Who is connected to the most ancestors on wikitree?

Question

OK, this one is for bragging rights. Kathleen Heath pointed out to me that the Family List feature under My Wikitree can show the number of ancestors you are connected to in wikitree within 15 generations. Thanks to my dad's ancestors virtually all being traceable back to pre-1700 and the work done by thousands of wikitreers, I've got 2,961 ancestors within 15 generations without counting siblings. Can anyone top that?

Comments

Since 2^15 is 32,768, there is still a lot of work to do to fill in the blanks. ;-) Not to mention doing sourced narrative profiles for them!

---

Yee gods, I only have 255, you've got almost 3,000!  I never wondered about that. (probably a good thing)

---

1978 for me... thanks Chase

---

Actually, my dad (deceased) beats me with 3,401! My mom has only 105. The key is that almost 100% of my dad's ancestors are from colonial New England, most of whom can be traced back to the 1600s. On my mom's side, most of the tree is German and Scottish immigrants from the mid-1800s who raced across the US to California, and are much harder to trace (at least for me).

---

3438 for me. And Keith's count is up to 2214 now.

---

Woo hoo!  I'll have to investigate

---

Ellen - You got me beat. I'm up to 3133. Added only 170 in the last year. It's definitely 2 steps forward, 1 step back. If an ancestor gets disconnected from some dubious parents, you can lose hundreds of ancestors in one fell swoop.

---

Trimming ancestors is progress. Particularly in the earliest generations, there are some doubtful lineages.

---

Almost another year and I've gone from 3133 to 3195 (15 generations no siblings). Not a big increment, but at least I didn't go down!

746 for 10 generations no siblings.

---

I'm at 3411 for 15 generations, down 27 since last June. I consider that progress because I know that I've gotten rid of some spurious ancestors in the last year (and, yes, I've also added a few in that same period).  And I'm very sure I don't have 32,768 distinct ancestors in 15 generations because I know there are quite a few cousin marriages in those generations (even including my own parents, who were double 9th cousins, with 12 common ancestors within 15 generations -- for comparison, Chase and I are 8th cousins once removed, with 79 common ancestors within 15 generations).

---

8 months later:

For 10 generations (without siblings): Up from 746 to 749. Progress is tough; down to brickwalls, I think.

For 15 generations (without siblings): Down from 3195 to 2986. Some potential for growth there, but easy to lose hundreds when a single false connection is broken.

---

Hmm... I'm up to 3452 in 15 generations.

I don't know where all the extra people come from, but I believe I'm personally responsible for some of them, because I connected some "new" ancestors a little while back, including https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bradish-11 and wife https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Frost-1567

---

Still at 749 for 10 generations, but down to 2910 for 15 generations. I'll take that as a sign that the "integrity" of my portion of the tree is improving. I find a lot of made up/speculative connections when (1) people try to connect PGM ancestors to people back in England or (2) people try to connect the earliest known English ancestor in the parish records to a yet earlier ancestor. Not surprising the number is going down. Probably at least 4 unfounded connections for each newly discovered good connection, and many unfounded connections link back many generations (eg based on a pedigree), while the new-found good connections are often just a link to one dead-end ancestor.

---

My numbers are up: 953 in 10 generations -- I connected a couple of early ancestors to their parents. Also 3531 in 15 generations.

---

Still at 749 for 10 generations and down to 2860 for 15 generations. 15 gen number crept up for 2 years and has been creeping down the past 18 months. Now fewer than back in 2016.

2016-Apr - 2961

2017-Jun - 3133

2018-Feb - 3195

2018-Oct - 2986

2019-Mar - 2910

2019-Nov - 2860

---

You're apparently making more progress at eliminating bogus ancestors than I am, Chase.

I am up to 965 in 10 generations (but I know who at least some of the new additions were -- there did seem to be some decent evidence), and my 15-generation number has grown to 3584.

---

I think I could make my number go up if I focused on finding parents for my current terminal (as in end of the line) ancestors, but I've been spending more time on PGM ancestors and then working back through their ancestors, which results in disconnecting people a lot more often than adding them.

---

The recent additions to my 10-generation tree found me, due to another member who identified parents for an ancestor who previously had none.

