Genealogy Chat

What is the general view on the optimum size of someone's family tree posted on GR? I received a hot match report from GR and made contact with the person in question. However, although I have been allowed access to their tree, there are nearly 49,000 names listed on the tree and it is therefore impossible to view any of the ancestors named. What's more, the person who posted the tree isn't able to work out the connection either and admits that it is due to the size of their tree!

What's the point?

Well of course, it depends how many 'cousins' you include in your tree. If you have a hot match then you might have an ancestor in common, and the only way to tell is to look at that ancestor in their tree, and compare that section with your own. Personally I tend to ignore most hot matches for pre 1700 unless it's for a couple of my more interesting families.
I have about 2500 names in my tree, and that includes quite a lot of 'cousins' and in-laws. More recently I had a match with someone who was related to an in law from OH's family. We had a bit of a chat about it. Since then he's filled out his tree with all OH's family, and the inlaws from the other side, he now has 16000 names.

Just done a quick check for my contacts. I have access to around 640 trees, of which:-

170 contacts have over 1,000 names and of those 35 have more than 10,000 names and 3 more than 40,000

At the other end of the spectrum around 145 contacts have fewer than 100 names

Which leaves the rest, just over half the total, with between 100 and 1,000 names.

I am always wary of excessively large trees especially if the owner cannot explain the relationship. Where is the evidence that each and every person should be in their tree?

My tree online has 650 people in, all with a proven connection. I do not copy others research but if someone has a source which I haven't got, say for a new branch then I will swap Certificates etc... Via email.

Nudge