fanchart from a cousin.  I decided to not start from scratch and instead validate in a structured way, all the info in my tree.  Before tackling anything, I attended a genealogy class and that was quite helpful in knowing what to do.

So first, establish what would be a sufficient proof for you.  That will vary depending where you're doing your research, mostly because the info available will vary. Here in Quebec, we are lucky enough to have an almost complete set of church records all the way back to 1628ish that include Baptisms, Marriages and Sepultures (Interment?) that were mandated by the Roman Catholic church AND the government. Every RC marriage church record includes the names of the parents of the groom and bride, the mothers being identified by their maiden names. Same goes for a Baptism record, which includes names of both parents (with the maiden name of the mother) and usually the birth date. So to me, I tagged all church records as "authoritative".

Then, In order to establish filiation, I started with my kids as the root and worked backward to find authoritative sources for all marriages. Once I found a marriage church record, I could confirm the parents and move up to the previous generation.

To see a list of marriages to be validated, I created a set of filters:
  • a person filter "Working group" that selects a single generation (2 filters, ancestors of Y up to x generations and ancestors of Y to less than x generations);
  • a source filter "authoritative sources" that filter sources tagged as authoritative;
  • an event filter "No authoritative sources"  that filter all events that DO NOT have sources matching the source filter;
  • To wrap it all up, an event filter "Marriages to be found" that match events of type "marriage", the "No authoritative sources" event filter, and the "Working group" person filter (include family events).
The ones I can't find readily, I Tag as "To Do" so I can see which one I need to spend more time on.

That's my way of working through it.  So far, I've got solid proof for 400 marriages, going back 10 generations, me being generation 1. (yeah it's slow, but I have a day job and a family...)

Hope this will help you, regards,

Simon

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 20:17, <[hidden email]> wrote:
For over fifty years I have dabbled with various pieces of genealogy software and dabbled with recording my family tree and history using that software. Now in retirement I have discovered GRAMPS and found a little time to pursue my pursuit. Along the way I have accumulated the names of some 6000 people and 2000 families, a lot of them from various bulk loaded GEDCOMs. However, for most them I do NOT have any form of verification as to why they are there.

I am considering doing a major clean-up and getting rid of stuff for which I do not have a reasonable proof for its retention and so, the questions.

Firstly, should I? Should I just retain it all in the database and gradually add the proof that is lacking – at least it would be a starting point.

If I should clean the stables, how? Obviously, I take a GRAMPS readable backup so I’ve got the detail when I find Charlie Teevan in 1790’s Scotland really was part of the family, but then what? How do I get rid of the unverified data? Methods that spring to mind are filters on data without sources. Or tagging of direct ancestors/descendants and then removal of the untagged.

Or as the most radical option, simply start again!

Any suggestions and/or recommendations as the what to do as well as what not to do would be most appreciated.

Cheers

Dave

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cleaning the Augean Stables

victorengel
Because of the way I built up my tree on Ancestry.com, I didn't have too many duplicates, because the hints algorithm tended to catch them most of the time. One interesting scenario in my tree was two records for someone named Anna Pedersdatter Kjærland, one born in 1724, the other born in 1734. I thought one was just a transcription error, particularly since 2 and 3 look similar when hand written, so I tentatively merged the records. The problem with that, though, was that one of them had a son, and the other had a daughter who married each other. If they were both the same person, then we had a situation where brother and sister married each other.

It turned out they were sisters, not the same person. The baptism record of the younger one should have been a clue. It has d.y. (the younger) attached to it. The presence of d.y. in the name implied there was an older sibling of the same name. This situation of two living sibling having the same name occurred because of the convention of naming Norwegian children after ancestors in a particular order. One was named after one Anna. The other was named after a different Anna.

So their children who married were not siblings. They were first cousins.

The Annas also had a half-sister, Gunilde.
Gunilde married the 1st cousin, 1x removed of the spouse of one of the Annas.
A grandchild of the marrying cousins, and great-grandchild of Gunilde were the parents of my grandfather.

This all sounds complicated, but Gramps makes this easy to visualize using the Family Lines graph. I've not found other software that makes such a nice graph for this sort of relationship.

Victor

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Simon C. Tremblay <[hidden email]> wrote:
It occurs a lot in my tree (I think one couple appears 8 times, at 3 different generations).  When it does, the family is dealt with the first time I encounter it. Depending on how they were entered in Gramps, they might be duplicated in the DB.  For that I merge the individuals when I detect the duplicate.  Depending on how much info each individual has, it can be a bit complex (cleaning up the events, are the parents duplicated too, cleaning the medias, etc.)

