DON'T LEAVE ANCESTRY TO 'ANCESTRY.COM'.

There was a time when I was a new family historian and was very keen to not only learn all I could but also to pass on the little that I did know to others. In those days, internet genealogy was a relatively new innovation and there was much to be learnt from various lists and newsgroups. I even became so arrogant with my own expertise as to create my own advice 'Blog' together with a list of websites that provided useful information for other researchers. This list was, at the time, considered good enough to be publicised by the Rootsweb London list and was appreciated by many members of the list.

Since that far off time much of my advice has fallen by the wayside and many of the websites probably no longer exist; something that hasn't changed, however, is the validity of the advice I gave about being sure of one's research. What has changed is the number of websites that purport to show family trees that have been researched when, in reality, they are based on nothing other than the ill-researched work of someone else. Websites such as 'Ancestry' and 'Genes Reunited' do excellent work in providing access to huge amounts af information but, at the same time, proliferate huge amounts of rubbish. Ancestry, in particular, allows its members to simply copy the tree of one member to that of another and many people never bother to check the authenticity of what they are adding to their own trees. Consequently, there are many trees on the Ancestry website that are composed of little more than utter drivel.

When I started, tracing family history was still a relatively difficult task, with very limited digital resources. Much of the work had to be done by visiting dusty ofices and trawling through vast tomes, in order to trace the one relevant record that you needed. Today, much, though by no means all, can be accomplished on the internet; there is no doubt that the task is easier. The problem is that many people fail to understand that ease of access may not always lead to correct answers. Transcriptions of records are frequently wrong and there is no substitute for looking at the original record. Many of these, although available online, have not been indexed and are, consequently, just as difficult to research as they were in the 'old days'.

I am increasingly fed up with the efforts of the morons who copy trees with no conception of their accuracy or of the relevance to their own. The lack of any sort of rigour in the construction of these nonsensical trees is not only an unending problem for proper family historians but is also a source of nothing but confusion for future generations. In common with any academic discipline, Family History is a subject which deserves proper effort, thought and consideration; those who undertake it should approach it in this light. They should not see it as an easy bit of fluff with which to adorn their lives, together with some entirely fictitious 'family crest' to which they have no right. Sadly, far too many do.