I agree with everything written so far. :-) It is much easier to handle one file than many. It means you have only one set of locations and sources (and others, but these are the main ones), so you can be consistent in your entries.
It also makes finding that elusive person quickly - if you knew the name but didn't know which tree it was in, should you keep multiple files for different branches, you'd have to open each and search until you found him/her. I have not regretted combining my file with my partners for a moment since I did that some years ago now. Hope this helps. :-) Wendy Ron Taylor said the following on 3/05/2013 10:38 a.m.: > Jenny gave some good advice on this. I want to add that when all data is in > one file it is easier to maintain. A change to a location affects all > individuals using that locaiton. You don't have to make the location change > in each database that you have. A given individual only exists once so > updates to that person only has to be done once instead of for each database > where he/she might be. It is very easy to extract pieces of a database when > it is necessary to slice out some info to share with someone else. Even > unconnected trees co-exist well in Legacy. Sometime you may find the clues > needed to make the links and with the data already in the same file that is > very easy. Much has been offered on lumpers or splitters. My file is very > large but I regularly split out slices for those who collaborate with me and > then when they send their updated slice back I use the Intellishare features > of Legacy to combine the updates back into the master > database. Works great. > > --- On Thu, 5/2/13, Jenny M Benson <ge...@cedarbank.me.uk> wrote: > >> From: Jenny M Benson <ge...@cedarbank.me.uk> >> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] How to join family files in Legacy >> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >> Date: Thursday, May 2, 2013, 12:43 PM >> On 02/05/2013 18:19, Peter wrote: >>> Do I want to wind up with a huge >> combined file with both >>> families in it? or would it be better to keep them >> separate -- as there >>> are no later or earlier connections. >> I would say you definitely want to end up with one combined >> file. (And >> if it only comprises 130 individuals it is minute, not >> huge! My file >> has about 3,000 people and that's quite small compared to >> some.) >> >> You say there are no later or earlier connections, but are >> you sure. >> Unless the two families came from entirely different areas >> there is >> always a chance that there could have been an inter-marriage >> somewhere >> along the line. And if these are your grandparents >> then at least one of >> your parents and you and any children you might have must be >> connected >> to them. Sometimes in my research I come across a time >> when 2 of my >> relatives from quite different branches of my family were >> living in the >> same street - I think these little discoveries are fun. >> >> -- >> Jenny M Benson Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
