Most Common Research Mistakes

[lupaglupa]

I do a lot of genealogy research, usually for other people, and that means I have lots of opportunities to look at other people's genealogy research. The vast majority of genealogy you find online was compiled by amateurs. Looking at different family trees I see the same mistakes come up over and over again. They can all fall under one big heading which would be not taking enough time when doing research. But to break it down in a way that I hope will help others avoid making these common errors, here's my top five list (in no particular order):

1. Ignoring the original document - researchers should never accept only the information a genealogy program gives them in an easy "save here" format. If the original document is available, take the time to look at it! Often genealogy websites will only transcribe parts of a document, leaving lots of good information on the page unnoted. Taking the time to glean those facts can add a whole new layer to what you learn from your research. Looking at the original can also help you catch the all-too-frequent transcription errors.

2. Confusing town and county level records - if I had a dollar for every time I had seen the wrong place name in a record because the researchers thought a county record was a town record and logged the town name in - often in a different county! - I'd be a millionaire. Many records are kept at the county level and should be logged that way. It's a quick thing to look at and can cause great confusion if ignored.

3. Using facts you haven't confirmed - all too often you hit a wall in your research and you find someone else, or even several someone elses, have a nifty solution with a record that sorta, kinda, oughta fit and it's oh so tempting to just click it and add it. Don't. Just, don't. You don't have to reject every fact you find. Other people's work can be really helpful. Just check it and double check it. If it's accurate you should be able to easily prove it. If it's not, you've saved yourself the trouble of fixing it later.

4. Taking "no" for an answer - the amount of information available on the internet is astounding and what you can find with a simple search is really impressive. Many people seem to think that if they can't find it easily online it must not exist. That's an easy - and wrong - idea to embrace. The fact is huge amounts of material are out there ready to be found if you put in some effort. And even more material is out in the <gasp> real world, waiting to be digitized.

5. Keeping facts without sources - total transparency, I fail at this one myself all too often. You find something online that fills a hole and you quickly add it to your research and you just don't quite take the time to put down your source and then... when you need to double check it you can't find it. Arrgg! Do your future self and all the people who come after you a big huge favor and write down where you got your information.

I know other researchers must agree or disagree with this list - what mistakes do you see all too often?

 

[John Winn]

I agree with your list 100%. I'll add:

Amateurs rarely are able to sort through - or even find - conflicting sources. The classic genealogy rule used to be "always have three agreeing sources before declaring something a fact." Now, it can be very difficult to find three original sources but one can often find at least two conflicting ones. These can be places of residence, names, definitely birth years and ages, spellings, whether a woman was really a widow (or a divorcee or abandoned).

Amateurs also often just jump on any record that has a name that seems to fit. But there could have been more than one Simon Butlers in Splatawattamee County between 1850 and 1900.

And the place of death on a DC or in an obit doesn't mean that's where the person actually lived. People went to hospitals and to live, briefly, with relatives when near death. Their place of residence might not have been even in the same county. So don't assume they're buried in the cemetery nearest to where they died or had ever lived in the county of death.

Oh, and "junior" meant several possible relations in the 18th and 19th centuries - i.e. did not necessarily mean Martin Jr. was the son of Martin Sr. When two males had the same names (common) in a locality the younger would often go by "junior" just to distinguish himself from the older Martin (who might have been his uncle or cousin). And one also needs to be familiar with first name substitutes and nicknames, especially regarding women (e.g. Katherine could have been Patricia; John could have been Jack).

I'm sure I could cough up a few more but those just came immediately to mind.

 

[lupaglupa]

Amateurs also often just jump on any record that has a name that seems to fit. But there could have been more than one Simon Butlers in Splatawattamee County between 1850 and 1900.

I absolutely agree. I'm constantly amazed at how many people had the same name, even unusual names. I always double check.

And the place of death on a DC or in an obit doesn't mean that's where the person actually lived. People went to hospitals and to live, briefly, with relatives when near death. Their place of residence might not have been even in the same county. So don't assume they're buried in the cemetery nearest to where they died or had ever lived in the county of death.

One mistake I see in modern entries is people using the Social Security record of where the last payment was made as the place of death.

 

[Fairfield]

Adding another from actual events: not following an orderly procedure--which can mean anything from skipping a generation to a really unnerving "method" that was actually being used.