Regards,

Simon

On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 15:24, Victor Engel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Changing the subject slightly, what happens when a person fits into more than one generation? Perhaps that doesn't exist in your tree, but it does in mine. Just by way of example to illustrate what I mean, suppose person A marries person B and they have multiple great-grandchildren, including person C and person D. Person C marries the child of person D. That marriage results in one of your direct ancestors. In this scenario, person A and person B are in more than one generation.

Victor

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Simon C. Tremblay <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Dave,

I was in a situation similar to yours. I started 4 years ago with a gedcom that my aunt created and a paper fanchart from a cousin.  I decided to not start from scratch and instead validate in a structured way, all the info in my tree.  Before tackling anything, I attended a genealogy class and that was quite helpful in knowing what to do.

So first, establish what would be a sufficient proof for you.  That will vary depending where you're doing your research, mostly because the info available will vary. Here in Quebec, we are lucky enough to have an almost complete set of church records all the way back to 1628ish that include Baptisms, Marriages and Sepultures (Interment?) that were mandated by the Roman Catholic church AND the government. Every RC marriage church record includes the names of the parents of the groom and bride, the mothers being identified by their maiden names. Same goes for a Baptism record, which includes names of both parents (with the maiden name of the mother) and usually the birth date. So to me, I tagged all church records as "authoritative".

Then, In order to establish filiation, I started with my kids as the root and worked backward to find authoritative sources for all marriages. Once I found a marriage church record, I could confirm the parents and move up to the previous generation.

To see a list of marriages to be validated, I created a set of filters:
  • a person filter "Working group" that selects a single generation (2 filters, ancestors of Y up to x generations and ancestors of Y to less than x generations);
  • a source filter "authoritative sources" that filter sources tagged as authoritative;
  • an event filter "No authoritative sources"  that filter all events that DO NOT have sources matching the source filter;
  • To wrap it all up, an event filter "Marriages to be found" that match events of type "marriage", the "No authoritative sources" event filter, and the "Working group" person filter (include family events).
The ones I can't find readily, I Tag as "To Do" so I can see which one I need to spend more time on.

That's my way of working through it.  So far, I've got solid proof for 400 marriages, going back 10 generations, me being generation 1. (yeah it's slow, but I have a day job and a family...)

Hope this will help you, regards,

Simon

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 20:17, <[hidden email]> wrote:
For over fifty years I have dabbled with various pieces of genealogy software and dabbled with recording my family tree and history using that software. Now in retirement I have discovered GRAMPS and found a little time to pursue my pursuit. Along the way I have accumulated the names of some 6000 people and 2000 families, a lot of them from various bulk loaded GEDCOMs. However, for most them I do NOT have any form of verification as to why they are there.

I am considering doing a major clean-up and getting rid of stuff for which I do not have a reasonable proof for its retention and so, the questions.

Firstly, should I? Should I just retain it all in the database and gradually add the proof that is lacking – at least it would be a starting point.

If I should clean the stables, how? Obviously, I take a GRAMPS readable backup so I’ve got the detail when I find Charlie Teevan in 1790’s Scotland really was part of the family, but then what? How do I get rid of the unverified data? Methods that spring to mind are filters on data without sources. Or tagging of direct ancestors/descendants and then removal of the untagged.

Or as the most radical option, simply start again!

Any suggestions and/or recommendations as the what to do as well as what not to do would be most appreciated.

Cheers

Dave

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cleaning the Augean Stables

Dave Hamilton

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions.

I think I will be proceeding down the path of retaining the current database, warts and all, and progressively cleaning up the data. I particularly like the suggestions made by Simon as to logical methods of producing ‘To do’ lists which appear to reduce the amount of going over old ground that I am currently doing.

Cheers

Dave

 

Because of the way I built up my tree on Ancestry.com, I didn't have too many duplicates, because the hints algorithm tended to catch them most of the time. One interesting scenario in my tree was two records for someone named Anna Pedersdatter Kjærland, one born in 1724, the other born in 1734. I thought one was just a transcription error, particularly since 2 and 3 look similar when hand written, so I tentatively merged the records. The problem with that, though, was that one of them had a son, and the other had a daughter who married each other. If they were both the same person, then we had a situation where brother and sister married each other.

 

It turned out they were sisters, not the same person. The baptism record of the younger one should have been a clue. It has d.y. (the younger) attached to it. The presence of d.y. in the name implied there was an older sibling of the same name. This situation of two living sibling having the same name occurred because of the convention of naming Norwegian children after ancestors in a particular order. One was named after one Anna. The other was named after a different Anna.