---

Progress! My 15-generation list has been trimmed down to 3559 (25 less than there were less than a week ago), due at least in part to my efforts to disconnect "ancestors" for whom there is no evidence.

---

2020-Feb - 2803

Lost another 57 since November. At this rate, in 7 years my tree will be just me and my parents!

---

Luckily, this is not a linear phenomenon, Chase.

My count is down slightly, to 3541 in 15 generations...

---

I noticed that other folks had been busy getting rid of some false ancestors for me.

I am down to 3496 in 15 generations (but my 10-generation count is holding steady at 966).

---

Down another 74 in the past 6 months:

2016-Apr - 2961

2017-Jun - 3133

2018-Feb - 3195

2018-Oct - 2986

2019-Mar - 2910

2019-Nov - 2860

2020-Feb - 2803

2020-Aug - 2729

I cut off a bunch by using Ancestor Listmaker to find my (and going back further, my grandparents') connections to English and Scottish royalty and then using the ancestral lines feature to see how I was descended from them. The ones that did not go through a known gateway ancestor almost always had an implausible and unsupported link, which I researched and corrected - eg the Boone family's fanciful connection to the poet John Milton's family.

Interestingly, I am now up from 749 in 10 generations (where I had been stuck forever) to 774.

---

I hadn't checked for a while. As of today I am down to 2472 for 15 generations, which is a reduction of almost 10% from where I was in August 2020 (and down over 22% from its peak in February 2018). Down from 774 to 771 for 10 generations. As before, I consider the reduction in number of ancestors in generations 11-15 probably a good sign and means that a lot of the fanciful stuff in my earlier generations has been disconnected. Probably still a lot of junk there, though.

---

Meanwhile, I seem to have accruing new ancestors at the 10-generation level, but losing some at earlier levels. I'm at 3301 for 15 generations and 993 for 10 generations.

---

I think those are both good trends, Ellen. Within 10 generations are more likely to be valid and documentable.

---

I don't feel so good about the 10-generation additions, Chase. I've figured out who some of the more recent additions are, and I am finding some dubious-looking genealogy. (Along with some additions that look like they are probably good.)

---

Still at 771 for 10 generations, but down to 2404 for 15.

---

My numbers are growing. I fear that I have some distant cousins who have been eagerly embracing and republishing names and questionable bios they found in random secondary (not to mention tertiary and quaternary sources). I'm now past 1000 for 10 generations, at 1024, and up to 3359 for 15.

Answer 1

I think I have a lot of work to do . Only 260.....

Answer 2

Well, I only have 126 at present on WikiTree, but checking my mom's tree I have 386 ancestors and perhaps there are a few more on my dad's tree I don't have duplicated on my moms and I don't know how many more which Wikitree has but I don't have.

Answer 3

Yikes!  Only 373 without siblings.  Kind of wish I never saw that.

Interesting that my daughter is only 410.  I guess I need to work on my husband's twig too.

Comments

Yeah, I need to work on my wife's tree. My children actually have about 500 fewer in their trees than I have in mine. I think because (i) my wife only has about 32 in her tree and (ii) having one fewer generation from my tree, back 15 generations ago, is losing a lot of people.

Answer 4

1370 here. Mags

Comments

Mags - that's with siblings I think.

Answer 5

5587 - Kathleen

Comments

Kathleen - Thanks for tipping off to the feature. Is the 5587 from your 15 generations of ancestor without siblings from Family List? When I run it from your public profile, it says 274.

---

I ran the Relationship Tool from the Find drop down menu.  I ran the calculation using you Ashley-1950.  The last number I saw before it switched to your name was 5587.

BTW we seem to be 12th cousins twice removed and descended from John Baker, 1488-1558 - Baker-148

---

When I answered this yesterday, I apparently confused the 2 posted questions

Family List - ancestors & descendants without siblings = 92

Family List - ancestors & descendants with siblings = 230

Relationship Tool - 5587

(Late afternoon is not my thing)

Answer 6

Who could resist the chance to compare with everyone--

my ancestors & descendants with siblings=1497

I'm tired just thinking about entering all of them on wikitree.  Time for a nap.

Answer 7

552 - within 15 generations and with no siblings - Seems I have more work to do.

Comments

You're up to 1143 now.