I prefer record hints, then browsing the tree hints to see if there are records I haven't found attached. If there are no new records or only other tree hints, I tend ignore them. The record hints are even better if they have an image attached, since the original record generally has more information than the index.
To be fair, I think a prevalence of trees on Ancestry without attached sources are probably because the owners are using only the free features, which does not include attaching sources. I worked on my tree for free for about ten years before I recently bought a paid subscription, and now I am busily reviewing hints and attaching sources! I did often make up for it by downloading the images and adding them to the person's gallery (and often to the specific events), but then they do not show up as sources.
Denise, thanks for that insight. Unfortunately, Ancestry, MyHeritage, and so forth do not provide an indicator to others that such is the case. It's really hard to differentiate between folks using the free accounts based on sources and folks creating unsourced trees to prove their lineage. However, I like the insight that you share. Something to consider.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics , thanks for your reply. Yes, I agree that you can't tell the difference; I just noticed some comments expressing frustration at the tree owners, and wanted to point out that it might or might not be a case of someone just not bothering to do the 'right thing', so they may or may not be to blame (although I imagine many of them are, lol). When I was adding images to events, I figured that if someone saw it, they might not see a linked source, but if they could see the actual document attached, they could be more confident of my entries, so I tried to make up for it in that way, but it may not occur to others to do that.
Record hints first. Use trees as clues. So many trees on Ancestry that I see do not have the documentation attached to their online tree. So I will take the clues and go look for the proof.
There are too many trees on ancestry (and every other family tree site) with no sources, nor any reasons for the people (family bible? Some records you might personally have..) I will use family tree hints on a "test tree" until I can verify or rule out that information.
I agree. Trees are a good tool, but I always go back to records for verification. I have found errors on other trees (like the picture next to my name in several trees does not belong to me. It was someone else in my same town around the same time I was born).
When I'm building out a new Tree I look at the Tree Hints first to see if there is enough common information to give an initial acceptance of the tree and then I go back and try to validate it with Records. If I find contradictory records, then I will delete that from my Tree. If there's no enough for me to give it a nod, but I still find it interesting, I will save it to my shoebox.
I use records first and then look at tree hits but I do not always use three hints because some people just throw in stuff that does not have any connect to the person I'm working on.
I like it. (I have deleted some of my trees from when i was a baby genealogist and threw stuff in that doesn't make any sense. I TRY to do much better.)
On Ancestry I tend to look at the family tree hints to extract what sources that individual has used. I then check those sources and if appropriate add the source details to my tree. (I've seen trees on Ancestry which have used some information from an old tree I did under a lost username/email address which I now know is incorrect. So I've seen where others have just linked information without verifying it)
While someone on Family Search claims DNA evidence to shift my ancestors from Scotland to Ireland, an Ancestry Website family tree with a record attached puts a DNA 2nd great granduncle in the right area for baptisms, but wrong area for other records
On FamilySearch, you would have to leave reason statement and notes in the Collaboration tab to explain your changes. DNA can be a source, we just have to write up the analysis more.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics There are so many bad and unsourced trees, it's really aggravating. What makes it worse is if you politely suggest corrections and offer help, some jump all over you for "criticizing" their "resesrch"...
@@tonygriffin6049 I've come across the same attitude, now I put up comments or a story on my tree if I have something to clarify, which will show up as a hint for people who have merged trees with mine. I do use tree hints but not the way most do; if I have a brick wall I'll use those on a test tree that I keep private. If documentation or first hand source can verify, then it goes on my main tree. I still find lots of errors that I need to clean up in my own tree. I've learned a lot since 2012 and even started my main tree over. Lol I've also recently come across some interesting facts that have had me go back and verify a 4th great grandmother's maiden name. She was Anne Lyon on her marriage paperwork to my great grandfather, William Dray. In the 1870's she is in the English Census in Kent with her second husband, her kids from 1st husband, and her parents all in one house. So I looked into Anne's mother and father. Her mother only married the once. Her name was Mrs. Grace Hinckley. She got married to her husband a few years before Anne was born, so I assumed (and there's the problem right there) that Mr Hinckley was the father. And many people copied my mistake. Anne's marriage document had her maiden name as Lyon. But the census record had the parents name as Hinckley. I thought maybe she got married very young, before my 4th great grandfather? I wasn't sure how to fit that Lyon surname in until recently. The ah ha came when I could see the original copy of the marriage documents on find my past, (could only see the listing on ancestry). It said her father was John Lyon and it clarified her birth town down to the parish. I found documents matching these names and dates, verified my info and then wrote about my mistake, pinning a story to that ancestor. (Hope this makes sense!)
