Splitting Up the Website - Thames/Tims/Timms

[FlyDeltaJets]

I've been thinking that, since the DNA project confirmed that Amos Tims was not the father of Thomas Thames, and there is no other known evidence linking the two surnames, it may be beneficial from an organizational standpoint to split the website into multiple sections for Thames/Tims/Timms. This would obviously be a long term project as it would take some time to re-design the site and split the GEDCOM file into separate trees, but it's something I would like to take on. Even longer term, if there was any interest, the Tims/Timms sections could branch off (all pun intended! ) and form their own genealogy websites if one of the family members chooses.

Could I get some of you to weigh in on this?

[FlyDeltaJets]

So I've decided to proceed with setting up different sites for each of the main patriarchal surnames we have here (Thames-Tims-Timms-Timbs). Each one will reside under the thames-tims.org domain, but will be segregated with all associated photos/documents/sources/etc. Here's my dilemma; We have a single tree that has all of the surnames in it, so I'm struggling with how to efficiently split it up into three or four separate trees (one for each surname).

I have a feeling this is going to involve creating new trees from scratch, which will be a very tedious process, but one I'm open to if that's the only recourse.

Does anyone have any suggestions that might make this a little easier and prolong the graying of my hair?

[Alta]

Splitting up the website by surnames..or by Haplogroups... may be good. We should try it.

[FlyDeltaJets]

After thinking about it some more, I think the biggest obstacle would be the number of unrelated variations on the surnames that are members of the site (Thames, Tims, Timms, Timbs, and so on). I'm still open to eventually doing it, but the issue may come down to how to go about dealing with the surnames that may have only a handful of instances (it would be overkill to create a dedicate website for those surnames).

Splitting up by Haplogroups is a great suggestion, but it would (again) come down to the issue with dealing with the TTFA entries that aren't related to any of the known Halpogroups (right?).