Family Tree Explains A Lot

Still working on the family tree. Up to over 1,000 branches, offshoots, family groups, whatever you want to term it as. What makes it interesting yet frustating at times is the families not only, apparently, believed in being large - as in 10+ kids a decent average thought prior to around 1920s - but also loved hand-me-downs. Now I am not referring to clothing, which likely were handed down, but names. Here's an example, let's say John Q. Smith is an ancestor of mine, and he was one of 10 children. His siblings we will pretend were Sarah, Lydia, Elizabeth, Mary, Anna, Samuel, Andrew, George Washington, Isaac Newton. Still with me so far? Ok. So now let's add his parents, Frederick and Nancy Jane Smith. So there are now 12 first names. Now we will let John traipse down the wedding aisle with Martha Etta Public, daughter of James Monroe and Tabitha. Martha gets pregnant on her wedding night, and has child #1, she and John name their new son after her side of the family and his father ... Frederick Public Smith. Martha has 9 more children: Susan Etta, Tabitha ,Sarah, Nancy Ann, George Washington, Isaac Newton, Andrew, John Monroe, James Joseph. Notice already how we are seeing some of the same names passed along to their children. Now recall that John has 9 other siblings ... who will be passing down many of these "shared already" names to their children. So ... in the male Smith's tree branches, you may wind up with at 3 Nancy Janes, 4 Elizabeth, etc. When John and Martha's children marry, they will likely do the same. Which, in my opinion, would eventually prove very confusing. But not confusing enough as Polly was a nickname for Mary, Sally for Sarah, and Nan for Nancy. So by the time you get closer to the present, within your family tree efforts, you may have wound up with a lot of Mary, Elizabeth, Susan, Sarah, James, John, and etc.