At a table of genealogists, one man said: "Oh, I don't follow any of the drawn-out methods. I take an ancestor, get the information on his death record and then find his parents by locating people with the right name and the right time". He added that his family certainly changed residence location a great deal.

The silence was astounding.

 

[BCS1973]

I agree with your list 100%. I'll add:

...But there could have been more than one Simon Butlers in Splatawattamee County between 1850 and 1900.

No Kidding!! Not sure about the Butler's, but go through any mid-late 1800's city directory, pick any moderatly common Irish surname and you're likely to find eight James' or Jas, 7 Patrick's, six Thomas', a few of Jon's and Jno's, two Mary's, an Ellen and two or three Katherine Widow of Patrick's. Oh, and no more than three of any of those people are related!

Of course, I've never dealt with any Smith's, but I bet they're fun to trace. I had a history professor in college named John Smith. After telling us his name, his first comment was, "I've still not forgiven my parents for that name."

 

[Fairfield]

No Kidding!! Not sure about the Butler's, but go through any mid-late 1800's city directory, pick any moderatly common Irish surname and you're likely to find eight James' or Jas, 7 Patrick's, six Thomas', a few of Jon's and Jno's, two Mary's, an Ellen and two or three Katherine Widow of Patrick's. Oh, and no more than three of any of those people are related!

Of course, I've never dealt with any Smith's, but I bet they're fun to trace. I had a history professor in college named John Smith. After telling us his name, his first comment was, "I've still not forgiven my parents for that name."

The surname needn't even be moderately common. I once was tracing a family named Quackenbush (@lupaglupa can attest that this isn't infrequent in NYC) that went to South Carolina. Said I to my self, "this is going to be easy" but do you have any idea how many Quackenbushes I found in South Carolina?

 

[lupaglupa]

I've found this with Civil War soldiers. You get an unusual name - first and last - and think it'll be a cinch and then Fold3 gives you six me with that name....

 

[BCS1973]

...do you have any idea how many Quackenbushes I found in South Carolina?

No, but how many of them were actually closely related? LOL

 

[BCS1973]

I've found this with Civil War soldiers. You get an unusual name - first and last - and think it'll be a cinch and then Fold3 gives you six me with that name....

@lupaglupa didn't you post something one time about how to be a good ancestor? I'm thinking it included advice like, name your children something like Quazigizmo, or Moonunit, and go ahead and rob that bank for posterity's sake.

 

[John Winn]

Oh, the name game. And if you are researching immigrant families that gets really messy as they had all sorts of name conventions that we, here, commonly don't know about. My wife and I have some German ancestors and those can be frustrating. I'd bet that's true with other nationalities too. And I discovered long ago that there are regions of many European countries and each has its own traditions and backgrounds which can make things difficult as you might have to sort out some regional stuff.

There's also the fact that boundaries changed due to wars and such so somebody who said they were born in, say, Russia might have been born in what is now Poland (also true for Germans). Ya know, Germany wasn't even a country until 1871 and Canada wasn't until 1867. Scandinavia changed a lot, too, so you have to know a bit of history to sort out who lived where (i.e. as we know it now).

 

[major bill]

My wife spent decades as a professional genealogist. She was known for her ability to knock down dead end walls. While I am sure she could add to the lists I will only add ac couple.

1. Only use family stories as a starting point. For example a client refused to pay her. The man was the right name and age. The wife had the right name and age. The four children had the right names and ages. They lived in the right county. The problem for the client was that the marriage record of her great great grandfather said it was his second marriage and no ancestor of her's would ever of had a second marriage. And no one in her family ever spoke of a first marriage. So my wife got stiffed for her work.

2. Leave your biases behind. I will use a couple of examples. A client wanted a death record of a great great grandfather because he disappeared and must have died. My wife found he went to prison and died there a decade later. The client was outraged because her ancestors were all good Christians and would have never cmmited a crime. My wife got a refusal to pay and a nasty letter threatening leagal action for libelling a man long dead. My wife also did not get paid and got a nasty letter because the 1825 census listed the wife as a mulatto. The client never followed through with a lawsuit.

 

[John Winn]

My wife spent decades as a professional genealogist. She was known for her ability to knock down dead end walls. While I am sure she could add to the lists I will only add ac couple.

