Professor Thomas W. Jones, CG, CGL, FASG, was a recent guest on Tracing Your Family Roots, a cable television show hosted by Arline Sachs and Sallyann Amdur Sack-Pikus (www.tracingroots.nova.edu). The discussion, largely reproduced here, focuses on some major issues in contemporary genealogy. Aside from editing of the National Genealogical Society Quarterly, Professor Jones’s prime role in genealogy is education. He teaches “Advanced Genealogical Methods” at the Salt Lake Institute of Genealogy, “Writing and Publishing for Genealogists” at Samford University’s Institute of Genealogy, and both “Historical Research,” and “Evidence Evaluation and Citation” at Boston University. In addition, Jones presents seminars and workshops in local communities across the United States and at national genealogy conferences. Jones is a Fellow of the American Society of Genealogists, the Utah Genealogical Association, and the National Genealogical Society—Ed.

Sack: You have said that the Internet poses some important challenges for genealogists. What do you mean?

Jones: No one can argue that the Internet is not a tremendous asset to genealogical research. I use it repeatedly every day, often for hours at a time. Having images of original records available at my desk is a delightful convenience. That said, genealogical resources on the Internet seem to train us in counterproductive behavior and thinking, blocking us from tracing lineages to earlier and earlier generations.

Research barriers resulting from inadequate indexing are obvious. Misreadings, misunderstandings, and typing errors may garble names of people and places beyond recognition. Creative searching (which is a productive thinking skill that the Internet teaches us) may bypass these instances, but no amount of creativity will enable our search engines to locate people accidentally omitted from a database, index, or original source. Indexing errors, which have always plagued genealogists (and always will—all indexes are imperfect) are not just an Internet problem, and they don’t greatly concern me. Having done my genealogical “maturing” with only two American censuses indexed—both incomplete—and when databases and search engines were unknown, I know that difficult genealogical problems can be solved without them. Indexes, databases, and search engines, however, bring me to my concerns about how the Internet trains us to think counterproductively or perhaps not to think at all.

Tom Jones

Few indexes, especially those produced in the commercial sector, warn users about their deficiencies. Even if completeness is not overtly stated, the implication is that the index is complete. The sheer volume of information may imply full coverage. A disclaimer may appear in fine print or via a non-search engine link, but the index’s promise of revealing ancestors lures us into bypassing this information and diving into the search. This might be fine when we find what we are seeking, but suppose we come up empty-handed? If a marriage search is fruitless, we might assume the couple married elsewhere or not at all, or the marriage had not been recorded, thus blocking our search. These assumptions could be false. The indexer or database creator may have overlooked, misread, or mistyped the names of the party we are trying to find, or the index may be only partially complete. For example, the database may include a narrow range of years or only a small percentage of the marriages. If we find the party in the database, does that mean the couple married in the jurisdiction the database covers? Not necessarily. To interpret the finding correctly, we need to understand the types of marriage records the database includes. If the basis for a database entry is a marriage license application or bond, for example, no marriage may have occurred.

Only an officiant’s return provides evidence the marriage occurred and its date and place, which may have been distant from where the license was issued or the marriage was recorded. Genealogical database providers rarely explain these nuances, leading users to think we have found more than we have. Names of witnesses, bonds­men, and officiants provide valuable genealogical clues, but if the database does not provide them, we may believe we have all the useful information the source provides. The Internet trains us to believe that people we do not find were not in the place the index covers, that all sources of the same general type (such as “marriage rec­ord”) provide similar information, that a finding “proves” some event, and that databases and indexes include all the information we need—all of which are false misunderstandings, which may block our research or lead it astray.

Because most genealogical data on the Internet is name-based, users assume name equals identity. A 21st-century mind-set tells us—inappropriately—that names never changed without legal action. In prior centuries, however, names were one of the easiest parts of a person’s identity to change, and record keepers seem to have changed them without thought, especially if the name belonged to someone whose first language was not English, or who was illiterate, or who was literate only in a language that did not use the Roman alphabet. Names of immigrating and migrating ancestors are especially vulnerable to change, even though our Internet experiences may train us to use a name to connect a person with a place of origin and a place of settlement. Our ancestors found it much harder to change aspects of their identity such as religion, literacy, occupation, and socioeconomic status than to change their names. Databases that address these variables would be more valuable than those that provide only names, dates, and places. The Internet trains us to believe that when we have found the name, we have found the person, which might or might not be true.

