G2G: Do I have a problem? [closed]

Question

I participate in a few genealogy groups on social media. In one of them someone recently made the comment that anyone who had added more than 500 names to their tree had a fixation and a problem.

If someone did genealogy so they only added their direct ancestors to their tree up to 500 persons, theoretically, they would max out at the level of 6th great-grandparents (assuming no pedigree collapse.)

What good is a family tree without including aunts, uncles, their spouses, and close degree cousins? If I include those relatives, my tree hits 500 at the level of my 4th great-grandparents. And that totally leaves out my spouse and his immediate relatives.

It just doesn't take long to reach a tree size of 500 individuals.

After the comment made in that genealogy group, I'm almost embarrassed to admit my personal genealogy file contains over 22,000 individuals. My Watchlist here has over 2,600 (and doesn't included many profiles for in-laws which I've created but orphaned along the way.) I just looked at my connections here on WikiTree and I have 707 connections at just level 5, most of whom are deceased. I added a large percentage of those profiles!  

I don't think I have a problem. But what do you think? Am I fixated and need professional help?!

Update:

I suppose I should clarify that the remark was not made to me personally. I was not even participating in the conversation--just reading a question and responses to it in a genealogy help group on a social media platform. That particular response from someone, who was supposedly a genealogist also, stunned me. Thanks for your responses!

Comments

A professional will definitely see the need for years of therapy. That is exactly why you should never involve a professional.

---

Of course you have a problem!   

The solution to that problem, and terrific therapy, is to add MORE profiles.  

Answer 1

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that person did not sit down and do the math.

And as you alluded to, some people think of genealogy in a linear way. But as we know, we wouldn't get very much done if we didn't look at the social groups of our ancestors (which include more distant relations.)

In any case, perhaps they are also overwhelmed or having a bad day.

Answer 2

If you think it is a problem, then it probably is. If you think it is not a problem, then you probably right again. so, I guess it is how you think about it.

Answer 3

I think the person who made the comment has the problem.

You do you, Nelda! Think of how many people will come along later and thank you for your hard work.

Answer 4

Short answer: No!

Detailed answer: not no, but **** no.

My personal story…

After I retired I used to go to the library every day when my wife and I weren’t doing anything else. My wife said “That’s your new job.” It didn’t pay well (make that “anything”), but I enjoyed it, and it got me out of my wife’s way. Later, after she passed away, it became a much larger part of my life. It still didn’t pay, but I made some great friends along the way, and that is enough.

Answer 5

I have found direct relationships by following and investigating random people, or others have found them for me. I may never have found them if I’d stuck to my direct ancestors. For me it’s not a tick list of how many generations back I can go, which isn’t that far in my case, it’s seeing all the connections and finding photos, an obituary etc that start to fill out the person rather than just a name.

Answer 6

I think you definitely have a problem and the solution is to stop using social media.

Comments

...........................................................

Answer 7

I hope you don't have a problem, I manage over 10,000 profiles some of which I adopted, and about 60,000 in research trees. (and I am revising and orphaning profiles).

 So if you need therapy, I need a padded cell.

 Exploring the wider family has it's benefits. At one stage while on a farm, I meet the sister of the former owner of an adjacent farm, this year I found out she was about a 5th cousin. So two branches of an Oxfordshire family lived on two adjacent properties in North Canterbury separated by a couple of decades, but still attended functions at the local hall.

Comments

I forgot to add. Ignore the critics and carry on. Genealogy hasn't been classified as a disease (not yet).

---

There is Attention Deficit Genealogy Disorder! Otherwise known as falling down rabbit holes.