Here’s the next in my occasional series of bite-size Quick Tips. Click on the Quick Tips tag for my other Quick Tips. Because I tend to write longer posts, I wanted to provide a quick-to-read (and quick-to-write) post every couple of weeks on a small topic that pops into my head. This is one that I think trips up new genealogists quite often!
Don’t rely on online trees
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with online genealogy research, in my view. It’s how I do most of my research, in fact. Websites like Family Search and Ancestry provide amazing, reliable information and the hunt for images of original documents is thrilling.
The problem comes when people take information found on public trees on those sites and assume the information is accurate. A tree is only as good as the genealogist who put it together. And unfortunately if someone has posted wrong information it’s often copied and may appear in many other trees. That can give it a patina of reliability. But unless it’s backed up by a solid source, I suggest using it only as a clue.
You’ll avoid heartache and headache down the road if you rely on solid source documents, not family trees, for your research.
Photo by Sam Dan Truong on Unsplash
Good point. The first year or two I relied on on-line trees and published books. Luckily, early on I realized the error of my ways. I currently use on-line trees and books as leads.
We’re on the same page there, Jerry! (And good reminder about published books not necessarily being great sources.)
Absolutely. When researching an ancestor from the late 1700s, one of his children was posted on a tree, as being born in the wrong county hundreds of miles away from where the ancestor was married. Fortunately for me (okay, my kids local history 4th grade curriculum) I knew that it was one of those name change issues and that the child in question was born actually a couple of miles from where my kids went to school. Other people’s trees are great for hints, but you have to document it, just like family legends.
Great analogy, Janet. Public trees are sometimes as reliable as family legends.
So true! If using Ancestry I would make sure you are looking at a tree’s RECORDS not SOURCES. Sources seem to always be just another tree!
I hear you!
I don’t really use anyone’s online trees for information, though if there is someone I know absolutely nothing about I might have a look for some inspiration. Too many times I have looked at an online tree and see incorrect parents or incorrect birth/death dates. Though, I did find an illegitimate child I never knew about via an online tree, I fact checked the child’s birth/death through official records, and discovered the online tree was only partially correct as the person had not looked for actual dates, just used the indexes for approximate dates.
I have a number of trees, though at present only one is public, I have ensured I noted where I got my information for anyone looking at the tree so they know it has been checked and referenced.
That’s a great example of how an online tree can provide a juicy clue! Thanks for sharing your perspective, Missy.
When I compare member family trees, I frequently find spelling errors and format errors in dates and places in my own tree. Do wish Ancestry would show which records the other trees used opposed to just a total number of records used. Member trees can also be very helpful for leads on maiden names. I like to save titles from member trees in my alternate name location. These are frequently quite long in England and would throw off sorts if used as the primary name. Such titles are not always included in hints.
Don’t disregard member trees. They are an excellent way to combine research efforts with others. If nothing else communication with other researchers can clean up errors in their trees or your own.
Thanks for commenting, Ann! I appreciate the reminder that public trees can give us clues and other information so shouldn’t be disregarded. My intention in writing this post was to caution people against taking them at face value.
I’m confused. If you click on another member’s tree you can view the records they have attached to their facts?
That’s right. But the problem is with the trees that don’t have any sources attached to their facts. Or they have erroneous sources. When they do have sources, I always evaluate those sources.