Providers of much online (and offline) genealogical information take it out of context, thereby removing valuable genealogical details (such as the example above concerning witnesses to a marriage). People have difficulty seeing what is not there, however, especially when excited about what they do see. An alphabetized cemetery index (which makes no sense in a digital environment, where we can search for any word in a file) removes information about nearby burials, which could be those of in-laws of an earlier generation with a different surname. A death index provides valuable information but omits much that is available in the records behind the index or database, including data about the deceased person’s parents. Databases may combine information from several types of rec­ords without distinguishing between them. Census databases and search engines lead us to one person, household, or page. Rarely do we read the surrounding data and pages, even though they may provide information valuable to our search. In each of these examples, the electronic data or its presentation trains users to focus on what they see and seduces them to ignore the context that is not on their screen, but that nevertheless may be genealogically useful. As a result, the Internet may cause us to miss valuable information. Examining surrounding pages is much easier when turning them in an open book or scrolling through a reel of microfilm than it is when waiting for successive images to download online.

The Internet teaches us not to read original sources. In the days before census indexes, the only way to gather census information was to read a whole county’s census enumeration line by line. Today’s search engines and databases provide access to census images, leading researchers to believe there is no need to read through them. Reading the pages, however, bypasses indexing or database errors and it may reveal helpful evidence, but few researchers take this route when their search yields no “hits.” Untargeted census entries on the same or nearby pages may refer to in-laws, other relatives, and fellow immigrants—details we miss when we just follow what the search engines and databases show us. The same is true with other kinds of sources. Many Internet genealogists avoid unindexed online images of original sources. Unknowingly, they may be bypassing the information they seek.

The Internet teaches us to be impatient. A death index, while providing useful dates, shows a fraction of the information from the original certificate. Satisfied with the dates, however, we bypass the cost, inconvenience, and time delay required to obtain the original documentation. Apparently, we either do not know or do not care that the original death certificate or Social Security application provides more detail, including information about a prior generation, that the index does not provide. Instead, we jump from one database to the next, gathering whatever is available online and ignoring the wealth of offline material that requires time to access.

When the Internet seduces us into using only its data, it teaches us that its sources are more important than the original sources it records. Successful genealogists know, however, that original sources are the most informative and reliable genealogical material that exist. Online compiled genealogies citing sources usually refer only to online or other digital data, implying that this is all genealogists need. The truth is that online data, as valuable as it is, offers only a small fraction of useful information available to genealogists.

The Internet teaches us that documentation is optional. Many online genealogical compilations are not documented. Sometimes, this is intentional, although the compilers’ reasons make little sense to me. In most cases, however, the compilers seem not to know documentation’s value. Similarly, many online indexes and databases do not provide adequate source information, again implying that this information is not important. Genealogists who advance lineages reliably from one generation to the next, however, know that detailed and accurate documentation is extremely important, because it shows that their conclusions about ancestral relationships rest on a firm foundation. It also ensures that their research can be replicated—an important characteristic of research in any field.

The Internet teaches us that using another researcher’s findings without attribution is acceptable practice. It provides many examples online. When queried, the users who reply (usually few in number) typically report they do not know where they got the information, just “somewhere on the Net.” Consequently (and sadly), many researchers who have solved difficult problems to advance lineages are reluctant to share the results digitally because they fear their hard work will be attributed to someone else.

The Internet teaches search-and-find as the methodology of genealogy. Searching records is only a starting point, however, when reliable results that will stand up to most tests are desired. Accuracy requires processes of broad searching (not focused searching, as using the Internet might have lead us to believe), analyzing the resulting mass of data, determining the points of consistency and conflict, resolving the conflicts (if possible), establishing a conclusion based on the resulting sum of the evidence, and only then explaining in writing why that conclusion—and no other—is the correct conclusion. This process cannot be based solely on online research, because the Internet offers just a tiny proportion of genealogically useful data. Also, this multi-step methodology differs greatly from the Internet-implied approach of hunting for an answer, believing it, and entering it on a form.

There is no question the Internet is highly useful to genealogists, but the extremely high proportion of erroneous information resulting from poor research habits, including over-reliance on online data, should caution us about its use. Just as we should verify any genealogical source by comparing its data to that from independent sources, we should subject online information to verification and corroboration with original sources before we accept it. Any source can be wrong (sometimes intentionally). Without verification, we have no way of knowing whether an uncorroborated source is giving us right or wrong information. We also need to continually engage in a process of analyzing all our findings, failed searches, and assumptions to avoid unsound reasoning and accepting false data.

Sack: Can you say a little more about the problem of inaccurate genealogies on the web? As I recall, you know some examples that existed even before the Internet as well. It’s the issue of the centrality of documentation, isn’t it?

Jones: Here is one example. In one Ancestral File entry to which 11 submitters contributed, 12 International Genealogical Index entries, 8 Ancestry World Tree entries, 1 OneWorld Tree entry, and 28 Ancestry “Public Member Trees” identify the woman Obediah Overton married in Culpeper County, Virginia, on January 31, 1788, as “Sidney Eleanor Crow.” The marriage record, however, renders her first name as “Ellender” (a variant of Eleanor), and no known record during her lifetime identifies her as Sidney or any variant of that name. Furthermore, all 28 “Public Member Trees,” 1 Ancestry World Tree entry, and the Ancestral File entry, identify the parents of Obediah’s wife, “Sidney Eleanor” (Crow) Overton, as James and Elizabeth (Givens) Crow. James Crow’s will, however, which stipulates that part of his estate is “to be divided among my children as followeth,” names all his children in 1797, including married daughters. No Sydney, Eleanor, or Overton appears among them. Some of these online sources also give Eleanor children she did not have, omit children she did have, give Eleanor her stepdaughter Ellen Overton’s date and place of burial, and garble her places of birth and marriage and various dates. Recent research establishes that Eleanor was a widow Crow when she married Obediah and that her maiden name was either Klug or Medley, most likely the latter. This is all documented in Thomas W. Jones, “Identifying Ancestors by Deduction: The Husbands and Parents of Eleanor (née Medley) (Tureman) (Crow) Overton,” National Genealogical Society Quarterly 94 (December 2006): 287–304.

Many online errors predate the Internet, often by a century or more. In Eleanor’s case, however, except for the confusion regarding her first name, none of the errors appeared before the Internet. The worst genealogical error—assigning her the wrong parents—arose from the incorrect assumption that a woman’s name before marriage must be her maiden name. Probably one person misidentified Eleanor as a daughter of the only man of that surname in the county when she married Obediah Overton. If that unknown person consulted James Crow’s will, he or she may have assumed that the will did not name all James’ children despite its clear language. If the person examined that will, then he or she overlooked easily located records in the same county which provide evidence that Eleanor was a widow when she married Obediah Overton. One person, and not necessarily the person who created the error, first published the information online. From that posting, the erroneous information has been copied and republished so many times we cannot identify the original submitter. Now we can cite 30 online sources identifying Eleanor’s parents incorrectly. These errors reflect several common problems:

• Incorrect assumptions about the meaning and accuracy of information we read (whether online, in print, or in an original handwritten source)
• Belief that only a shared surname is needed to connect a woman to her parents
• Failure to verify information in reliable sources
• Overlooking valuable sources and information (espe-cially information in offline sources)
• Misunderstanding or misinterpreting what we read
• Completely trusting undocumented, unexplained, and unevaluated information from another genealogist.

These problems, which are not new, can occur anywhere. They are most obvious on the Internet, however, because so much compiled genealogical information resides there.

Although documentation is central to accurate results, it is not alone. Some online submitters have cited James Crow’s will to document Eleanor Overton as his daughter, apparently unaware that this source shows just the opposite. Accurate results require that documentation go hand-in-hand with the Genealogical Proof Standard’s other four elements:¹

• A reasonably broad search
• Analysis and correlation to show the resulting sources’ credibility
• Resolution of evidence conflicting with the conclusion, and
• A clear written explanation defending that conclusion, and no other, as correct.

When we address all five elements, we—and the people who use our research—can be as confident as possible that our results are accurate.

Sack: Recently a friend told me that her late mother had been a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), but that the DAR sent my friend a letter saying that she would need to redo the research and resubmit her credentials if she wanted her mother’s membership.² I found that curious. What can you tell us about this?

Jones: This question is better suited to a DAR official than me, but through the decades the DAR has required higher and higher standards of documentation. As a consequence, some lineages established in the society’s early years are inadequately documented, in terms of the ancestor’s patriotic service, connections between generations, or both. The DAR does not eject members whose descent includes a poorly documented lineage, but the society requires new applicants desiring to use one of those lines as a basis for membership to provide proper proof. This includes living members’ daughters and other descendants. Sometimes, for one reason or another, acceptable documentation is unavailable.

Sack: The DAR example reminds me of something Ambassador Neville Lamdan, director of the International Institute for Jewish Genealogy, wrote (“Jewish Genealogy: Moving Towards Recognition as a Sub-branch of Jewish Studies,” AVOTAYNU, Summer 2009). Lamdan noted that during the 19th century in Germany, Jewish genealogy was considered a bona fide sub-branch of Jewish Studies, a recognized subject for academic pursuit. Then, as historians developed the more rigorous methodologies, genealogists unfortunately did not. Even worse, some less-than-reputable genealogists began to fabricate lineages back to one or another eminent rabbi, to create /yicchus/ (an eminent pedigree) for a fee. The result is that academicians came to view genealogy with disrespect, as a subject that was not fit for academic study, a situation that, unfortunately, remains the dominant view today. Recently, for example, Professor Jonathan Sarna, head of the Department of Near Eastern and Jewish Studies at Brandeis University, was quoted as saying that historians have viewed Jewish genealogy with “some amusement because of the tendency to focus on rabbis and other achievers while ignoring the horse thieves in the family.” Happily, however, you (and others) are involved in a project at Boston University that holds great promise for perhaps changing that perception. Can you tell us something about what is happening there?

Jones: Under the leadership of Melinde Lutz Sanborn, FASG, Boston University (BU) began offering a Certificate in Genealogical Research program in January 2009. Students have three options:

• Fourteen Saturdays of classroom-based instruction, seven hours per session, in the fall or spring semester
• Fourteen consecutive seven-hour weekdays of classroom instruction in July, or
• Fourteen weeks of online instruction beginning several times a year.

At this writing, the program is concluding its third classroom offering and is about midway through its first online offering. The curriculum, identical for classroom and online settings, is based on modern genealogical standards. It consists of five modules:

• Foundations of genealogical research
• Problem-solving techniques and technology
• Evidence evaluation and citation
• Forensic genealogical research
• Ethnic and geographic specialties

The instructors, both online and in the classroom, have nationally recognized genealogical research expertise. BU’s Center on Professional Education offers the program, which is not degree bearing at this time. Plans are underway, however, to offer course work in genealogy for credit that college students at BU and elsewhere can apply as electives in various majors. These courses may be an intermediate step toward a degree program in genealogy. BU is excited about the present program, which so far has drawn students from as far as California and Bermuda. I teach “Evidence Evaluation and Documentation” for the online and classroom-based programs, The Spring 2010 classroom and online cohorts promise to be the largest yet, perhaps 50 students each. For further details, see <http://professional. bu.edu/cpe/Genealogy.asp>.

Sack: In your classes at BU, what do you tell your students about the use of genealogical software programs? I believe that you have some interesting observations about these programs and the effects they may have on our general orientation to research.

Jones: Today, genealogical software and the Internet provide most people’s introduction to genealogical research. The software, as an unintended consequence, can foster counterproductive genealogical thinking, similar to what we previously discussed about the Internet. It develops, for example, a fill-in-the-blank-and-move-to-the-next-field men­tal­ity, bypassing appropriately broad searches, assessing sources’ validity, comparing and contrasting information from a variety of sources, and determining a sound conclusion about a name, date, relationship, place, event, or other genealogical fact.