According to the Proof Standard, it's record hints, especially birth Certificates, Deaths Certificates, Marriage certificates, and Military records. The cencuses are usually last.
I like that you're referring to the Genealogy Proof Standard. The only thing I'm uncertain of is why censuses would be last. The reason is... many places we research do not have the first four you mentioned at the time we need them to exist. Methodically, the next record set to examine would be census records because they foundation for adding additional alternative sources to make a case to prove any fact or relationship. While I would agree that they can not stand alone, I wouldn't search them last. Is that what you mean by census records being last? That they can't stand alone?
I used to focus on both but in my experience, I have found I do not look at the Family Tree hint but focus on just record hints. On the occasion, I might look at the Family Tree to see how they are related to me but I prefer only sourced records. That being said, I still have not cleaned up my tree for just sourced records :-)
To me, tree hints are just signposts which [hopefully] point me in the right direction...where I can look for record hints to confirm. About the only time I pay much heed to others' trees is when they record dates/places for the user's parents...or maybe grandparents. I expect people are likely to know when and where their own parents were born/got married.
I suspect rather than expect people know about the details of their parents. However, with the increase of adoptees and abandoned children trying to discover, even the name of their mother and father, I would be more cautious about accepting parental data. Not ruling it out completely, but cautious. One only has to listen to Larry Jones from DNA Family Tree on TH-cam to know that the paper trail for parents isn't always what is correct.
I have to see documents. There are so many trees on Ancestry that have the wrong person as my great grandfather that I had to make a special note on my tree about it. I've made sure the correct person is on Family Search, Geni and WikiTree, but there's nothing I can do about Ancestry. This proves to me that just copying from tree hints is an easy trap to fall into. Yesterday, I added a few people I already had in my main trees to Ancestry based on tree hints, but since I had already proven those people elsewhere, I was able to easily say, yes, that is the right person, and no, that's not the right person. If I was new at this, or didn't know, it would be so easy to just put in the wrong person. So, documents are important and I have to see something unambiguous before I'll add a person to my tree. If the hint is ambiguous, I'll keep it in a research folder, but don't add that person to my tree.
My husband has an ancestor that others incorrectly put her mother as a duchess. It's frustrating. Everyone wants to be related to royalty, even when they are proven wrong.
I know how frustrating it is to correct information on Ancestry that keeps being wrongly perpetuated. That's one advantage of WikiTree and FamilySearch. I'm not as familiar with Geni. (There are only so many hours in the day.).
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics hahaha. My husband's great-grandmother became friends with Princess Victoria, the Marchioness of Milford Haven (Prince Philip's grandmother). The Marchioness use to work with the poor charities in London and befriended his great-grandparents. Great-grandpa found work in Canada...his great-grandmother made many trips back to England to visit the Marchioness. But no actual royalty..... we do have a Major, a General, a goldsmith....and a few drunks.
I was one to use both, but have become aware of the problems caused with the tree hints, so have become much more selective. I want records, I will, on Ancestry look at the trees that they put forth, but if there are no records on the tree, I ignore it.
Personally I look at the record hits more than the tree hints. Either way, I'll see if they make sense before making changes to my tree. That said, I hardly ever link records and such to my on-line trees. I keep my main research tree off-line in Family Tree Maker and do not sync it with any on-line system. Yes, it is sometimes more work, but I only fill out the on-line trees as I need them for my research. If someone looks at my tree and think that I don't have any documents to back my research, they would be wrong and all they have to do is to contact me and I am willing to share anything that I have.
I'm on the other side. I get link happy with my research. My off-line tree is for a project or a back up for the lines I care about the most. For those lines I 'play with' I leave them online, particularly on FamilySearch. I can respect other people's approaches.
