Recommended Workflow

[Mike Morrell (NL)]

Hi all, I'm sure this question has been answered many times before but my search didn't bring up previous posts. My question is: is there is a recommended workflow when researching ancestors? I appreciate that research is a fuzzy area in which none of us are sure which clues first come to light.  But I do wonder about which boxes need to be checked in order to be reasonably certain that <person A> is not <person B> who has the same name, birth town/village and birth date (year). The same applies to marriages and census data. As a beginner, I find some connections much more plausible than others. For example via census data (family ages) and addresses (the same or similar). When I have doubts I order certificates. Is there something I'm missing?

Thanks for your help,

Mike

[chempat]

Think you need to read a guide to researching your ancestors as there is not a short answer.

[Mike Morrell (NL)]

Think you need to read a guide to researching your ancestors as there is not a short answer.

Thanks, chempat. Will do.

[jbml]

My recommendation to a beginner is that, in your early days, you have lots of different ancestral lines to research. So if you hit a difficult one, stop. Go and look at another one.

Research the easy lines and use them to learn your way around the research tools and resources available to you. What they can tell you and what they can't. And start to get the feel of the pattern of how people lived and worked in different parts of the country at different times in the past.

Then take this knowledge and experience, and apply it when researching your more difficult lines.

[Mike Morrell (NL)]

...
Research the easy lines and use them to learn your way around the research tools and resources available to you. What they can tell you and what they can't. And start to get the feel of the pattern of how people lived and worked in different parts of the country at different times in the past.

Then take this knowledge and experience, and apply it when researching your more difficult lines.

Good advice, jbml, thanks! Based on things I've recently learned through Rootschat, I'm again checking the completeness and reliability of the data I already have. Some new tools helped to highlight possible inconsistencies. I'm (again) re-checking the records and 'evidence' I have that supports the identity of key people and relationships in my tree. I'm also checking for any records/evidence that may contradict these. I've gone through a similar exercise in the past but I'm being more systematic and meticulous about it this time around. It's a good learning exercise!

All the relevant records in England and Wales are readily available back to 1837 (BMD) and 1841-1911 (census). So I'm mostly filling in any gaps I discover in my record-keeping or in the links between records and the relevant people/relationships.

Although I've added 'research notes' sporadically in the past, I'm adding these more systematically now to summarise how I arrive at conclusions based on the available evidence. This is useful for me in the future and also for others using my tree data. I'm also adding 'To-lists' to people to collect additional records, resolve inconsistencies, etc. So I am in way developing my own 'workflow' based a checklist of facts to find and things to check for both individuals and relationships.

I've also made the reliability of data visible in the tree by using icons (OK, ?, !). This helps me see what needs to be done first at each level in the tree before going on to research higher levels.

I was interested in how other people approach this kind of work.

Mike

[Mike Morrell (NL)]

Update:
Since posting this question, I've found so many resources on 'good research practice', that my head's spinning! I found the kind of 'research workflow' I was looking for at http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/wp-content/uploads/Genealogy%20Research%20Map%20v2.pdf.

http://www.cyndislist.com/standards/ and http://www.focusedfamilyresearch.com/genealogy-best.html both provide valuable articles, links and references that detail various aspects of 'good practice'.

I now realise why there is no short answer to my original question

Mike

[Blue70]

Having at least 3 tick boxes makes me feel confident of accuracy in research. For example looking for a father recently for a cousin I had to explain to her why this man was the best candidate. I didn't think it right to tell her this man was her grandfather as there was still an element of doubt. He could turn out to be wrong. This man was by far the best candidate and ticked all three boxes that were part of the search. He had the right name (first, middle and surname). He was born and raised in the right location nearest candidate to the area. He had the right occupation. Two ticks may suffice when there are no other candidates but where there are others three is enough for me.


Blue

[Mike Morrell (NL)]

Having at least 3 tick boxes makes me feel confident of accuracy in research. For example looking for a father recently for a cousin I had to explain to her why this man was the best candidate. I didn't think it right to tell her this man was her grandfather as there was still an element of doubt. He could turn out to be wrong. This man was by far the best candidate and ticked all three boxes that were part of the search. He had the right name (first, middle and surname). He was born and raised in the right location nearest candidate to the area. He had the right occupation. Two ticks may suffice when there are no other candidates but where there are others three is enough for me.

Blue

0
I agree, Blue. This is the way I've been working too. I have found that it's useful to use 2-3 different websites to research the same people. At least in the UK. Occasionally one of them shows 'other candidates' that the first one didn't. Or at least not near the top of the pile.

An example: from multiple census records and my knowledge of my grandmother's address and family, I was confident that her husband was one 'William George Morrell'. His marriage date (a 3-month period) matched that of my grandmother too. I found a record of his birth and there didn't seem to be any other candidates.

Via a different website I recently discovered there was also a 'Willie George Morrell' who married in exactly the same periode in the same location. I've not been able to find other data on him. So I've ordered a copy of the marriage certificate to be sure. It's possible that they're one and the same person but registered twice. I've asked the records people to check this.

Mike

[Blue70]

We can only work on the available resources to build a case for relationship links. Most people use the Internet rather than record offices and archives and there can be gaps where information is out there but not accessible to us because we limit ourselves to online resources. When more information goes online such as parish record images we have more information to look at such as occupation and address.


Blue