Is there a way, like Relatives Around Me, to determine the relationship between two deceased individ
My friend has thousands of names she has entered and was contacted by an individual wanting to know how one of her deceased relatives is related to one of the thousands of deceased relatives of my friend. Way too many entries to track by going through one at a time.
Respuestas
-
@Anita Leigh Reeves Given the fact that every one of us is descended from Noah and his wife, we're each the xth cousin z times removed of everyone. 😊
Seriously though, while a computer program could come up with a relationship if it had enough of the in-between people (i.e. all the connecting lines), I would think that the better way to go would be follow your friend's line back as far as s/he can go, and have the questioning person also trace the line of the person sought as a relative as far back as possible as well. Once the intersection (common ancestor) is determined, there would be a much more visible (and comprehensible) relationship.
Personally, I just can't wrap my head around being someone's 12th cousin 4 times removed. But I can visualize a relationship in a tree that goes back multiple generations to a common ancestor, then comes back forward toward the present day to the one about whom I'm questioning my relationship. In other words, go backwards down the tree to the common ancestor, and then come back up along the other line and view the actual tree itself to see each of the parents/children - just like the display currently in FamilySearch when we click "View My Relationship."
I'm wondering if that questioning person is thinking in terms of separate trees such as those found on Ancestry.com. If so, that's an obvious problem. It will take the single world family tree found in FamilySearch to easily determine the relationship, even if a computer did it. And it would be more fun to visually go back as far as I can on my tree, and have the other person go back as far as they can, and compare lineages to see who the common ancestor is - all in the same tree, as opposed to Person A's tree and the separate Person B's tree. Using separate trees, all of the connecting lines from one would have to be filled in on the other tree. But with the single "world family tree" in FamilySearch Family Tree, it's simply a matter of viewing down the lineage to that common ancestor, and following the lines back up to the other person. That can't be done with two separate trees such as what's available on Ancestry and other separate database structures (unless all of the connecting people are also entered in at least one of those two separate trees). Does that make sense?
--Chris
0 -
Yes, but she’s hoping there’s a faster, easier way.
0 -
That makes sense to me. In fact, I have done that very thing to determine unknown relationships between individuals, living and deceased.
0 -
The View My Relationship on the individual page should work - enter the PID of the distant cousin while signed in.
0 -
That works from yourself to that single individual whose PID you entered, but the original question was about the person that contacted her friend about wanting to know the relationship between one of the many people in that person's own database and one of the thousands of people in the friend's database. And besides - simply knowing what numbered cousin and how many times removed someone is, doesn't indicate the actual family linkage - and that's the really fun and fascinating part. I only use "View My Relationship" to see the linage link, and honestly hadn't even noticed the actual relationship (grand uncle, 2nd cousin, etc.) listed right at the top of that "View My Relationship" window until this discussion.
--Chris
1 -
@Anita Leigh Reeves
.
Anita
.
I do not know why someone has not mentioned it ...
.
"FamilySearch" DOES NOT have that ability/facility ...
.
But ...
That said ...
.
One of the many "Third Party" Programmes that is "Certified" to work with "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" DOES have the ability/facility; and, capability to DO what you and you friend desire (and, much, more).
.
That programme is by "Brigham Young University" (BYU); and, is known as "RelativeFinder" ( "RelativeFinder.org"):
.
https://www.relativefinder.org/#/main
.
.
It has many 'bells and whistles' ... including what you are looking for.
.
Connect Two Deceased
.
.
Connect Yourself with a Deceased
.
.
Connect with Friends
.
.
Plus, many more ...
.
Take a look ...
.
Enjoy ...
.
I hope this help.
.
Brett
.
ps: "FamilySearch" does not need to 'reinvent the wheel', so to speak ..
.
0 -
@Brett . Thanks. I haven't explored Relative Finder enough to have remembered that the "Connect Two Deceased" feature was there. That appears to be just what she was looking for. Of course it obviously requires that the two family trees both be part of Family Tree in FamilySearch, but now days it's not terribly difficult to bring over another database (tree) into FamilySearch and add that part to the "whole" tree.
It figures that the BYU Family History Technology Lab would have it. Great resource for many reasons! Good link.
--Chris
0 -
Brett,
Thank you! That’s just what I was looking for.
0 -
😀
0 -
Ron Tanner once had a question on this during one of his video blog sessions, and he said that he didn't see any use cases that would justify this kind of upgrade.
I wrote in a large number of use cases, and he kept thinking in terms of the relationship between himself and the other person, and couldn't seem to wrap his head around what the use was for going between two people who are unrelated to you, or that you DON'T want to see how they're related TO YOU... just each other.
Some of the use cases I mentioned:
1 - DNA results go only so far back, but you want to look between two people (yes, their trees are in familysearch), and they're not necessarily related to you.
2 - people with similar surnames in a locality without an obvious/close connection.
3 - reading about a family reunion, you search for names in a locality, and want to see how they're related (or if a relationship even exists)
4 - doing client (or helping) work where someone is NOT connected to YOU.
5 - going through a large number of names, and you hit someone you THOUGHT you remembered... but can't remember where, but you want to know how they're related.
6 - I have 3-4 people with DNA matches that are close matches going back a couple hundred years (Y-DNA tests - paternal), and there are documented trees for the respective people, some of which are in the same area. But we don't see a connection to us. But want to look between two different people to see if there are other connections we're missing.
7 - You want to see how someone is related to someone else who may be historically famous.
Yes, you can do this with relative finder, but it SHOULDN'T be hard to do this *IN* familysearch. There shouldn't be a need to go outside it to use a tool that piggy backs off familysearch anyway.
I hope he'll reconsider it.
0
