Newsgroups: soc.roots
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:13:27 EDT
Reply-To:     "RICH @ 5121" <switzer@KENYON.EDU>
From:         "RICH @ 5121" <switzer@KENYON.EDU>
Subject:      Question on your data-entry practices; or Strangers
Comments: To: ROOTS-L@VM1.NODAK.EDU

Dear Folks,

About a week ago, I asked how others dealt with data for persons not yet proved
to belong to the line that is being researched--but that might be found to be
connected at some point in future.

I thank the following who posted very useful responses to Roots-L for all to
read:  	Tom Lincoln, Clif Manis, Carol Botteron, Jeri Steel and Dick & Jill
Miller.

There were others who responded directly to me with ideas that others may also
find useful and that I post here:

Thank you all!

Rich...................Switzer@Kenyon.edu
*************************************************************
>From:	MX%"David.Strong.Flower@um.cc.umich.edu" 17-SEP-1992 08:52:58.67
>Subject: "Strangers"
>
> I enter my STRANGERS" in my data base and call it LOOSE PIECES of
> the FLOWER puzzle. This includes FLOWER family histories sent to
> me. If the data is huge I enter only a sketch with enough about
> WHO, WHEN & WHERE with a pointer to tyhe rest of the information.
>
> I have a file in Microsoft Excell that is FLOWER LOOSE PIECES in
> the Census, Probate files, Cemeteries, Obits . . . I keep the
> file arranged so that I can sort it by name, date location or source
>
> I take a summary of reference info with me when I go to a library or
> other repository just in case I come across some data of people with
> the surname and may or may not be linked by time or place with mine.
>
>  I used to become frustrated to copy or extract some data and
> gradually become aware that I had worked on this data before and
> when I got home find out that I had.
>
> Source references are also very important such as book, Author,
> census+date & location.
>
> If the people are linked to the same location and date without
> any proof that they belong to my family then I call them UNLINKED
> with hopes of finding the linkage at a later date.
>
> To make a long story short I document them to emiminate the
> tremendous frustration of doing the same research a year or so later.
> It's even worse if you find the linkage and can't recall where you
> came across the previous data.
>
> I have found a link in my wife's family long after finding a family
> with the same name, date and location.
>
> Definately keep them if the NAME, DATE & LOCATION are the only
> linkage to yours.
>
> Dave Flower
*************************************************************
>From:	MX%"mrayl@STL-07SIMA.ARMY.MIL" 17-SEP-1992 14:22:47.26
>Subject: Entering "Strangers"
>
>Hi Rich,
>
>Yes, I recommend it, unless it starts to overwhelm you. I started tracking
>all the RAYLs I encountered. Each source got a different identifying "mark",
>ie   %James B
>     *James R
>     #John Wm
>
>  (where % was info from Doris Rayl, no relation, yet;
>         * was from William Rayl, no relation, yet; etc)
>
>Then after several years, I started finding matches!! If all "%" were related
>to each other and I could match in one area to my family, then I had a whole
>new branch to add! It's really exciting!
>
>Of course it helps if you think that EVERYONE with your same name is related
>to you in one way or another. RAYLs are no problem, (we think we all come from
>one family, though we're not sure), but I wouldn't recommend it for tracking
>SMITHs or WILLIAMS. HA!
>
>Good Hunting!
>
>Melodi Rayl
>St. Louis
*************************************************************
>From:	MX%"jdboer@sol.UVic.CA" 17-SEP-1992 18:35:38.77
>
>Re your question about strangers, I believe that BK5 has an option to
>add people that are not yet connected to the tree.
>
>At least my version has it.
>
>Johan de Boer
>jdboer@sol.uvic.ca
*************************************************************