I wrote this post four years ago and felt it was worth sharing again. You might be interested to read the comments on the original post because, as usual, readers added valuable information and perspective.
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 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’ve never understood why people only think of the online trees when referring to online sites like ancestry and family search. I’ve always use those sites to search for documents.
When I reach a stumbling block, or just for fun, I’ll search a specific name in the public trees – but use them for hints, not actual facts. There has been more than one occasion when a tree entry prompts me to search in a geological location I hadn’t thought the ancestor would have been located at. Back to searching the real documents and lo and behold my ancestor was in that location.
If I had discounted the public trees outright, I may never have located that individual in that location. But I know enough to not accept the tree info without some verification.
Btw, even if a tree has attached documents as sources, it has still been wrong. I saw a tree one time that a great uncle (who never married as far as my mother knows) was married with children. I checked the attached source document. A marriage certificate of a man with the same name, but different parents – so not my great uncle. I cringe at the thought of how many people will have accepted the info without closer examination.
I agree, online trees can provide great clues for finding documents.Thanks for your comment!
It is upsetting to have your genealogy research dissed by a librarian. I had been researching for years at a local library. Prior to their conversion to an online catalog, they had a great resource – a list of surnames found in the books on their shelves. It was quite extensive. After conversion, I asked about this catalog of surnames and the librarian proceeded to tell me that looking up a surname was not the correct way to do genealogy – I got the whole spiel of working from the known to the unknown, looking at records, etc. Not that she was wrong, but I had a specific question and I felt it was condescending.
I think I would be upset by that too!
To say that Ancestry has inaccuracies is akin to saying that a library has lots of inaccuracies. Ignorant and not helpful comment from someone who should know better.
Yes, I was very surprised by the comment!