When I was at the Kentucky Historical Society research room in June, I overheard a conversation between a librarian and a patron. The patron, who displayed a certain amount of naiveté about genealogy research when he asked the librarian whether there was an index to everything in the library, proudly told the librarian that he’d been researching on Ancestry.com for years. The librarian’s response made me raise my eyebrows. He said, with a disapproving tone of voice, “A lot of stuff is wrong there; you can’t really trust those online sites.” I was so surprised by that statement that I wrote it down.
This felt all kinds of wrong to me for a couple of reasons. One is that, in one sentence, he invalidated this man’s genealogy experience. The other is that it’s just not true. I probably should have spoken up and argued the point, but I was in a library…it didn’t feel the place for a debate.
But it got me thinking about the notion that online sites like Ancestry or Family Search are inaccurate. I think that the librarian was referring to the family trees that can be found on the sites. Sure, trees are only as good as the practices of the genealogist who created them (or, in the case of Family Search, added to them). Many are not accurate. That’s why I ignore them.
Ancestry is typically the first place I go for source documents when I’m doing online research. It has millions of documents that provide evidence to prove facts in my genealogy research. I usually find them via search, either on a person or in the card catalog. I almost never even look at hints. And I carefully evaluate the suggested records that come up when I’ve clicked on a document in a search. (Usually, they are for the person I’m researching and are hugely helpful.)
Ancestry, along with Family Search, are the fundamental to growing my research, when I’m researching online (and I’m usually researching online). I was shocked to hear this authority figure completely dismiss online sites.
I was recently talking with a genealogy friend about her quest to solve a mystery. It became apparent that she was using online trees (in combination with DNA matches) as a main avenue for trying to solve the mystery. The conflicts among the trees were frustrating her. I suggested she back away from the trees and look for documents that could prove her suppositions. For me, the documents in Ancestry, not the trees, are where the value lies.
Of course, we must evaluate the documents and the evidence found in them. Good genealogists question everything. Is there inaccurate information on Ancestry? Of course–the family trees are full of them. Do the hints or suggested records sometimes apply to the wrong person? Yes!
But to describe Ancestry as inaccurate is, well, inaccurate. Everything you find in any repository (online or otherwise) must be evaluated. If you use Ancestry as tool to find documents that you then analyze, you’re on the path to success, in my opinion. However, if your starting point at Ancestry is looking at family trees, you may find yourself in the weeds.
My annual subscription to Ancestry is up for renewal this month. I always give it some thought and I always renew. I’m fortunate to be able to afford it; if I were looking to economize, though, Ancestry would probably be the last subscription I’d drop.
What about you? Do you think that the online sites get a bad rap? How do you make sure you’re getting good information from them?
I agree that Ancestry is an invaluable source for documents, but that many online Ancestry trees are inaccurate. But I still check the online trees for hints when I have run into a brick wall – of course, information from the trees needs to be properly verified.
I’m exactly the same way. Trees are never my first line of research and when I do look at them, it’s for hints.
If you do proper research and find the correct person, then I don’t think the online information is inaccurate. However, the problem with Ancestry, is when people take information from other people’s trees and assume it’s correct. I especially noticed that with my grandfather – a few people had him in their tree, but it was clear that somebody had initially found a different Percy Henry Williams, and others shared it thinking it was correct. I sent a woman a DM telling her she had the wrong man. She got very angry about it, telling me I was talking rubbish, even though it was my own granddad!
I’m sure it’s frustrating to see inaccurate trees with your own grandfather in them! That’s why I just ignore the trees on Ancestry (unless I’m really looking for a chink in a brick wall) and embrace the other ways to access all the information there. Thanks for commenting!
I appreciate messages from other members. Just the other day I noticed I had the exact same photo posted, but we disagreed on who was in the photo. My father told me who was in my photo (of his uncle and bride), whereas the other person’s photo was of her grandfather and grandmother. I think she’s more likely to have the correct names than I am.
As a state Registrar for the SAR – all are encouraged to use ancestry.com with a few caveats:
Unacceptable documentation
The following unacceptable sources should not be submitted as “proof” of a bloodline:
• User-submitted family trees or information found on online websites, including GEDCOMs, Ancestry.com, World Family Tree, Rootsweb.com, and similar sites, or from personal online family pages.
• LDS Ancestral File and/or IGI records
;US and International Marriage Records from Ancestry.com;
Those caveats make perfect sense to me, Jerry. Thank you for contributing the SAR perspective!
Oh boy. Well, as a former researcher for Ancestry and a professional genealogist here are my thoughts. Ancestry public trees are fraught with errors, however, when we were researching lines, we did not overlook them, but used them as hints. Nothing was assumed correct unless we could establish it with the proper documents.
A word about indexing. Years ago, Ancestry hired out the indexing to people in China, and now to people in prisons. Family Search relies on volunteers for indexing. Bottom line, is that the best quality of indexing will be from native speakers of that language. However, that still doesn’t always hold true. Fact in point, I found my Flint family listed as Hunts on a census record.
Bottom line, always verify, always read the document, and by the way, verify with documents.
I always really appreciate your taking the time to comment from your perspective as a professional genealogist, Maria. I agree with you, Maria. I was perhaps speaking with a bit of hyperbole when I said I ignore them.
