Genealogists' most hated phrase

[coombs]

"Most likely" is also annoying for me. I want confirmation.

[craizi daizi]

LMAO  @  majm

Ohh so funny ,   

Daizi

[Sloe Gin]

"Most likely" is also annoying for me. I want confirmation.

That's what we'd all like, and sometimes we get it in the fullness of time.  And sometimes we don't.

In the meantime, "most likely" is a legitimate place-marker.  It is what it says on the tin, no more, no less.

[jaybelnz]

Thanks jaybelnz

I didn't mean to appear to put your wording down  if it reads like that

I am very guilty of using the term Not Known, but it's because I really don't know without spending a fortune on certificates for someone ten times re-moved or the like.

Ambers

No worries Amber, I certainly didn't see it as a put down!! Not at all!.

Jeanne 

[Just Kia]

I don't see why "Most Likely" or variations are annoying :-/
I'd rather see someone truthfully put Mary UNKNOWN or John's parents were most likely Samuel & Sarah and so on rather than just state it as fact when they don't really know.

After all, we wouldn't just blindly copy what they had written anyway - would we? So, it just forms part of a useful guide in our own research to find that missing link.

[fifer1947]

I don't see why "Most Likely" or variations are annoying :-/
I'd rather see someone truthfully put Mary UNKNOWN or John's parents were most likely Samuel & Sarah and so on rather than just state it as fact when they don't really know.

After all, we wouldn't just blindly copy what they had written anyway - would we? So, it just forms part of a useful guide in our own research to find that missing link.

That's why it's so annoying.     I would much rather have a blank or unknown. 

"Most Likely" conveys the [wrong] message "almost certain" when we truly don't know without proof.

[Sloe Gin]

A "most likely" can be very helpful though. 

Suppose you go with the hypothesis that John Most-Likely is the correct ancestor, trace his parentage and find that his father left a will.  You track down the will and it names all his grandchildren, thus confirming that the hypothesis was correct.

Who would complain about the hint that set them on the right path?

[fifer1947]

Who would complain about the hint that set them on the right path?

I would imagine those like me who have in the past gone down the wrong path on the strength of a "most likely" and those who have done the extended research which proved the person's error of assumption.   Wasting time and resources which could have been better spent.

By all means put in the ancestors notes any proven facts and references which may give clues to other possible research, I do, but I personally avoid giving my hypothesis, though of course I may think it!

[Guy Etchells]

I cannot understand why phrases such as “Most Likely”, or the words “Possibly, May be, Could be, Thought to be, or Unconfirmed should be annoying to the serious family historian.
After all we all understand that records seldom confirm anything but simply lead to the most likely conclusion based on the balance of probabilities the above words reflect that.

Only the naive imagine anything in family history may be proven, it cannot.
We have to rely on memory, integrity and honesty in primary records (and there are precious few of those around) and the same plus excellent transcription skills in secondary, etc. records.

If one treats every database, pedigree and transcript as a pointer to the truth and use them to access the primary records then the chance of an accurate pedigree is increased.
But if one simply copies other’s work then there is little chance of ever coming to the correct conclusion.
Cheers
Guy