I always choose record hints. Everything else is a suggestion that can be interesting and a help but only if I can find records to validate the data. I found some long searched death certificate by browsing through some church records. That was awsome! Thanks to you for showing how to find those! 👍👌☺
Yes I do this also, what I find when I look at the hints I check to see how old these people are and the younger ones usually they're not going to respond and that's really kind of sad. I don't think they're in there for the long.
When I first came across the Ancestry member tree that showed that my mother had died 16 years ago, I was surprised. I called my mother to make sure that she was still in fact alive, and she confirmed that she was, to the best of her knowledge. So far I have come across about two dozen other trees that have that same bad info, and some of them belong to cousins who really should know better. That said, I'm sure this originated with a record hint, because my mother and the other deceased woman were born 4 months apart in the same state, and Ancestry gives me hints like that all the time. Record hints can create a mess if you just start blindly clicking the "Yes" button on every hint, which too many people do.
Same named persons do cause problems for genealogists for any generation. We talked about this on our live stream recently... As a baby genealogist, I accidently killed a great aunt on paper a decade before she died. We had a family feud, she was 'old enough' to have been deceased and no one was caring my grandparent's estate . (Longer story) Surely she would have been deceased. A 1st cousin 1 removed called me to say, "Um, no, my dear." I fixed that quickly and was grateful. Then I set up a meet and greet before she really did die. I think these mistakes happen but correcting them can be a PAIN in the neck.
Unfortunately not all records are completely accurate. My paternal grandmother is named as Isabel on her birth and death certificates and as Isabella on her marriage certificate and all her five children's birth certificates. There are many other examples in my family tree. I always check other suggested tree hints but I dismiss them if they have no supporting evidence.
In the case of Isabel vs Isabella, that is still supporting evidence but a common mistake. I would keep it and explain the spelling variation. I recently came across a record where the daughter of the deceased said her mother Emily Hulda had a mother named Emily Hulda. The mother's name was Lydia Nickerson Sprague. The mother within ten years of Emily (the deceased's) death and perhaps wasn't known by the granddaughter. Mistakes happen, but I would still link the document to Lydia and explain why the name was in accurate. She's still the mother.
Records first (if they exist). Since adding DNA matches, I don't always fully sources cousins, etc, but I try to correctly source direct ancestors. So someone looking at my tree may not see sources for the particular ancestor they are looking at, but if they are looking at my direct line, they will see sources. Trees are useful if there isn't much else out there or if I'm just fishing out different possibilities. I used to work as a data analyst....trees are just raw data and I look for the correct pattern..... If I add someone on my tree that I haven't been able to confirm is 100% correct, I add tags and comments to that profile. The relatives that other people tend to get wrong on their trees, I will source as much as possible so when I contact them I can show evidence how I came to my conclusion. Networking is also important. You need to communicate with other tree owners. Once you start comparing stories, the missing pieces start to fall into place.
Fair enough. I can understand not wanting to fully source cousins. Perhaps adding one document that establishes their relationship to the preceding generation would be enough. Something to consider. I don think the use of the MyTreeTags would be SO MUCH better for uncertain information. Fingers crossed others will notice them. I wish they showed up on the Ancestry Member Tree hint comparison page. That would help A TON.
I like to have as many documents as possible. Ancestry has so many hints and in my particular family Tree, we had several male ancestors named Benjamin Willis. Not all dates were correct, not all children were correct. Cousins and their children were confused with several of my grandfathers. So I'm still working on that via any historical documents I can obtain.
I love as many documents (and the variety of documents). Ancestry and MyHeritage often have found records that I hadn't searched for because I didn't know they were available on line just yet. That's so nice.
