Should I just bin all my reserach and forget about it?

[pharmaT]

I have been researching for over 18 years now.  A large proportion of my research is in Scotland so I have been to New Register House several time and more recently SP centre at the Mitchell Library because it is less travelling for me.

Over the years I have put a lot of effort into gettin my tree as accurate as possible.  Obviously being human I have made mistakes but I correct them when I can.  I have always been quite obsessive about having as many sources as possible for each 'fact'.  When I only have one piece of evidence for something I have made a point of annotating my tree that there is limited evidence. Although my tree is still something I consider a work in progress I was starting to become quite proud of all I had done and learned and actually felt I had tried to apply some sort of academic rigor to my research.

Today I have been told I have made an OK start but my tree is worthless as I have "no primary sources" and have never viewed any primary sources.  I have 100s of BDM records on my tree and a lot of Scottish Census records too.  These have either been viewed via microfiche in the old days and laterlly at Scotland's People's Centre.  I have some newspaper artcles but they are eitehr images from FindMyPast or photocopies from the collection at the Mitchell library.  The 'original' certificates I am lucky to ahve in my posession are effectively trasnscriptions of the original register entry so are also secondary sources.


Feelins so down about my research and questioning whether I should dump it all? I mean if it's rubbish why am I keeping it? Do I destroy it so it doesn't contaminate someone else's research? I mean the actual registers are not available for the public to handle so not as if I can ever fix it and get proper sources.

[avm228]

No way!  Who’s told you it’s worthless?  Dump them, not your painstaking research which is certainly not worthless.

[Wendy2305]

I agree no way dump all your hard work
What does this person consider a primary source if its not the BMD's and census images from the relevant organizations

[mckha489]

And I agree too, NO WAY.
You sound as if you have been more meticulous than very many.  Hold your head high and ignore.

[sugarbakers]

If someone criticised my research in that way, I'd ask them to point out my <i>actual</i> errors so that I might correct them ... that'd keep 'em busy.

[[Ray]]

Hi
Dump it all?     NO WAY?     
Keep it ALL as it is.     

Trees are all a work in progress.     
It is the result of your effort.     
You never know what will turn up to "amend" items of data.     

Was this a professional organisation / person?     ( Don't have to name names )     

Were they trying to be "perfect"?     


Ray   

Yup I'd be livid too

[pharmaT]

I agree no way dump all your hard work
What does this person consider a primary source if its not the BMD's and census images from the relevant organizations

They said I don't have a primary source unless I physically handle the register and has to be the actual record made at the time.  This will never be possible, hasn't been in my life time anyway.  It does confuse me as I was taught if it was an image of the actual original record then it was a primary source. A secondary source would be a transcription, image of transcrition or a record created later.  So the SP images I have used are images of the actual register completed at the time of registration by the registrar and signed (or marked) by the informant. I have a couple of censuses where I only have the enumerators summary but that's because the actual scedule hasn't survived and in my defence I have noted that that is all I have. 


Not knowing what else I could get is part of why I'm considering scrapping it.  If I don't know what to do after this long I shouldn't be doing it. .  Just feel so sad, I have failed at pretty much everything I do.

[Rosinish]

Pharma,

I strongly agree with avm & the rest (all had posted while I was still typing)!

I'm assuming you don't put your 'evidence' i.e. certs. online?

Do you state your sources?

Either way, I'm only asking simply to establish why the person has concluded your "tree is worthless"?

I have a very limited tree online in 2 places from a long time ago but I soon learned not to put my paid research i.e. certs. online!!!

If people wanted to contact me then I was open to sharing etc. but I was also stung with the 'sharing' when I sent many certs. to people & received zilch back!
Those certs. appear on various trees & I know they're copies of ones I've sent as I had a certain distinguishing mark on mine when I sent them 

Lesson learned i.e. I now would only give references to docs (if asked) as it's cost me an absolute fortune not forgetting the time & effort.

People have the idea, if they join sites/pay subs they should be entitled to access to our paid research (certs) for free! 

Keep going & ignore such comments 

Annie

[pharmaT]

If someone criticised my research in that way, I'd ask them to point out my <i>actual</i> errors so that I might correct them ... that'd keep 'em busy.

I asked how to fix it and they said if I can't handle the original physically then I can't.  They suggested ordering a certificate but that will be a transcription created this year, and be created using the image so by that definition would be a tertiary source not to mention prohibitively expensive.