Page 1 of 1

Check for Unlinked Relatives or Individuals

Posted: 12 Jan 2020 20:51
by BobWard
I am trying to find a way to check my database to see if there are any people there who may have been inadvertantly, or intentionally, unlinked from my family tree, i.e., I am looking for any "orphans".

I thought there was a Plug-In to do this, but I was unable to find one. Is there an easy way to identify any potential orphans that may be hiding in my database?

Note: I did run the standard query "Search for Orphans", but it seemed to return everyone in my database. Five people had a Pool number of 2, while the remainder had a Pool number of 1. Not quite sure as to how to interpret this result. Does a Pool number of 2 mean that there is no relationship to anyone else in the family tree?

Update: I pulled up the profiles for all the people who were in Pool 2. It does appear that they have no relational connection to anyone else in the family tree. So, I think I have confirmed that anyone in Pool 2 does not belong in the family tree.

Re: Check for Unlinked Relatives or Individuals

Posted: 12 Jan 2020 21:11
by MB@RE
Create a new individual query.
On line two add : "=RelationPool(%INDI%)"
Those not in Pool 1, should be orphans.

I found this by going on the 'Help menu'.

Re: Check for Unlinked Relatives or Individuals

Posted: 12 Jan 2020 21:15
by BobWard
MB@RE wrote:
12 Jan 2020 21:11
Those not in Pool 1, should be orphans.
Agree, that seems to match the results that I got using the Search for Orphans query.

I think I have answered my question. Thanks.

Re: Check for Unlinked Relatives or Individuals

Posted: 12 Jan 2020 22:35
by tatewise
Pool numbers indicate family groups.

Everyone in the same Pool are either directly related or related by marriage.

Anyone in one Pool is totally unrelated to anyone in a different Pool.

The Search for Orphans Query lists records in their Pools.
Anyone in a unique Pool is and individual orphan.

Pool number 1 is usually the largest main Pool including the File Root.

Re: Check for Unlinked Relatives or Individuals

Posted: 15 Jan 2022 21:56
by dbnut
MB@RE wrote:
12 Jan 2020 21:11
Create a new individual query.
On line two add : "=RelationPool(%INDI%)"
Those not in Pool 1, should be orphans.
Just noticed this and prompted to mention I find it very useful to have a first "custom" column in the Individual Records Window with Heading "Pool" and Expression as you quoted.

Any time we want to check for oddities, sort descending on that column.

Re: Check for Unlinked Relatives or Individuals

Posted: 16 Jan 2022 01:00
by LornaCraig
MB@RE wrote:
12 Jan 2020 21:11
Create a new individual query.
On line two add : "=RelationPool(%INDI%)"
You don't need to create a custom query. Just use the standard query called Search for Orphans.

Re: Check for Unlinked Relatives or Individuals

Posted: 16 Jan 2022 08:38
by dbnut
LornaCraig wrote:
16 Jan 2022 01:00
MB@RE wrote:
12 Jan 2020 21:11
Create a new individual query.
On line two add : "=RelationPool(%INDI%)"
You don't need to create a custom query. Just use the standard query called Search for Orphans.
Lorna, I didn't say I needed (or wanted) a custom (or any other kind of) query. Just a tip to point out the benefit of a (1-minute) addition to columns in the Records Window.

Also could have been more explicit to say "Pool Number always has high visibility" and note that "multi-select can efficiently add small-pool individuals to Named Lists". And for those who have never heard of RelationPool before, another opportunity for a chance encounter - in a topic that could easily match their search criteria.

But mainly how I'm just a happy boy to be able to rely a teeny bit less (in one particular area) on a/the custom or standard query route. I'm always pleased to have shortcuts.

Re: Check for Unlinked Relatives or Individuals

Posted: 16 Jan 2022 10:57
by LornaCraig
Paul, my comment was meant for MB@RE, who had suggested creating a custom query which is not necessary.

Re: Check for Unlinked Relatives or Individuals

Posted: 16 Jan 2022 11:05
by dbnut
LornaCraig wrote:
16 Jan 2022 10:57
Paul, my comment was meant for MB@RE, who had suggested creating a custom query which is not necessary.
Sorry, Lorna, too dozy to notice whom you quoted. Too inclined to jump back in when I think anyone's disagreeing. Any tips on how an opinionated old **** could mend his ways? :oops: