One way to measure how far you’ve got with your family history research is to count how many forebears you can name at each generation.
I know the names of all my great great grandparents and all my husband’s, Greg’s, great great grandparents.
A useful statistic is the number of forebears you can name in the previous ten generations. The possible maximum, including yourself, is 1,023 individuals. [Cousins sometimes marry, so there might be duplicates.]
On my side of the family I can name only 22%, 230 of the possible 1,023. On my husband’s side I know the names of only 13%, 138. If I look at our tree from our children’s perspective the figure is 31%, 319.
When I did these sums two years ago I could name only 25%, 253, of our children’s forebears back 10 generations. Since then I have documented the names of 66 more. There’s a lot left.
Chart generated by MacFamilyTree8. A larger version of this chart is available. Direct ancestors back to the tenth generation whose names I know are coloured; blanks represent those whose names are unknown to me.
| Generation | Possible number | Me | Greg | Children | me % | Greg % |
Children% |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| 2 parents | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| 3 grand parents | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| 4 great grand parents | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| 5 great great grand parents | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| 6 3rd great grand parents | 32 | 24 | 30 | 32 | 75% | 94% | 100% |
| 7 4th great grand parents | 64 | 35 | 32 | 54 | 55% | 50% | 84% |
| 8 5th great grand parents | 128 | 45 | 22 | 67 | 35% | 17% | 52% |
| 9 6th great grand parents | 256 | 49 | 19 | 67 | 19% | 7% | 26% |
| 10 7th great grand parents | 512 | 46 | 4 | 68 | 9% | 1% | 13% |
| Total | 1023 | ||||||
| Score to generation 10 | 230 | 138 | 319 | ||||
| as a % | 22% | 13% | 31% |
Some of my progress has been helped by DNA testing. I think DNA matching with cousins will be an important tool for finding my missing ancestors.
Several bloggers have reported on the completeness of their family tree as measured by this counting method. Among them are:
This is a great way to see where the gaps in research are Anne. I’m not really sure what my %would be. Great post.
LikeLike
very chastening – plenty of upside potential! I look forward to reporting on improved results in the future
LikeLiked by 1 person
I must admit I have never thought to count my ancestors to assess my FH research progress, so thank you for giving me the idea. I liked your chart too for recording the generations, and must look into this further.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Names and dates of course are only the start. The stories and knowing something of their lives is more important.
LikeLike
With ancestors from Ireland, the gaps come in earlier, generally. I’m ambivalent about counting ancestors as a measure of FH progress. I have names for my German ancestry backto early 1600s but that doesn’t interest me much…I prefer learning more about any of my ancestors, but that’s just my preference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Collecting and counting names in some ways seems a bit pointless and like you I prefer to know more than just names and dates. I am frustrated at my lack of progress with my German ancestors and I suspect this score will help to keep me focussed on my direct lines. Well maybe a bit more balanced – as I am writing a post right now on another second cousin twice removed 😉 Trove Tuesday – so many stories – so many interesting cousins to distract me …
LikeLiked by 1 person
I need more focus altogether in recent times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: DNA: finding new connections with the latest tools | Anne's Family History
Pingback: Triangulating Matilda’s DNA | Anne's Family History
Pingback: creating trees in DNA Painter | Anne's Family History
Pingback: Tree progress March 2020 | Anne's Family History