Verification of data already in my online family tree
How can I verify data placed in my family tree by other persons? Is there a quick and easy manner of doing this or do I have to start all over from scratch?
Comments
-
I am not aware of any shortcuts. Each case will need to be judged on its own merits. Ideally the person adding the information should give reasons for their additions. But, even if these are given, some reasons are more convincing than others. Clearly it is likely to be worth contacting the individuals to ask clarification if it is not obvious.
At the end of the day you will have to make your own judgement on the quality of additions and perhaps do your own research to see if you can find support from original records,
2 -
If you add any information, it's always a good idea to add documentation, it saves others who may look at your line from the headache you are currently facing. 😊
0 -
I love this question. How do we verify someone else's research?
Quick answer - if its been done it should be sourced and hopefully those sources are attached to the research/tree.
Not so quick answer . If its not sourced then I am very wary. I know personally of a case where commonality of names in the same village has led to a mistake (which can be proven via parish records) which has now been copied and propagated on Ancestry. The error was pointed out to the original tree owner but they decided to acknowledge the possibility but (last time I looked) retain their first stance. Now there are several people who have copied this tree and also posted it on ancestry.
I like sources and original documents.
It can be a slow process to have to go through a tree and verify each relationship. Thank goodness for the internet!! Imagine having to go back to microfilms..... or original registers. The thought of it😪
2 -
Thank you for this guidance! Sounds like the blind leading the blind- if we don't document our work as we go along.
2 -
You might find a research log for each individual is helpful. You can then add your sources and reasons, as well as finding out if all the pertinent information on each individual which has been submitted by others into the Family Tree, is correct and recorded accurately.
https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/img_auth.php/5/50/Research_Log.pdf
1 -
More information on research logs here on FamilySearch Wiki:
1 -
Thank you for bringing this link to my attention!
2 -
Whilst I agree with the general aspects of your advice, I would wish to comment on two of your remarks:
You say: "I know personally of a case where commonality of names in the same village has led to a mistake (which can be proven via parish records) which has now been copied and propagated on Ancestry."
This is given as a reason to attach sources, but this is often a case where sources are not helpful. Where there are multiple instances of a name in the same parish, it is often very difficult to determine which "William Brown" is being referred to. Especially, say, in registers in England, where (pre-1813) ages were often not recorded at burial. It is often impossible to determine "Which William Brown" was buried in 1792, as opposed to the one buried in 1795 and another in 1800 - all in the same parish. So it is quite easy to attach a wrong source, if there is no relating will or further detail.
Also: "Thank goodness for the internet!! Imagine having to go back to microfilms..... or original registers. The thought of it."
Well, actually I very much enjoyed visiting county record offices in England and getting my hands on the originals! Okay, looking at digitised images is much better than viewing the old microfilms, but in referring to the original registers, I found I could read the names and dates far more clearly - especially as some of the microfilmed copies are of such bad quality, even after enhancement.
My main point, however, is that whilst I agree with you on the need to add as much back-up (especially sources) to a record as possible, I regularly find plausible but totally inapplicable sources have been attached. This can be as misleading for the inexperienced user as if there was nothing at all. Of course, there are some cases where there are no sources available for attachment, but through investigating the family as a whole, there is overwhelming evidence to input certain details, regardless.
As you can see, there is no wide difference in our ideas, but just thought I'd offer this as a slightly different perspective of the general issue. As a "direct" response to the question, I think @Graham Buckell sums up the matter perfectly.
1 -
Thank you for sharing your experience and insights! Much obliged!
0
