Some researchers will "believe" something when they have three sources that provide the same piece of information. One has to be careful using this approach. Sources may all contain information from the same person or "original source," which does not really mean that three "sources" agree. It could only mean that the same person gave the information three times.
And there is always the chance that the second two "sources" got their information from the first.
Think about who provided the information, why it is in the record, and how reasonably the informant would have known the information. That's a good way to get started with information analysis.
That's fine as long as two of the tree didn't copy from the third. I have one ancestor on my Mom's side who must have a hundred or more who just copied from one another on the internet. I cannot prove his ancestry but I can prove they are wrong. Every piece of hard evidence points other ways and now even the DNA tests prove them wrong but I still get e-mails claiming the wrong parentage.Have proof or overwhelming evidence and then make him a probably!
ReplyDeleteI notice that a lot when you hit "Hint" on the person's page on Ancestry.com and right away you can tell they did not do the research but copied from another and it looks wrong.
ReplyDeleteI try to have at least 4 to 5 source that have nothing in common but giving me the info I need. Is that a little excessive though? I will not use a tree without sources or their only source is another tree since which does not show sources.
Where does the info from those "Family Data Collection" come from and how accurate are they? Are they other people's tree info? On Ancestry they have the "Comment" box that I use for note to self. If I find a person iffy I won't delete them right away. I'll right a note to find proof and more sources first. If I'm unable to find them, then I'll delete the person and note it in the Comment Box in case at a later date I Do find proof and sources.