Thanks for our insights on indexing. I knew that Ancestry had been using indexers who were not native English speakers. I did not know they were using incarcerated people as indexers. How interesting. I know that when I index for Family Search, I tend to do a bit of genealogy research to help verify my interpretation when in doubt. I bet others do to. I can totally see how Flint might look like Hunt!
When you say “verify with documents” are you saying don’t accept a document as reliable unless you find another document that verifies it?
I have found that quite often women’s names go through a variety of changes. For example someone named Lulamae at birth may use different variations on her first name, on different documents, we all know and have experienced that. I use the variation found closest to birth. I have found 10 documents for the same woman with different first and last names, the only consistent facts were the names of her parents and spouse on baptismal records and birth registrations.
So thinking about the subject, it doesn’t matter which website you use, the one that accuracies fall on is the researchers. In this process noting the findings, the methodology leading to your conclusions is most helpful.
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment, Janine. But it brings to mind that not all librarians are “into” genealogy. I knew a library director who was a wonderful library person, but she had zero interest in her own history (said she came from “a long line of orphans.”) Consequently, her library was almost barren of genealogically-related material. Instead, the library director in a smaller town nearby took up some of that slack by dedicating herself to expanding the genealogical collection housed there. Just a thought about the man in the library you visited, and possibly a hint about his perspective.
Thanks for sharing that perspective, Patricia. It’s an important one. But this was a genealogy/history library! Perhaps that gentleman wasn’t in the right job.
Ugh! I really have nothing to add, but agree with every word you wrote, Janine! That librarian must not have any first-hand experience with Ancestry, or any other of “those online sites”.
I was really surprised to hear those words come out of the librarian’s mouth, Hazel. Maybe you’re right that the librarian had never tried Ancestry.
I agree. Ancestry is great providing you realize Trees are not always correct. My grandmother is on a tree that states she lived in Norfolk Virginia. Actually my grandmother was from Norfolk England, and never left the country. Sadly this tree also names her husband, my grandfather and their 3 sons, one of which was my dad. I did share this fact with the owner of the tree who strongly felt their info was correct. So beware when reading other family trees.
I totally agree with all said. I use the hints for what they are hints. I will check other trees for hints.
If me after the librarian had moved on I would of said to the patron about ancestry being a great place to find documents and hints.
I am new to your blog but am finding so much valuable information! As to economizing by shedding subscriptions, our small town local library has Ancestry for free and I’m assuming most or all libraries are the same. You don’t get hints or trees without a personal subscription but you can see all available documents and email copies to yourself.
That’s a very good point, Sandy! Thank you for contributing and thanks for your kind words.
I agree with you 100%! When I was just starting in genealogy I followed info on a tree in Family Search and got really excited when it showed I was related to the 1st governor of Connecticut! Until I closely looked at the relative I had been tracing, and they totally had my Mary Jane Leete mixed up with another, or several other, Mary Jane Leetes. Nope, I’m not related to the 1st governor of Conn.!
It’s so easy for that to happen, particularly when we’re starting out!
I agree wholeheartedly. Ancestry and other online sites have been invaluable to my research the past 20 years.
It is unfortunate that so many people hear “Ancestry” or “FamilySearch” and immediately, or only, think of the trees. When I hear the names of the sites, my mind automatically goes to the databases they offer.
As for the cost of Ancestry, I continue to allow my membership to be renewed. I’m often on it several hours a day – in the comfort of my home.
I’m with you 100%, Linda!
My take agrees with yours, Janine. I once heard a staffer somewhere tell a researcher that the 1930 US Census was badly incomplete or possibly its indexing had been incomplete. I haven’t found it to be worse than others, have you? Maybe it’s part of a researcher’s job to learn to take these things with a grain of salt and judge for oneself.
There are two generalizations that all of the advisors should keep saying: It isn’t all online, and Ancestry doesn’t have everything that is online. Look farther afield.
Your points are very good, Marian! I think it’s so important for people to understand that only a fraction of documents are online (and only a fraction of those are indexed!).
Back in the mid-1990s I did research at the Georgia State Archives and the National Archives. Many of the records I found on microfiche back then are now online. Records are records, no matter what the medium. It is how you analyze the records that counts. As Elizabeth Shown Mills states in her book, Evidence Explained, “Correct identity is the foundation upon which all else rests”. For example, if I have an Ancestry hints for John B. Doe in the 1880 US Census, but my John B. Doe was born in 1899; it is obvious that the identity of the person in the census does not match my ancestor. If I do poor analysis of records, it’s all on me. To wholesale adopt potentially shaky family trees without checking the sources, is not genealogy.
I agree that information in the online trees is sometimes inaccurate. However, I don’t discount them completely. Sometimes I have found very valuable documents attached to persons in these trees that I have not been able to find any place else.
After a weekend of struggling with Ancestry’s search mechanism, maybe I should revise what I said on Aug 10th. I think that the historical records we find on Ancestry are mostly accurate (that is, MOSTLY accurately transcribed), but its search mechanism is still badly broken and inaccurate. When I tell it to look for an exact date or place, it includes records outside (sometimes FAR outside) those parameters and frequently misses (or probably buries at the end of its list) the record that I am seeking and have found before in its collection.
As many people have discussed, this has been the situation since at least May 2018, when Ancestry promised to fix the problems.
Those searches can be so frustrating! Have you tried searching the card catalog when you know they have the document? I hope they repair the search mechanism and make it easier for us to get to those valuable documents!
Yes, but when it’s a common name like John Beck, I get hundreds of results, apparently not sorted according to my date or place request.