Great information! This is essential guidance for the family historian. I try very hard to be sure I have the right person, but it all depends on the source. I've run into a conflict with a third cousin who insists that I have several wrong people in a common line of our pedigree. He won't tell me the source of his information and I can't find anything further to corroborate what he has found. I feel that my research is accurate because I have found it in several different source records. I've learned to go the extra mile to prove my data since my cousin seems to disagree with me on a regular basis.
Every "duplicate" I find gets researched in depth. I save each of those people in their own folder. Sooner or later someone online builds their tree by mashing 2 or 3 John Smiths into one person. I share everything I have so that perhaps they might correct their tree. Works for both of us because the one is separated from the other 2. Wrong trees are still in abundance but maybe there is now one more correct tree.
What a great thing to do! I've done similar with my common name ancestors. It can be tricky separating them out, but important creating accurate trees.
What a helpful video! I really like to think of myself as a careful arbiter of the evidence, but I have been reviewing some branches of my tree that I haven't researched in years, and I have to face the fact that my standard of proof hasn't always been top notch! If you are up for it Lisa, this video could become the start of a useful series! Perhaps follow up with a video showing some examples of challenging or incomplete records and how to analyze them (or how to shape a research plan to confirm or refute a new hypothesis that arises). Even better, perhaps assemble a panel of genealogists to discuss a tricky case or two and offer suggestions for analysis or future research - all with the common focus: Is this the RIGHT ancestor or not? This is such a critical question, so this is great stuff for helping us think about how to analyze our next great find, or to rethink critically about some of the older branches in our trees!
So glad you found this helpful! I like your suggestion of doing a series! You're right, it is something we all need to be thinking about. Like you, my early research was not as strong as I would have liked. As we gain research skills, it's important to reassess our findings with a critical eye.
I am researching my half brother paternal line and trying to find the correct John Parker. It's hard because he died in early 1900 and no death certificate
One thing i have learned is you really have to read between the lines. My great grandfathers death cert says he was born in Aug 1882 when it was actually April 1882 according to Scotland records. Everything else matches up right down to his parents on both records. My great grandmother was the reporting person for the death cert and im sure it was difficult. On the death cert her name is Jean and her headstone says Jeannie, her birth info says jane. It those subtle differences that can throw you off.
I came across a letter explaining exploits and the family genealogy of someone, but the tree didn't quite make sense. I kept digging and found out the letter writer was interchanging events of our ancestor with an uncle with the same name. The dates/ages didn't work, but because this letter was written 100 years ago, everyone thinks it is gold. When I'm dealing with tricky ancestors, and especially if I'm tree mining, red flags are middle initials and town/counties. Sometimes an initial is different because it's read wrong on the census, or it could very well be a completely different person.
What a great example of why we need to keep digging when things don't add up. Just like us, our ancestors mixed things up at times. Paying attention to those red flags is important.