Talking about sources hmm when it comes to my tree if I know them personally why would I put a source. For example my grandmother Garza I have known my whole life and all pictures I have the original ones, please explain to me someone why would I put a source when I am the source. My aunt gave me a copy of everything she found and has one of my brothers being married in Texas. None of my brothers have been married in Texas I don't need a source to tell me that
Timothy... you should put a source for personal knowledge. I know when my mother was buried because I paid for the funeral and watched her casket go into the ground. I know when my children were born because I delivered them. In both of those cases, I'm a stronger witness than any document. However, I didn't witness the elopement for my Grandma Helen. I know about it, and we celebrated the day, but I didn't witness it, and I was born long after her wedding. I can still be the source of the information because there isn't a document currently available to our knowledge. In both cases, I still need to let other researchers know that I'm the source. So, I can do something like the options referred to in this article www.geneamusings.com/2014/06/how-do-i-cite-personal-knowledge-and.html
People who use these hints don't often understand genealogy methodology which means you must absolutely know if these are your people or someone with like names, etc. before you attach them. Most people don't have a clue how to do genealogy these days. KEEP A TIMELINE of events, add the source at the bottom of each entry. Yes, do use software, you cannot be competent using an online tree to find your people, you HAVE to have a general place to list notes, hunches, etc. The surname (a rare name) I have researched for 50 years--well, 99% of the trees are absolutely wrong. Recycled genealogy at Ancestry, etc. is just about collecting names, period, and not knowing if these names are actually correct. The answers to your mysteries are STILL in archives, libraries, county courthouses. Learn how to do genealogy and what to do. A competent genealogist can show you in 15 min. Don't be a "name gatherer" be a genealogist.
I agree with your last statement, don't be a name gatherer. I prefer to go deep on my ancestors than wide. However, I can do just about everything with an online tree that I could with genealogy software -keep notes, find errors, add media, track citations. Additionally, many online tree programs will create a timeline automatically as you add residence facts and other time based details to your tree beyond Birth, Marriage, and Death. (Software will too. Yay! Modern Genealogy).
![[Sub Thai] APT. - ROSÉ & Bruno Mars](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bYjhzP8x_uc/mqdefault.jpg)
I only use three hints when I’m trying to place a DNA match into my family tree. I start with the tree hints and then back it up with a record search.
Great strategy
I prefer record hints, then browsing the tree hints to see if there are records I haven't found attached. If there are no new records or only other tree hints, I tend ignore them. The record hints are even better if they have an image attached, since the original record generally has more information than the index.
A-greed!
To be fair, I think a prevalence of trees on Ancestry without attached sources are probably because the owners are using only the free features, which does not include attaching sources. I worked on my tree for free for about ten years before I recently bought a paid subscription, and now I am busily reviewing hints and attaching sources! I did often make up for it by downloading the images and adding them to the person's gallery (and often to the specific events), but then they do not show up as sources.
Denise, thanks for that insight. Unfortunately, Ancestry, MyHeritage, and so forth do not provide an indicator to others that such is the case. It's really hard to differentiate between folks using the free accounts based on sources and folks creating unsourced trees to prove their lineage. However, I like the insight that you share. Something to consider.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics , thanks for your reply. Yes, I agree that you can't tell the difference; I just noticed some comments expressing frustration at the tree owners, and wanted to point out that it might or might not be a case of someone just not bothering to do the 'right thing', so they may or may not be to blame (although I imagine many of them are, lol). When I was adding images to events, I figured that if someone saw it, they might not see a linked source, but if they could see the actual document attached, they could be more confident of my entries, so I tried to make up for it in that way, but it may not occur to others to do that.
Record hints first. Use trees as clues. So many trees on Ancestry that I see do not have the documentation attached to their online tree. So I will take the clues and go look for the proof.
There are too many trees on ancestry (and every other family tree site) with no sources, nor any reasons for the people (family bible? Some records you might personally have..)
I will use family tree hints on a "test tree" until I can verify or rule out that information.
Robert and Anna, both fine points. Documentation should be our guide, unless DNA analysis changes things.
I agree. Trees are a good tool, but I always go back to records for verification. I have found errors on other trees (like the picture next to my name in several trees does not belong to me. It was someone else in my same town around the same time I was born).
When I'm building out a new Tree I look at the Tree Hints first to see if there is enough common information to give an initial acceptance of the tree and then I go back and try to validate it with Records. If I find contradictory records, then I will delete that from my Tree. If there's no enough for me to give it a nod, but I still find it interesting, I will save it to my shoebox.
That's a thoughtful approach. I like it.
I use records first and then look at tree hits but I do not always use three hints because some people just throw in stuff that does not have any connect to the person I'm working on.
I like it. (I have deleted some of my trees from when i was a baby genealogist and threw stuff in that doesn't make any sense. I TRY to do much better.)
I am quite depressed at how many trees out there don’t have any records, which really makes me distrust them.
It's sad, but don't be depressed. We wouldn't want genealogy to make you need to see a therapist.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics More annoyed than sad!
That's better.
On Ancestry I tend to look at the family tree hints to extract what sources that individual has used. I then check those sources and if appropriate add the source details to my tree.
(I've seen trees on Ancestry which have used some information from an old tree I did under a lost username/email address which I now know is incorrect. So I've seen where others have just linked information without verifying it)
Quite so!!! I have people citing a website I put up on Geocities. I don't think many people know that ever existed.
While someone on Family Search claims DNA evidence to shift my ancestors from Scotland to Ireland, an Ancestry Website family tree with a record attached puts a DNA 2nd great granduncle in the right area for baptisms, but wrong area for other records
On FamilySearch, you would have to leave reason statement and notes in the Collaboration tab to explain your changes. DNA can be a source, we just have to write up the analysis more.
Yes this is what I go through, I prefer record
Thanks for sharing.
Record hints. I only use tree hints if I'm hitting a brick wall and use those that are dna matches.
So, we're of like minds then.
Bingo!
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics There are so many bad and unsourced trees, it's really aggravating. What makes it worse is if you politely suggest corrections and offer help, some jump all over you for "criticizing" their "resesrch"...
So true!
@@tonygriffin6049 I've come across the same attitude, now I put up comments or a story on my tree if I have something to clarify, which will show up as a hint for people who have merged trees with mine.
I do use tree hints but not the way most do; if I have a brick wall I'll use those on a test tree that I keep private. If documentation or first hand source can verify, then it goes on my main tree.
I still find lots of errors that I need to clean up in my own tree. I've learned a lot since 2012 and even started my main tree over. Lol
I've also recently come across some interesting facts that have had me go back and verify a 4th great grandmother's maiden name. She was Anne Lyon on her marriage paperwork to my great grandfather, William Dray. In the 1870's she is in the English Census in Kent with her second husband, her kids from 1st husband, and her parents all in one house. So I looked into Anne's mother and father.
Her mother only married the once. Her name was Mrs. Grace Hinckley. She got married to her husband a few years before Anne was born, so I assumed (and there's the problem right there) that Mr Hinckley was the father. And many people copied my mistake.
Anne's marriage document had her maiden name as Lyon. But the census record had the parents name as Hinckley. I thought maybe she got married very young, before my 4th great grandfather? I wasn't sure how to fit that Lyon surname in until recently.
The ah ha came when I could see the original copy of the marriage documents on find my past, (could only see the listing on ancestry). It said her father was John Lyon and it clarified her birth town down to the parish.
I found documents matching these names and dates, verified my info and then wrote about my mistake, pinning a story to that ancestor.
(Hope this makes sense!)
According to the Proof Standard, it's record hints, especially birth Certificates, Deaths Certificates, Marriage certificates, and Military records. The cencuses are usually last.
I like that you're referring to the Genealogy Proof Standard. The only thing I'm uncertain of is why censuses would be last. The reason is... many places we research do not have the first four you mentioned at the time we need them to exist. Methodically, the next record set to examine would be census records because they foundation for adding additional alternative sources to make a case to prove any fact or relationship. While I would agree that they can not stand alone, I wouldn't search them last.
Is that what you mean by census records being last? That they can't stand alone?
I used to focus on both but in my experience, I have found I do not look at the Family Tree hint but focus on just record hints. On the occasion, I might look at the Family Tree to see how they are related to me but I prefer only sourced records. That being said, I still have not cleaned up my tree for just sourced records :-)
Hey there! Glad you stopped by. I like your honesty there. ;)
To me, tree hints are just signposts which [hopefully] point me in the right direction...where I can look for record hints to confirm. About the only time I pay much heed to others' trees is when they record dates/places for the user's parents...or maybe grandparents. I expect people are likely to know when and where their own parents were born/got married.
I suspect rather than expect people know about the details of their parents. However, with the increase of adoptees and abandoned children trying to discover, even the name of their mother and father, I would be more cautious about accepting parental data. Not ruling it out completely, but cautious. One only has to listen to Larry Jones from DNA Family Tree on TH-cam to know that the paper trail for parents isn't always what is correct.
I have to see documents. There are so many trees on Ancestry that have the wrong person as my great grandfather that I had to make a special note on my tree about it. I've made sure the correct person is on Family Search, Geni and WikiTree, but there's nothing I can do about Ancestry. This proves to me that just copying from tree hints is an easy trap to fall into. Yesterday, I added a few people I already had in my main trees to Ancestry based on tree hints, but since I had already proven those people elsewhere, I was able to easily say, yes, that is the right person, and no, that's not the right person. If I was new at this, or didn't know, it would be so easy to just put in the wrong person. So, documents are important and I have to see something unambiguous before I'll add a person to my tree. If the hint is ambiguous, I'll keep it in a research folder, but don't add that person to my tree.
My husband has an ancestor that others incorrectly put her mother as a duchess. It's frustrating. Everyone wants to be related to royalty, even when they are proven wrong.
I know how frustrating it is to correct information on Ancestry that keeps being wrongly perpetuated. That's one advantage of WikiTree and FamilySearch. I'm not as familiar with Geni. (There are only so many hours in the day.).
Elke... If I'm related to royalty, it's WAYYYYYYYY back on the tree. I'm related to a professor, a milkman and a drunk. And I love them all.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics hahaha. My husband's great-grandmother became friends with Princess Victoria, the Marchioness of Milford Haven (Prince Philip's grandmother). The Marchioness use to work with the poor charities in London and befriended his great-grandparents. Great-grandpa found work in Canada...his great-grandmother made many trips back to England to visit the Marchioness. But no actual royalty..... we do have a Major, a General, a goldsmith....and a few drunks.
I was one to use both, but have become aware of the problems caused with the tree hints, so have become much more selective. I want records, I will, on Ancestry look at the trees that they put forth, but if there are no records on the tree, I ignore it.
I agree with this approach.
Watch Next: th-cam.com/video/9ziAj8aD7XA/w-d-xo.html
Personally I look at the record hits more than the tree hints. Either way, I'll see if they make sense before making changes to my tree. That said, I hardly ever link records and such to my on-line trees. I keep my main research tree off-line in Family Tree Maker and do not sync it with any on-line system. Yes, it is sometimes more work, but I only fill out the on-line trees as I need them for my research. If someone looks at my tree and think that I don't have any documents to back my research, they would be wrong and all they have to do is to contact me and I am willing to share anything that I have.
I'm on the other side. I get link happy with my research. My off-line tree is for a project or a back up for the lines I care about the most. For those lines I 'play with' I leave them online, particularly on FamilySearch. I can respect other people's approaches.
I always choose record hints. Everything else is a suggestion that can be interesting and a help but only if I can find records to validate the data. I found some long searched death certificate by browsing through some church records. That was awsome! Thanks to you for showing how to find those! 👍👌☺
YAY!!!! Glad you saw that video about church records. I'm even more excited about your success.
Yes I do this also, what I find when I look at the hints I check to see how old these people are and the younger ones usually they're not going to respond and that's really kind of sad. I don't think they're in there for the long.
When I first came across the Ancestry member tree that showed that my mother had died 16 years ago, I was surprised. I called my mother to make sure that she was still in fact alive, and she confirmed that she was, to the best of her knowledge. So far I have come across about two dozen other trees that have that same bad info, and some of them belong to cousins who really should know better. That said, I'm sure this originated with a record hint, because my mother and the other deceased woman were born 4 months apart in the same state, and Ancestry gives me hints like that all the time. Record hints can create a mess if you just start blindly clicking the "Yes" button on every hint, which too many people do.
Same named persons do cause problems for genealogists for any generation.
We talked about this on our live stream recently... As a baby genealogist, I accidently killed a great aunt on paper a decade before she died. We had a family feud, she was 'old enough' to have been deceased and no one was caring my grandparent's estate . (Longer story) Surely she would have been deceased. A 1st cousin 1 removed called me to say, "Um, no, my dear." I fixed that quickly and was grateful. Then I set up a meet and greet before she really did die. I think these mistakes happen but correcting them can be a PAIN in the neck.
Unfortunately not all records are completely accurate. My paternal grandmother is named as Isabel on her birth and death certificates and as Isabella on her marriage certificate and all her five children's birth certificates. There are many other examples in my family tree. I always check other suggested tree hints but I dismiss them if they have no supporting evidence.
In the case of Isabel vs Isabella, that is still supporting evidence but a common mistake. I would keep it and explain the spelling variation. I recently came across a record where the daughter of the deceased said her mother Emily Hulda had a mother named Emily Hulda. The mother's name was Lydia Nickerson Sprague. The mother within ten years of Emily (the deceased's) death and perhaps wasn't known by the granddaughter. Mistakes happen, but I would still link the document to Lydia and explain why the name was in accurate. She's still the mother.
Records first (if they exist). Since adding DNA matches, I don't always fully sources cousins, etc, but I try to correctly source direct ancestors. So someone looking at my tree may not see sources for the particular ancestor they are looking at, but if they are looking at my direct line, they will see sources. Trees are useful if there isn't much else out there or if I'm just fishing out different possibilities. I used to work as a data analyst....trees are just raw data and I look for the correct pattern..... If I add someone on my tree that I haven't been able to confirm is 100% correct, I add tags and comments to that profile. The relatives that other people tend to get wrong on their trees, I will source as much as possible so when I contact them I can show evidence how I came to my conclusion. Networking is also important. You need to communicate with other tree owners. Once you start comparing stories, the missing pieces start to fall into place.
Fair enough. I can understand not wanting to fully source cousins. Perhaps adding one document that establishes their relationship to the preceding generation would be enough. Something to consider.
I don think the use of the MyTreeTags would be SO MUCH better for uncertain information. Fingers crossed others will notice them. I wish they showed up on the Ancestry Member Tree hint comparison page. That would help A TON.
I like to have as many documents as possible. Ancestry has so many hints and in my particular family Tree, we had several male ancestors named Benjamin Willis. Not all dates were correct, not all children were correct. Cousins and their children were confused with several of my grandfathers. So I'm still working on that via any historical documents I can obtain.
I love as many documents (and the variety of documents). Ancestry and MyHeritage often have found records that I hadn't searched for because I didn't know they were available on line just yet. That's so nice.
Im having trouble with your videos. Is the sound out of sync? I can't seem to follow along
No one else has noticed that. Have you tried refreshing?
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics yes I have.
I'm not sure what the problem could be. When I replayed the video it worked out.
I prefer record hints because tree hints need to come with records to back them up if they are going to be useful.
#teamrecordhints
Talking about sources hmm when it comes to my tree if I know them personally why would I put a source. For example my grandmother Garza I have known my whole life and all pictures I have the original ones, please explain to me someone why would I put a source when I am the source. My aunt gave me a copy of everything she found and has one of my brothers being married in Texas. None of my brothers have been married in Texas I don't need a source to tell me that
Timothy... you should put a source for personal knowledge. I know when my mother was buried because I paid for the funeral and watched her casket go into the ground. I know when my children were born because I delivered them. In both of those cases, I'm a stronger witness than any document.
However, I didn't witness the elopement for my Grandma Helen. I know about it, and we celebrated the day, but I didn't witness it, and I was born long after her wedding. I can still be the source of the information because there isn't a document currently available to our knowledge.
In both cases, I still need to let other researchers know that I'm the source. So, I can do something like the options referred to in this article www.geneamusings.com/2014/06/how-do-i-cite-personal-knowledge-and.html
People who use these hints don't often understand genealogy methodology which means you must absolutely know if these are your people or someone with like names, etc. before you attach them.
Most people don't have a clue how to do genealogy these days. KEEP A TIMELINE of events, add the source at the bottom of each entry. Yes, do use software, you cannot be competent using an online tree to find your people, you HAVE to have a general place to list notes, hunches, etc.
The surname (a rare name) I have researched for 50 years--well, 99% of the trees are absolutely wrong. Recycled genealogy at Ancestry, etc. is just about collecting names, period, and not knowing if these names are actually correct. The answers to your mysteries are STILL in archives, libraries, county courthouses. Learn how to do genealogy and what to do. A competent genealogist can show you in 15 min.
Don't be a "name gatherer" be a genealogist.
I agree with your last statement, don't be a name gatherer. I prefer to go deep on my ancestors than wide.
However, I can do just about everything with an online tree that I could with genealogy software -keep notes, find errors, add media, track citations. Additionally, many online tree programs will create a timeline automatically as you add residence facts and other time based details to your tree beyond Birth, Marriage, and Death. (Software will too. Yay! Modern Genealogy).