We’re Related–Clean Tree Report

While working on this We’re Related project, a member of my Facebook Group want’s to see an Online Tree without the use of Alternate Facts (ALT Facts). I have been using the term “Clean Tree” or a “Conclusion Based Tree.”

When you look at this Online Tree, all you see are Facts or Events, with all of the documentation attached to that fact. The reader of this online tree can look at the supporting documentation to see how I arrived at these conclusions.

For example: My Great Grandfather


One birth Fact, One death Fact, a couple of family event, but pretty clean presentation.

Here is what his profile looks like in my Working online tree.


So, I get what my Facebook cousin was talking about. This one is messy. Each Fact reflects the information that I received from the source document.

The Clean Tree, you can still see what information came from what source.


This Clean Tree is only my Direct Line to see what a “Clean Tree” might look like. This tree is really of no value, except to explore what a Clean Tree, not a messy one, might look like.

I don’t want to spend any more time on a Clean Tree, but will share my observations of this file and tree.

This database was started with 76 We’re Related APP Cousins.

What I found was my ability to prove or disprove the We’re Related lineages.

I first worked off of the Data Error Report, which my program has to tell me that there is a problem with the data. of the 20 Errors, I was not able to Prove or Disprove 9 of the errors, due to the lack of hints to records to help resolve the data problem. 6 of the Errors were DATA ENTRY issues. To me, that was a key to some of the problems in this file. 2 of the 20, I was able to identify a man who married twice, and a female where I found 2 people with the same name, same place, similar dates.

With all of the Data Errors identified and/or resolved, I wanted to see IF there were hints for me to find Records to prove or disprove the accuracy of the APP data.

Of the 76

50 People, I can not prove. Not hints to follow up on, to find a record that indicate that the app was right.

25 People, where I have hints to work off of, to prove of disprove the data from the APP.

1 person, I was able to prove that the APP was correct.

Please understand, that the Clean Tree was not after the correctness of the data, but only the view of the Online Tree.

I want to put this piece of the project aside and get back to real research. But, thought if might be of interest to provide a summary of my findings while working on a Clean Tree. (no ALT Facts, but ALL Facts documented).

This tree is Private, not searchable, but if you are interested AND are an We’re Related APP Cousin, please let me know.

The Screen Captures above, give an indication as to what a Clean and a Messy Tree might look like. Oh, and I do understand why my cousin wants to see a Clean Tree. I get that.

Lesson Leaned: Check your own DATA ENTRY, as you go, and often


5 Responses to We’re Related–Clean Tree Report

  1. GenDetective says:

    Russ, I prefer the clean tree. If I have conflicting information or alternate dates, I log that into the notes of the “preferred” date. If I have a birth certificate or other key document that provides an exact date, then I don’t bother tracking the other dates

    • Russ Worthington says:


      Interesting thought. So, the Clean Tree is your preferred way of using an Online Tree. I totally understand the concept, but wanted to put “it out there”.

      Haven’t seen too many people “talk about a clean tree”.

      So, when you have a complete Fact, that means to me, Date and Place, you don’t record anything further in the Online Tree. I do get your notes about the conflicting information. Thank you.

      Now, but question is, for a clean tree, and hadn’t thought to ask, What is the audience of a Clean Tree ?

      If you have a cousin and you want to collaborate with them, in an online tree, would you still use the Clean Tree ?

      I can see the Clean Tree being a Public Tree, especially one linked to DNA tests. Do you have other thoughts on the use of a Clean Tree ?

      Thank you for your comment.


  2. mcphilbrick says:

    Russ, Thank you for all of your work on the ‘We’re Related’ app. So far, the vast majority of my ‘cousins’ on the app links to a few of my New England lines and one to a Kentucky/Tennessee line. Most take my research back several generations. Since I’m currently researching some Virginia lines, I haven’t spent much time trying to verify the suggested lines. (It is still fun every day to see who the new relationship is — AND — I’m still hoping for someone on one of my Scottish lines!)
    In terms of trees, I would prefer to see everything. That’s likely because I seem to either be working with a lot of FAN research or same name issues or both.

    • Russ Worthington says:


      Thank you for your feedback. I have been tracking which of my Grandparents are involved with the APP Cousins. Each have been getting their fair share. My New England and Maryland ancestors are pretty well represented.

      I think that a Clean Tree and a Messy Tree serve two purposes.

      I am holding my thoughts on this topic, mostly because I am trying to understand the Use of a Clean Tree, besides what I have in this Blog Post.

      Not sure that a Clean Tree would be helpful when trying to Collaborate with someone else.

      Thanks for your comment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: