Should I just bin all my reserach and forget about it?

[coombs]

Seems this person is jealous, and is trying to teach you to suck eggs. No one can ever be 100% sure that everything we have found out is accurate. We cannot "prove" it, we just collate evidence from primary sources.

[pharmaT]

Pharma I have my tree on Ancestry sourced using Ancestry  transcripts of Scottish records so all secondary sources I do have the relevant BMD's from SP so is my tree not sourced of course it is I'm not going to upload the images if other people are related or want to ask then fair enough
 I know my tree is hopefully fairly correct using the records that are available or what my ancestors told the officials at the time which I'm sure your tree is as well

I have sourced mine by citing the references for the certificate/census rather than the ancestry transcript, that is why it was so laborious typing out all the references rather than just clicking.

This comes only a couple of weeks after I was told that I obviously hadn't done my research properly after I commented that I was glad DNA had provided a little extra evidence for a section of my tree where available documentary evidence was limited.  This was a different person btw but both experienced researchers.

[Mart 'n' Al]

Keep up your great work. Your only mistake was not citing the identity of your gormless critic.

When it all comes down to it the only real primary source is watching a birth and following that person through his entire life.  Hey, I might even use that in my signature.

I am highly sure that you have adhered to genealogical proof standards.

Martin

[Rosinish]

I have been remiss at citing sources on my online tree

I must have the worst part of a tree online as I don't feel I need to justify my sources/images etc.

I could point people to where I sourced my info. if I was asked.

All my info. is on comp. where I can see it & I don't need to worry about my info. not being accessible online without a current sub!

I say this although my home comp. is down & needs the majority of my research extracted! 

Sounds as though the person would like possession of whatever image you've been 'told' to download?

"In fact if they suggested you could solve it by ordering a certificate, that just goes to show how ignorant they are."

It's also contradictory 

Annie

[Wendy2305]

experienced researchers.

As are you with a post grad if the relevant record can't be found through whatever reason lost destroyed or not recorded at all how can you use it as a source Family history isn't neat and tidy people lie, omit facts, have illegitimate children so on
But it doesn't mean the event didn't happen

[[Ray]]

(Under your breath)     

Use Princess Anne's fave saying . . . . .     


R

[hurworth]

I wouldn't take any of these remarks to heart PharmaT.  I get the impression that sometimes you do though, and are easily hurt by thoughtless, ignorant and/or downright mean comments.  Please don't let these remarks put you off.

My other half is an academic and spends a lot of his weekends writing and reviewing papers.  Our children have concluded that they don't want to do what he does when they grow up because "he spends a lot of time swearing at the computer".  They don't get to see the lab work, which can also be frustrating and the bureaucracy is extremely frustrating as well.

He thinks there's considerable crossover between academic research and genealogy in terms of the processes.

I recently gave a presentation at a family gathering of some of the maternal lines.  I didn't have primary sources (as in ....seen the ACTUAL document in person and not a transcript) and much of it was reliant on secondary sources.  One of these branches is recorded in Burkes etc and going back that far it would be difficult to confirm anything.  It was so long since I'd used PowerPoint that the process of making each slide was taking forever, but you can imagine my dismay when at about midnight I found that the various sources weren't in agreement.  I'd never noticed before.

A couple of hours later, after looking at various records in the index at NRS and a few sites that focus on Scottish genealogy I came to the conclusion that the tree at Stirnet had the best supporting evidence, as it also explained how the conclusions were reached.  Then I managed to complete a couple more slides before going to bed at about 3am.

As you can imagine I wasn't looking very perky the following morning.  I was telling DH how it had been going just fine (apart from struggling to make slides that didn't appear to have been constructed by a pre-schooler) but then I'd realised that some of the sources didn't agree.  He laughed and said "welcome to academia".

[pharmaT]

I wouldn't take any of these remarks to heart PharmaT.  I get the impression that sometimes you do though, and are easily hurt by thoughtless, ignorant and/or downright mean comments.  Please don't let these remarks put you off.

My other half is an academic and spends a lot of his weekends writing and reviewing papers.  Our children have concluded that they don't want to do what he does when they grow up because "he spends a lot of time swearing at the computer".  They don't get to see the lab work, which can also be frustrating and the bureaucracy is extremely frustrating as well.

Edit: I always, take things to heart I was taught from an early age to take things to heart and try and fix it, as someone would only say something if it was true and important to them.  All my Scottish BDM records from 1855 onwards are images of the original register rather than transcripts.  Some of my PRs for earlier records are transcripts created by the minister from the original but only when the original no longer exists or it is in addition to the original.  Census wise it is either an image of the enumerator's return or the schedule, again not down to personal choice but dependant on what survives.

He thinks there's considerable crossover between academic research and genealogy in terms of the processes.

I recently gave a presentation at a family gathering of some of the maternal lines.  I didn't have primary sources (as in ....seen the ACTUAL document in person and not a transcript) and much of it was reliant on secondary sources.  One of these branches is recorded in Burkes etc and going back that far it would be difficult to confirm anything.  It was so long since I'd used PowerPoint that the process of making each slide was taking forever, but you can imagine my dismay when at about midnight I found that the various sources weren't in agreement.  I'd never noticed before.

A couple of hours later, after looking at various records in the index at NRS and a few sites that focus on Scottish genealogy I came to the conclusion that the tree at Stirnet had the best supporting evidence, as it also explained how the conclusions were reached.  Then I managed to complete a couple more slides before going to bed at about 3am.

As you can imagine I wasn't looking very perky the following morning.  I was telling DH how it had been going just fine (apart from struggling to make slides that didn't appear to have been constructed by a pre-schooler) but then I'd realised that some of the sources didn't agree.  He laughed and said "welcome to academia".

I have a few of those but I have recorded all my searches and explained how I came to the conclusions.  For example (must be circumspect as some still alive) my daughter's grandfather's birth record.  I'm confident it is the right one as I know him personally and know when his birthday is, the parents on his birth record and DOB match that given on his marriage certificate (which in turn matches the date given on my ex's birth certificate).  Well his birth gives a date and place of marriage for his parents, out of his sibling 4 of the 9 have the same date and the rest have the same date a year later.  I searched for marriage for both years using all possible combinations of the parent's names (unusual surname which helps) and the only marriage is the later date.  I have surmised it is the correct marriage based on it being the same month and year as all the children's births cite and the same year as some of the, the parents names match perfectly as does the location but there is no marriage in whole of Scotland for those 2 surnames in the previous year. 


Very wordy thanks to me trying to protect living people but hopefully you get what I mean.

[Sloe Gin]

I'm not familiar with Scottish records, but frankly much of everybody's England & Wales family research is based on secondary sources at best, whether they realise it or not. 

All census images before 1911 are transcriptions of the original householder's forms, which were not kept.

Many parish register entries were transcribed from the day book or from notes, or at worst from memory.

Almost all BMD certificates obtained from the GRO are transcriptions of the entries held by the local Registrar. 

And so on.  That's without the mistakes, misunderstandings, and downright lies that infiltrate most of our sources.  We can only do our best by being as thorough as we can.