1. Only use family stories as a starting point. For example a client refused to pay her. The man was the right name and age. The wife had the right name and age. The four children had the right names and ages. They lived in the right county. The problem for the client was that the marriage record of her great great grandfather said it was his second marriage and no ancestor of her's would ever of had a second marriage. And no one in her family ever spoke of a first marriage. So my wife got stiffed for her work.

2. Leave your biases behind. I will use a couple of examples. A client wanted a death record of a great great grandfather because he disappeared and must have died. My wife found he went to prison and died there a decade later. The client was outraged because her ancestors were all good Christians and would have never cmmited a crime. My wife got a refusal to pay and a nasty letter threatening leagal action for libelling a man long dead. My wife also did not get paid and got a nasty letter because the 1820 census listed the wife as a mulatto. The cilent never followed through with a lawsuit.

That's amazing (and troubling) that people would refuse to pay just because they don't like the truth. Your wife didn't slander or belittle anybody; she just reported the facts. And for the record, in the US only a living person can sue for slander (i.e. libel); the dead basically have no legal rights.

But I know that trying to win a case in small claims is most often not worth the money or time. That's happened to me twice (not with genealogists).

 

[Kurtlg]

My wife spent decades as a professional genealogist. She was known for her ability to knock down dead end walls. While I am sure she could add to the lists I will only add ac couple.

1. Only use family stories as a starting point. For example a client refused to pay her. The man was the right name and age. The wife had the right name and age. The four children had the right names and ages. They lived in the right county. The problem for the client was that the marriage record of her great great grandfather said it was his second marriage and no ancestor of her's would ever of had a second marriage. And no one in her family ever spoke of a first marriage. So my wife got stiffed for her work.

2. Leave your biases behind. I will use a couple of examples. A client wanted a death record of a great great grandfather because he disappeared and must have died. My wife found he went to prison and died there a decade later. The client was outraged because her ancestors were all good Christians and would have never cmmited a crime. My wife got a refusal to pay and a nasty letter threatening leagal action for libelling a man long dead. My wife also did not get paid and got a nasty letter because the 1820 census listed the wife as a mulatto. The cilent never followed through with a lawsuit.

It always amazes me how people take family stories as gospel. The ones who get upset because research shows the family tree has some bad apples are morons. I have 2 friends who do serious ancestry and have found some very evil folks in people's backgrounds. How are you responsible for what your ancestors did ?

 

[Fairfield]

Also there is neglecting to pay attention to siblings. They have the same ancestry. Tracing John Smith isn't going to be easy--but if ancestor John has a brother named Hezekiah, matters become simpler.

 

[John Winn]

Also there is neglecting to pay attention to siblings. They have the same ancestry. Tracing John Smith isn't going to be easy--but if ancestor John has a brother named Hezekiah, matters become simpler.

Absolutely. Also, many relatives lived with siblings or children for a period of time after deaths, relocations, divorces, or just in old age. Sometimes looking for the siblings can tell you what happened to other family members.

 

[Fairfield]

It always amazes me how people take family stories as gospel. The ones who get upset because research shows the family tree has some bad apples are morons. I have 2 friends who do serious ancestry and have found some very evil folks in people's backgrounds. How are you responsible for what your ancestors did ?

Some people who seem like bad apples to us today, may not have been. I am descended from a murderer and his victim. Research turned up the fact that most people at the time sided with the murderer, wondering that no one had dispatched the victim earlier. And what about people who were executed for witchcraft? Today we know better and would deem the ancestor as a victim and not a criminal.

 

[lupaglupa]

@lupaglupa didn't you post something one time about how to be a good ancestor? I'm thinking it included advice like, name your children something like Quazigizmo, or Moonunit, and go ahead and rob that bank for posterity's sake.

I did! And I was only partly sarcastic

 

[lupaglupa]

Also there is neglecting to pay attention to siblings. They have the same ancestry. Tracing John Smith isn't going to be easy--but if ancestor John has a brother named Hezekiah, matters become simpler.

I always go sideways in my research. Siblings and cousins provide excellent clues. I've seen many cases where children were raised by aunts or uncles, especially after the death of a parent.

 

[John Winn]

I always go sideways in my research. Siblings and cousins provide excellent clues. I've seen many cases where children were raised by aunts or uncles, especially after the death of a parent.

Exactly !

 

[scooter748driver]

Great info! Thank you!