Update 16 October 2012
The Markle/Gates database is now 6545 people. It is happily positioned back in Webtrees, which I think you will enjoy navigating. This is the most current information so is the best one to use for research.
Update 13 June 2012
The database is up to 6438 people now but it's not working temporarily. Some glitches need to get fixed.
Update 11 May 2011
We are migrating, like our ancestors, but for us, it's to a new php database site. The new one is easier to navigate, visually more pleasing and the edit function works! Come and see the new Markle (Davis) Gates Family Tree (new version: webstrees). Up to 5775 people now. No log-in is necessary. Let me know if you find any errors or omissions.
update: 28 February 2010
I have a new Php site that is housing the current Surname database for the Markle Gates Tree. It is easier to use, has standard pedigree and family group views, and has all sorts of charts and other views. I love the interactive chart which allows you to zoom up and down the pedigree line by just dragging your mouse. (Sounds so cruel!)
This new tree, up to 5308 individuals, is called the Markle (Davis) Gates Family Tree (old version: phpgedview) since I've been doing so much research on the Davis line using DNA to track our elusive grandfather, Charles Davis. More on him soon, I hope!
These are the main surnames, with their locations and oldest dates (related surnames in parentheses) that my daughter (who is my partner researcher) and I have found the most about:
GATES/GOETZ: Ohio, Nuremberg, Germany, 1800-1850 (KENNY, HOEGER, EBY, LASALLE, HEMMERLING)
MYERS/MAIERS: Ohio, 1840
GORTON: Ohio, New York, Rhode Island, 1652 (ROBERTS, HOTCHKISS, WOODING, HOLBROOK: Connecticut, 1750)
WHITE, SUMNER, HUBBARD: Vermont, Massachusetts, 1860
WILBER: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut , 1750 (McNARY, MURRAY, BAKER, FAIRBANKS)
MACKENZIE: Canada, Ohio, 1850 (HOLLAND, NELLIS: Ohio, 1880)
STUGARD: Ohio, 1850 (DOLL, MILLER, MERIWETHER: VA, 1800)
SARGISSON: London, UK, 1830 (BLACK: NSW, 1835; FARLEY: Lincolnshire, UK, 1835)
Our most difficult research problems:
**Charles DAVIS: NY and St. Louis, Missouri, b. 1870, DNA: I2a
**Michael LUNDRIGAN: Ireland>Yonkers, New York, b. abt. 1828
**Hope BROWN (on the GORTON line): b. Providence, Rhode Island, 1762, died Charlton, Massachusetts, 1811.
If you have anything more to contribute on these **mystery** people, we would be forever indebted to you!
update 17 Sept 2008:
Old Surname Database
If you're curious, this database has an unusual format with 3 frames and a linked pedigree-chart window. Use the blue arrows to enlarge the view with ancestors (up arrow), siblings (side arrow) or descendants (down arrow).
If you don't have Java enabled or your browser is not current enough, it will appear as a text database. (Requires IE v.5+, Firefox, Netscape v.6+, Opera v.7+)
This is the first version of the database.
It will be edited for typos and errors over the next few weeks but it is essentially sound. Enjoy!
update: 24 Aug 2008
I've now got a website-making program that navigates by pedigree view (my preference) and am now finishing deleting out all my living people. I have given up on trying to save time by using a different program and flagging people as living and then exporting out as a GEDCOM. Takes as much time to just change the original file. If you are reading this, please come back in a few days...or whatever.
last updated: 15 August 2008
Getting close now. I have been trying out as many genealogy website-making programs as I can find! None of them is exactly right but I will have something up eventually. "What will suffice?" is the only way I think I can get past what seems like an unsurmountable obstacle- all these "living people!"
Note to beginners: do not enter a name in your genealogy program without entering an actual death date or at least an approximation of a date. When you go to make a website, every name without a death date will register as a living person even if they were born in the 15th century! Since you can't have any living people on your posted family tree you have to go through your entire file to edit out very living person! If you have a file of 4905 people, how are you supposed to find the living people hidden amongst them?
In my case I had about 550 living people out of the total 4905 but I had to go through each person in the whole file to find them. If it took you one minute to check each person, that would be about 5000 minutes. That's 83 hours! That would be two full weeks of reading files for 8 hours a day, 9 to 5. See the problem? So recognise early that you will probably want a web site in the future so fill in those death dates!
last updated: 31 July 2008
My reason now is that I am dissatisfied with the various programs available for making a family tree website. Each one is lacking something that I want. So I am continuing to try them out and see how I can change them to fit what I need. I've actually considered trying programming myself I am so frustrated with what's available. There's surely a way for someone to make a million if they can just create a program that makes a family tree website and actually consider that the user might be intelligent and have a desire to customize it beyond a background color and a separating line. I may have to compromise. Will be back soon. Have I said that recently?
last updated: 25 May 2008
I can only say that it has been a SERIOUS miscalculation of how long it would take to just "clean up" a few facts and whip out some surname pages. I have been collecting names, dates and citations for the last 5 years and they are all mixed together in one huge file. To pull them apart and distinguish between who is an ancestor and who is just a spouse's brother, or worse, who is just a possibility, has turned out to be a huge undertaking.
How did I know that all those people who have no death date would register as "living?" I am disappointed in the options available for creating websites so am doing my best to create original pages which live up to my standards. Maybe I should just post the first 3 generations and then add more gradually. That would give me more time to focus on what has to be done for a finite amount of people.
Thank you for bearing with me. Something will be done "soon!"
last updated: 10 April 2008
A few days has turned into a few months and clearly I have miscalculated the meaning of the word "realistic." But I am working steadily. I didn't realize how many hundreds of names on my tree lack birth or death dates. They all come up as living people on my tree. So I have to go through each name to determine if it is really a living person or just a record lacking a date!
A piece of advice- if you're starting out entering names into your tree, always enter a birth year for living people, even if it's only "about 1930" so that you know this person is probably living. Also enter an "about 1770" date for those early ancestors who you are sure are dead. If you don't, later you have both types of entries lacking dates. An entry with blank dates confuses your filters that are trying to take out the living and leave in the dead.
17 Feb 2008 This is taking longer than I thought so it will be a bit more than "a few days!" I am working on it every day and am heading for two weeks: that would be about March 1, realistically estimating.
We are all traveling on the path at our own speed.