From roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com Mon Mar 20 18:38:47 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k2L1cljb007576; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:38:47 -0700 Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l.rootsweb.com [66.43.16.22]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2L1clR0007576 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:38:47 -0700 Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l [127.0.0.1]) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k2KN7sFI025934 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:07:54 -0500 Received: (from roots-in@localhost) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id k2KN7sn2025933 for roots-approved@rootsweb.com; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:07:54 -0500 Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [66.43.27.41]) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id k2KMjZFI025804 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:45:35 -0500 Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id k2L1GH0u022929 for roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:16:17 -0700 X-Envelope-From: diannemedaris@comcast.net Mon Mar 20 18:16:17 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k2L1GHjb022920 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:16:17 -0700 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.200.82]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2L1GHYW027679 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:16:17 -0700 Received: from dianne (c-24-23-57-127.hsd1.ca.comcast.net[24.23.57.127]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <20060321011611012007rokoe>; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:16:12 +0000 From: "DIANNE MEDARIS" To: , Subject: RE: [ROOTS-L] Limiting research to what relationship? Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:16:27 -0800 Message-ID: <000901c64c85$13d55ff0$0300a8c0@Dianne> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <285.7b43bb5.31504e4c@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 Sender: roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com Is the collection itself what matters, or is the process important to you. If you are hooked on "solving" the mystery, then why not continue. I envy you that much data. I have too many brick walls and in one instance can not get past my great grandparents. Congratulations, you are a pro!!! -----Original Message----- From: roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com [mailto:roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of GenBrd@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:28 AM To: ROOTS-M@rootsweb.com Subject: [ROOTS-L] Limiting research to what relationship? Hello all. I have a question that I expect to get many different responses for, but that will be very helpful. When my database reached 15,000 individuals I decided that I just had to draw a line for myself as to what is reasonable to research. At that point I decided that I would stop with 4th cousins. However, this was anyone that was 4th cousin X removed, it didn't matter. Now I am up to almost 20,000 and I realize that even this is ridiculous, for most of those people all I am doing is collecting names, dates, and places and not history. They are not close relatives by any stretch of the imagination. I suppose I can start by limiting the "times removed". But then I need to determine an "equivalent" for 3rd cousin X removed. And do I do it for second cousins and first cousins. After all, my 8th great grandfather's second cousin is pretty distant from me. So my question to listers is: Where do you draw the line? At what point do you personally say, "these people are too far distant from my family line and I am not going to add them". Obviously there is no right or wrong answer, I need some suggestions so that I can weigh the merits and make a decision before I lose my mind researching all these people that are more closely related to you than to me probably. <> Thanks for any help Jo H