I inherited a lot of information from my mother but she didn’t worry too much about sources. I started an entirely new file with just the information for which I have sources. She had her tree uploaded to MyHeritage, and I’ve just discovered a ton of matching information. Since I don’t have sources for any of it, I don’t want to add it to my tree.
How do you keep track of data that MIGHT be relevant, but might not?
You could do a 2nd database adding the ton of matching info to that and use @kevync1985 suggestion-- then go out and prove or disprove it–once proven, then add to your other database..
Basically it all comes down to taking 1 person at a time and finding all the info you can on them using familysearch, my heritage, Ancestry especially family files if you get stuck on birth/ death etc for suggestions , findmypast etc-- then you will be able to tell if MyHeritage is correct or NOT
As for Ancestry ( or any of the others), you have to prove the info is correct-- for example a lot of researchers believe John Blow is the father of my 3rd g-grandparent Leo Blow–took me less than 10 minutes to disprove this as Leo had a sister born 1859 Germany and John Blow and family came to America before 1850 and never went back to Germany-- on the other hand, it took me a couple of days of locating info to prove they were right on my other 3rd g-grandfather
Just because your mother’s file does not have sources, does not prove whether or not she was a careful researcher. She may have been carefully adding to family over a period of years. It might be wise to take what you were given and attempting to document the family’s generational links one by one as you received the file. As you begin to prove her work you may decide it is a good starting point for you, or you may want to start anew.
If you decide to use her file as your starting point, start verifying with yourself, and add source information on parents, grandparents, great-grandparents one at a time adding sources as you go generation by generation. These should be in the form of vital records, bible records, wills, land records, old family letters and diaries, census records, obituaries, historical books, tombstone inscriptions, published family genealogies, etc. Information from shared family trees online such as from FamilySearch, Ancestry, MyHeritage, and collections of information such as family genealogies, etc. needs to be verified by comparing to the most reliable records possible which are recorded as near as possible to the event in time.
Adding large amounts of information from any large database is a problem because you cannot attempt to document vast amounts of information without looking at individual persons on a one to one basis.
Ancestry does have many historical records online as well as shared databases. When they added census documents a few years back, this was really helpful to me, because I could check these in the middle of the night from home rather than taking road trips to libraries and National Archives to view the census films. There are of course several companies that offer records online, so one does not have to rely on Ancestry or other favored company to find original sources. FamilySearch has online many original source documents that one would be unable to travel in a lifetime to view.
I guess the most important point to remember is that verification is best done one person at a time, gradually expanding each family group one generation at a time, back in time. At least if a family has a relative who has a good start on a family, it is easier to verify one generation at a time if one has some seemingly reliable information, that to start completely from scratch. Question everything from shared family trees. There is both very good information and very unreliable information out there. It is not always easy to tell the difference.
Thank you. I have no doubt that Mom had good sources, she just didn’t document them as OCD as I would have. (I am very detail oriented, but not clinically OCD.) Many of the facts in her file have a general source, but many do not. I don’t plan on publishing or anything, so I could probably not worry about it, but did I mention OCD? 
Mom is now Your source. Until you find documents 
I have an envelope my Mom wrote on the back “Daddy’s family from Trier, Germany. Mom’s from Abbeyfeale, Ireland.”
No idea who she talked to to get this. She would doddle on paper when talking to people, so she is my source. Turned out those were the clues I need to trace people.
Same here. I’m absolutely not getting rid of Mom’s trees. She and Dad traveled all over the US looking for ancestors. Her tree is not a source, but it’s definitely my best resource! And she does list sources for much of what she did. I’ll probably stick the MyHeritage information in yet a third database to keep track of where I got everything so I can know where to look. Mom put some of her own information in MyHeritage; I’m just seeing suggestions of trees to link her tree to. I don’t want to do that because I don’t trust everyone to have good information. I was looking for my husband’s ancestors and found connections all over the internet. It turned out one connection was wrong, so an entire branch had to be eliminated from his tree.
Incorrect! It is indeed a source. ANYPLACE you get information from is a source. You are confusing source with quality. Any Ancestry member tree that you take information from, it is a source. Any letter you acquire, it is a source. So on and so forth. This does not stop you from seeking better quality sources, such as original records as opposed to mom’s handwritten documents.
The point of a source is to tell you, or any other researcher, where that information came from. You have to then decide on the quality of mom’s work.
agreed – it might not be considered a standard source – but it is most definitely a source. In Some cases it might be considered better (quality) than many standard sources found on Ancestry or other sites.
First hand information, such as from a family member might be the most reliable information one ever receives, particularly when one is beginning ones step into this fascinating hobby. Most always family research involves oral traditions some accurate and some not. Also, not everything we learn from generational traditions which may be accurate may show up in what we consider good sources. DNA has become a more recent way to sort out whether some of these traditions are accurate. Also it can be very helpful to keep conflicting information in our RM databases whether or not we have them linked to our main known ancestral line. I have found links 10 years down the road for families that could not be verified in the beginning. And by the way, probably most of us engaged in genealogy endeavors, have at least some OCD tendencies. How else would we keep at a hobby that many think is crazy!
I have all of my mother’s data, and well as data from other relatives in my tree. If I don’t have citations noted for various facts, I consider them unproven, but they remain.
I even leave things proven false because at some point in the future it may come back around. For example I recently had someone that was claiming the daughter of a multi-great grandfather had married another distant relative because it was in a genealogy book and in DAR reports. I knew there was something fishy about it but because I’d removed the relationship and only noted the positive I couldn’t disprove it. I later found my research and updated the notes on the daughter to show the issue, as well as put back the reference to the bad source.
Similarly I have some children that I later showed didn’t exist with notes for where they came from, and how they were mistaken due to nicknames, misspellings, etc.
So I would merge your mother’s entire tree, use the capability to notate the people from a GEDCOM, and add source citations as you find them and notate issues as needed. If you don’t find primary sources information it is simply unproven.
That brings up another question. Can I build a report or something that will identify all the facts that are unverified?
