As you can see, there has certainly been an emphasis towards blogs for my adopted tree rather than my birth tree. I suppose this is only natural in that the information available over many years of research has been a lot more than the relatively new birth tree which has really started from scratch over the past few years.
The bias on both trees towards the paternal rather than maternal side must be due to other factors. The main reason for it on my adopted tree was almost certainly because a lot of research into my mother's branch had already been extensively carried out by a cousin of mine and, although there has been some overlap, I have tended to research ancestors who nobody has looked at before. This has meant a leaning away from looking at the Hill / Haskins / Blore individuals. I am not sure why I have done twice as many more paternal ancestors than maternal on my birth tree. Possibly just the availabilty of information ?
I also looked at the split of the blogs between male as compared to female ancestors. There are obviously a number of blogs which feature both the husband and the wife so for this purpose I have necessarily counted the person who was the main target of the blog. Here again, probably because of the availability of information rather than any discrimination, the males have been dominant on both trees.
The initial raison d'etre when I started writing these blogs was the challenge put out by Amy Johnson Crow to her Facebook followers to write about 52 ancestors in 52 weeks. It was a wonderful idea as it gave a lot of people, including me, a reason to start writing regularly. There were numerous individuals who succeeded in the challenge and it was always slightly unfair for me in that I had two trees, birth and adopted, twice as many people to write about than others did and therefore it was a lot easier to achieve the goal.
Out of the 100 blogs I have done, though not intentionally, 68 have been about those from my adopted tree and only 32 about ancestors from my birth tree.
Revised Project Target
In view of this discrepancy, I think I should carry on doing at least 20 more on my birth branch so that I can reach the target of 52 ancestors which others have achieved. This won't be done under the same time constraints as the first 100 as it will inevitably involve a degree of new research which will be necessarily time consuming.
Having initially had a target of 52 ancestors in 52 weeks, then increased it to 100 in 100 weeks and now increased it to 52 ancestors on both trees, I am reminded of Steve Redgrave famously saying "I've had it. If anyone sees me near a boat they can shoot me". By moving the goal posts maybe I've got the same obsession as he had.
Where will it all end .............. ?