Accuracy, then and now

[nzwelsh]

Hi there,
I'm relatively new to this - was wondering whether it is common to find that research done pre-internet (1997 for example) isn't entirely accurate (e.g. birth dates a couple of years out, but in my case a first name). Would you go by what you find on the net now, as opposed to that previous research/accepted "family wisdom"? Problem is that I'm looking at very common names, so would be easy to go down a wrong track.
Thanks 

[nzwelsh]

To clarify, the 1997 research is a well-researched book, but I don't think anyone in the family has done any research themselves since then. I'm finding a few discrepancies based on all the information that is now online.

[GrahamSimons]

Anything posted online without a link to an original record (e.g. birth cert, baptism register, whatever) is potentially suspect. Some original records are wrong (try comparing Bishop's Transcripts with the register, and compare them with other records.....). It's a minefield. And people make things up, misremember things; and the websites make what are sometimes appropriate guesses and sometimes totally mad guesses.

[nzwelsh]

Ok, thanks, good to know. So if you find an actual source (e.g. marriage record, census) that seems to match up with the previous research, but is slightly different (e.g. birth date couple of years out) would you go by the actual source?

[Biggles50]

Birth dates, especially those determined from Census records can be out.

Hand written records can also be very difficult to decipher and or transcribe.

When researching it is also always good practice to view the original document be it a scan or microfische rather than taking a transcript as gospel.

Whilst Certificates are supposed to be accurate, that is not always the case.  Lies have been told to the Registrar and the Certificate can have the wrong parent(s) declared, voice of experience here, been there found that

As you are new to Genealogy, can I suggest that you look at the Pros and Cons of taking a DNA test, but be prepared for the downsides.  That said what could be worst, spending years researching only to find via a DNA test that your Family Tree is not a valid Biological Family Tree.

Good luck with your research.

[Jebber]

You also need to be aware that the census images you see, except for the 1911 and 1921 are transcriptions, the Enumerator copied the information from the household schedule into a book and that is what  you see. The 1911 and 1921 are images of the actual schedule filled in by the householder.

As has already been said, certificates are not always accurate, some people were not always truthful. You need to keep an open mind and if possible try and find three items that match, at least closely.

Be prepared to be frustrated at times, it is not an exact science. Good luck.

[Neale1961]

Regardless of when the research was done (pre or post internet) it is possible for mistakes to occur, especially if the surname is a very common one.
With the amount of information that is easy to access these days through the internet, research can be faster, but not necessarily better. The huge quantity of public trees on various websites which have glaringly obvious errors illustrates that.

If you are looking at someone's old research, and you believe it is wrong, then check and re-check.
You might be correct. Look at their sources and compare them with your own, and try to understand who or what may have gone wrong. Speak to the previous researcher if possible, and / or discuss your different research findings with others.

RootsChat is a great place to get others' opinions too.

[nzwelsh]

Hi all, thanks so much for the advice. Much appreciated