Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!jim
From: jim@randvax.UUCP (Jim Gillogly)
Newsgroups: net.roots
Subject: Re: Some notes on recent postings
Message-ID: <2830@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Dec-85 21:21:17 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2830
Posted: Mon Dec  9 21:21:17 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Dec-85 05:51:42 EST
References: <1631@decwrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: jim@rand-unix.UUCP (Jim Gillogly)
Organization: Banzai Institute
Lines: 23

In article <1631@decwrl.UUCP> bennison@clt.DEC (Victor Bennison - DTN 381-2156) writes:
>One common mistake made by novices to family research is to look for
>other people with the same surname.  Even if you have one of the most
>uncommon surnames, the probability of the person 1) being closely
>related and 2) knowing anything about his ancestry are slim to none.

Although I agree with most of what Victor Bennison says, I'm compelled
to offer a specific counterexample:  I did the shotgun number to all
Gilloglys I could find in phone directories across the country (about 25,
I think), and got 8-10 responses.  Of those, two pointed me to
members of their family who were actively doing genealogy.  More than
half of the respondents were obviously related to me (based on stuff I
had back to about 1820), including one of the genealogists, and within
10 years the other genealogist and I had figured out where we connected.
(It was one more generation back.)

Of course if you have a name like Johnson it isn't going to work well,
but for us obscure types (I suspect Denise O'jibway is in this category)
it can be helpful.
-- 
	Jim Gillogly
	{decvax, vortex}!randvax!jim
	jim@rand-unix.arpa