Is there an option for searching within your own family tree for a specific person or line?
I've been working on a line I thought I found in my fan chart years ago, but I can't trace the members back to me within 15 generations, and I'd like to figure out where I found them in the first place.
Answers
-
@Cassidy Wadsworth
.
Cassidy
.
Short Answer: It depends what you mean by "Searching" ...
.
We have the ...
.
- "Find" feature/function/facility
- "Pedigree" View (ie. Landscape; Portrait; Fan Chart; and, Descendancy)
- And, if you a "Watching" individuals/persons, there is the "Watch" List
.
I find the latter the best option.
.
You can "Watch" up to 4000 individuals/persons.
.
When you are working on a line, choose an individual/person in that line to "Watch"; then, you can go to you "Watch" List to more easily find them again, later - to get back to that line.
.
People I'm Watching
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/list/people
.
Changes To People I'm Watching
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/list/changes
.
Now ...
That said ...
.
We do not have our OWN "Tree" in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
We ONLY have "Branches", that are interconnected, in this SINGLE "One" World "Tree", for all of us, that is "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is NOT like "Ancestry_com" or the like.
.
We DO NOT have "Private"/"Personal" 'Trees' in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' like other "Websites"; and/or, 'standalone' personal programmes.
.
We do not even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, the "Deceased" individuals/person in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is built on a "Open Edit" Platform - hence, why any registered User/Patron can "Edit" (ie. Add, Delete; and/or, Change) ANY "Deceased" individual/person in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".
.
I hope this helps.
.
Brett
.
ps: Of course ...
.
There is always one of the many "Third Party" Applications that are "Certified" to work with "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', that can be found in the "Solutions Gallery" of 'FamilySearch'
.
https://partners.familysearch.org/solutionsgallery/s/
.
0 -
I think what he is trying to do - is retrace a line from him to a known person 30 generations (or so) back and he cant remember the exact line of descent . . .
he can find the person and he can find his own record - I think he wants to be able to connect the dots between the two - as he did once in the past but cant remember how it goes now.
1 -
@Cassidy Wadsworth
.
Cassidy
.
Of course, there is another option ...
.
Another option is to try using "RelativeFinder" by BYU.
BYU = "Brigham Young University", the Church university.
.
"RealtiveFinder" is one of the "Third Party" Applications that are "Certified" to work with "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
.
"RealtiveFinder" has many 'bells and whistles', that "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' does not.
.
In "RealtiveFinder" there is an option to, "Connect with [a] Deceased Person", between your ("Living") self and a "Decaesed" individual/person, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
.
Give that a go.
.
And, also, 'Enjoy' some of the many other available "Features".
.
I hope this helps.
.
Brett
.
0 -
I believe "Relative Finder" as well as FS "View my relationship" only go back about 12 generations.
0 -
Dennis
.
As far as I am aware, "RelativeFinder" goes more than the 'limited' 12 Generations that "Family Tree" does.
.
"RelativeFinder" now only does 16 Generations; whereas, it used to do 64 Generations; but, the 'site' traffic has increased to a point where this has become unfeasible.
.
16 is better than 12.
.
Unfortunately, you will not directly get 30.
.
But, you can go back from the 16th Generation.
.
Brett
.
0 -
maybe you could take all you great grandparents and use relative finder to find the link between them and the person 15 (30) generations back - thus placing it within the 12 generation limit.
0 -
Thank you! I'll check into that.
0 -
The Fan view of a tree can be set to go back 7 generations, on a PC use Ctrl-F to find the name. Not a solution for everything, but a good tool.
0 -
Firstly may I say I think Family Search is a great website and thanks to everyone who founded it and is keeping it going.
However, I couldn’t agree more with https://community.familysearch.org/en/profile/User15937198707154267389.
Aware that a person’s family tree is available for everyone to view and add to or change because there will be other people who have a similar family tree and common ancestors. Unfortunately when someone has a line that’s going back centuries with many branches attached it is very difficult to find a person within a branch and can take hours to find the person you’re looking for because every branch will need checked unless you get lucky on the 1st branch looked at.
I'm aware there is a search for every person loaded onto family search by individual members or by family search which you would think would be the answer but it isn’t always the case/not so easy because when using the existing search tool, the results pop up you can’t change it to datal order. Eg if looking for someone born between 1740-1745. People with the same name will pop up born in the 1800’s/1900’s very often before the date you’ve put into search criteria meaning you have to scroll again Worse if it’s a common name It would be great it there was something to click on like oldest or newest birth/baptism date first or just make the pop up pertain to the date period a person has asked about.
Wondering if a method of sorting of dates in order could be added in the current search system as I feel that would help when searching for an individual within a tree pertaining to finding a person’s within trees. Obviously if someone has changed the spelling of the name after it was uploaded that could be another issue
0 -
@Ge bek, when Find (and Search) results rank out-of-range entries higher than in-range ones, it means that the name is a worse match on the in-range entries. In other words, the combination of name and date had no good matches. I use one of two methods to get around this problem: change the name criteria, perhaps by adding wildcards; or use the date filters.
This thread is one of many, many repeats of the same request/suggestion, of searching only within the mythical entity referred to as "my tree on FS". It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the collaborative tree concept. The problem is one of scope: how is the system to determine which of the billions of profiles are part of your family, and which ones aren't?
If the profile you want is one that you have edited previously, then you can go to your "My Contributions" page and search it by name. Alternatively, if the profile is a direct ancestor, you can go to your (or an ancestor's) fan chart, set it to 7 generations, and use your browser/OS's text search function (such as CTRL-F). A third option is to use one of the software solutions that can synchronize with FS to download your relatives into an offline individual tree, and then use its search features to find the person. The download may take quite a while, but luckily, you only need to do it once.
1 -
Thanks Julie, I’ve made goodness know how many contributions and often help fixing duplicates and incorrect additions but unfortunately the fan chart isn’t helping because one line on my tree (other peoples tree also) goes back to the doomsday book and further back again. This is where the issue is because there is so many people on that line and so many branches it is very difficult to find a particular person when searching. Aware it is a shared tree to an extent but it is still my tree as with everyone using this FS site.. The other issue is when names were often slightly different spelling from one generation to another and even writhing the same family back in the day neg Grahame sometimes spelled as Graham, Graeme and Grame. It’s the same with Stewart (Stuart) etc I do often use Gra* to find and that helps (same with other surnames but it would definitely be a great help when searching if the timeframe entered was either stuck to or if it could be arranged in datal order. (Find a person within a line would be brilliant but it’s doubtful that’s going to happen due to other threads I’ve read)
0
