Well, today is Friday, not a surprise since it follows Thursday and is before Saturday.
Since Randy Seaver commented on a new ? feature of Ancestry today I said, he is the one to follow this week. No, I read his blog posts daily. Some are interesting, educational or informational all together or separately.
Since my son has decided to do some genealogical work he let me know he had joined Ancestry and was attempting to get this tree to develop for him. I thought I had truly missed something.
I worked my tree one ancestor at a time and put a tree together. So I was at a loss as to what he was saying. I also do not understand why the tree I have up on Ancestry did not show up for him to have information from. Obviously, from what Randy described in his blog this morning, if you are looking for people this format will give you several trees to choose from to improve your tree.
Having worked this, the hard way and finding sourcing a serious matter this highly concerns the appropriate method to use.
Having recently stumbled onto information that is seriously conflicting in various members trees and they keep posting the source is another persons tree on Ancestry or rootsweb or a tree somewhere. That is not a source to be used. If it states: Will, Bible, Census, Probate, Family book, I then think it may have value.
The minute I put my tree up some years ago dozens had copied it and put it up for themselves. I do not mind sharing but I do believe credit for the labor and costs should have been given.
My work is documented as best I can find and if not documented is stated somewhere as not proven.
Sometimes it will never be proven, at least that is what I feel. My first method of showing not known is (?).
Randy Thanks for all the information you constantly share and put out for others to read. I wish permission to forward your post to my son.