The best use of genealogical software is as an aid to compiling completed research, but for most consumers it is a starting point, if not their genealogical “be all and end all.” Many users believe they can “dump” their software’s output into a publishable product but, without much massaging, those products invariably fall far short of acceptable standards for genealogical accuracy and publishable written work. Descendants and relatives may cherish the project because of the compiler rather than any intrinsic value of the genealogical work itself.

I spend an extraordinary amount of time teaching genealogy. My audiences range from beginners attending local seminars to advanced researchers in the college classroom. Regardless of level and experience, they all seem to need—and want—education focused on two areas that software, by its nature, does not address adequately:

• Developing the research and critical thinking skills needed to determine past relationships unknown today
• Preparing engaging products that future generations will find invaluable in understanding their past

Most genealogies online and in modern books show their compilers to be naive researchers rehashing others’ work and preparing products of mediocre quality, at best. Rarely advancing knowledge, they often introduce error. Although most of us derive considerable pleasure from pursuing genealogy, almost universally we do it also for someone else. We anticipate that our consumers will be our children, grandchildren, relatives, or future generations of our families. Ironically, many of today’s family historians have produced work of such poor quality that their consumers will need to do the work over again if they want to know with reasonable certainty who their ancestors were and to understand their lives. No genealogist wants that. Many of them, however, rely on their software and the Internet to teach them how to conduct sound research and create products of enduring value. In most cases, they have not succeeded. Education beyond the software and the Internet is needed, and I see a great hunger for it.

When I began genealogical research in 1963, we had no genealogical credentialing organizations, no national conferences, and few formal education opportunities. (I believe there were only the National Institute on Genealogical Research, established in 1950, and Samford University’s Institute for Genealogy and Historical Research, established in 1962.) Most genealogists had little choice but to educate themselves. Fortunately, we had several scholarly genealogical journals with demonstrated high standards, including The American Genealogist, the National Genealogical Society Quarterly, and The New England Historical and Genealogical Register. They showed how well genealogical research could be conducted, the kinds of problems that could be solved, and formats for producing work that future generations would cherish. I did not discover these publications, however, until I had been struggling with genealogical research for 15 years. Fortunately, I was young when my interest in family history emerged, so I had plenty of time to learn from my mistakes (and I think I have made them all, many repeatedly). It took 30 years of self-education in the school of experience and studying journal articles to bring me to the point where I could conduct believable research that broke new ground, and I could present it in ways others would respect.

People starting their genealogical research later in life do not have the luxury of youthful self-education, learning from 30 years of mistakes. Formal education, however, can help them bypass others’ mistakes, and it can compress the learning from years of experience into hours of instruction. Today, fortunately, we have many opportunities for genealogical education. Communities around the world offer adult education programs where credentialed genealogists teach beginners how to start their research from day one on a sound footing. Television programs, like “Tracing Your Family Roots,” <http://tracingroots.nova.org>, provide information about sources and methodology. National conferences, several institutes, and college programs—in the classroom and online—address the needs of family historians seeking more advanced education. With all the higher-order thinking skills genealogy engenders, its focus on scholarly research and reporting research results, and its connections to many academic disciplines, I think we are approaching a day when genealogy will be a respected part of the college curriculum.

Notes

1. The Genealogical Proof Standard states criteria that successful genealogists have adhered to for decades. It is published in Board for Certification of Genealogists, The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual (Orem, Utah: 2000), 1–2 and is on the Internet at <www.bcgcertification. org/resources/standard.html>. For a brief history of genealogical proof criteria, see Thomas W. Jones, “How Much Searching is ‘Reasonably Exhaustive’?” Association of Professional Genealogists Quarterly 25 (in press; scheduled for March 2010), introduction and note 1.
2. The Daughters of the American Revolution is a lineage-based membership organization open to women who can prove lineal bloodline descent from an ancestor who aided in achieving American independence.