 

So their children who married were not siblings. They were first cousins.

 

The Annas also had a half-sister, Gunilde.

Gunilde married the 1st cousin, 1x removed of the spouse of one of the Annas.

A grandchild of the marrying cousins, and great-grandchild of Gunilde were the parents of my grandfather.

 

This all sounds complicated, but Gramps makes this easy to visualize using the Family Lines graph. I've not found other software that makes such a nice graph for this sort of relationship.

 

Victor

 

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Simon C. Tremblay <[hidden email]> wrote:

It occurs a lot in my tree (I think one couple appears 8 times, at 3 different generations).  When it does, the family is dealt with the first time I encounter it. Depending on how they were entered in Gramps, they might be duplicated in the DB.  For that I merge the individuals when I detect the duplicate.  Depending on how much info each individual has, it can be a bit complex (cleaning up the events, are the parents duplicated too, cleaning the medias, etc.)

 

Regards,

 

Simon

 

On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 15:24, Victor Engel <[hidden email]> wrote:

Changing the subject slightly, what happens when a person fits into more than one generation? Perhaps that doesn't exist in your tree, but it does in mine. Just by way of example to illustrate what I mean, suppose person A marries person B and they have multiple great-grandchildren, including person C and person D. Person C marries the child of person D. That marriage results in one of your direct ancestors. In this scenario, person A and person B are in more than one generation.

 

Victor

 

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Simon C. Tremblay <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Dave,

 

I was in a situation similar to yours. I started 4 years ago with a gedcom that my aunt created and a paper fanchart from a cousin.  I decided to not start from scratch and instead validate in a structured way, all the info in my tree.  Before tackling anything, I attended a genealogy class and that was quite helpful in knowing what to do.

 

So first, establish what would be a sufficient proof for you.  That will vary depending where you're doing your research, mostly because the info available will vary. Here in Quebec, we are lucky enough to have an almost complete set of church records all the way back to 1628ish that include Baptisms, Marriages and Sepultures (Interment?) that were mandated by the Roman Catholic church AND the government. Every RC marriage church record includes the names of the parents of the groom and bride, the mothers being identified by their maiden names. Same goes for a Baptism record, which includes names of both parents (with the maiden name of the mother) and usually the birth date. So to me, I tagged all church records as "authoritative".

 

Then, In order to establish filiation, I started with my kids as the root and worked backward to find authoritative sources for all marriages. Once I found a marriage church record, I could confirm the parents and move up to the previous generation.

 

To see a list of marriages to be validated, I created a set of filters:

  • a person filter "Working group" that selects a single generation (2 filters, ancestors of Y up to x generations and ancestors of Y to less than x generations);
  • a source filter "authoritative sources" that filter sources tagged as authoritative;
  • an event filter "No authoritative sources"  that filter all events that DO NOT have sources matching the source filter;
  • To wrap it all up, an event filter "Marriages to be found" that match events of type "marriage", the "No authoritative sources" event filter, and the "Working group" person filter (include family events).

The ones I can't find readily, I Tag as "To Do" so I can see which one I need to spend more time on.

 

That's my way of working through it.  So far, I've got solid proof for 400 marriages, going back 10 generations, me being generation 1. (yeah it's slow, but I have a day job and a family...)

 

Hope this will help you, regards,

 

Simon

 

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 20:17, <[hidden email]> wrote:

For over fifty years I have dabbled with various pieces of genealogy software and dabbled with recording my family tree and history using that software. Now in retirement I have discovered GRAMPS and found a little time to pursue my pursuit. Along the way I have accumulated the names of some 6000 people and 2000 families, a lot of them from various bulk loaded GEDCOMs. However, for most them I do NOT have any form of verification as to why they are there.

I am considering doing a major clean-up and getting rid of stuff for which I do not have a reasonable proof for its retention and so, the questions.

Firstly, should I? Should I just retain it all in the database and gradually add the proof that is lacking – at least it would be a starting point.

If I should clean the stables, how? Obviously, I take a GRAMPS readable backup so I’ve got the detail when I find Charlie Teevan in 1790’s Scotland really was part of the family, but then what? How do I get rid of the unverified data? Methods that spring to mind are filters on data without sources. Or tagging of direct ancestors/descendants and then removal of the untagged.

Or as the most radical option, simply start again!

Any suggestions and/or recommendations as the what to do as well as what not to do would be most appreciated.

Cheers

Dave


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org

 

 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org