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

[BushInn1746]

PharmaT

I have been trying for years to prove / disprove an 18th Century link.

A Rootschatter had kindly suggested another possibility also.

Both still have validity, for their own reasons.

But despite seeing or getting documents from Archives (still more to see), I can't prove one or the other, due to insufficient detail, or missing records.

I am certainly not chucking the tree or anything else away!

My mystery ancestor was rubbing shoulders with named individuals.

Suddenly last week, a family collection of papers spanning several centuries has shown up covering these three family names, deposited quite recently.

I'm excited now, that there might be just one item in those papers, that mentions my mystery ancestor and gives me a clue as to who he might be.

Have self belief and keep gnawing away at it with patience but determination and I wish you success.

Mark

[Ruskie]

You seem to come across a lot of mean and judgemental people in your day to day life PharmaT. Try not to engage with them and more importantly, try not to let them get you down. You always have rootschatters to give you a pep talk and to reassure you. 

[Rena]

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. 

Sounds like he's a salesman desperate to earn some commission.  I do so hate those puffed-up. think-they-know-it-all,  supercilious cretins, who seem to want to lord it over everyone

[Sloe Gin]

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.

Did s/he really use the word "worthless"?
What was meant by "an OK start"? 

[oldohiohome]

I'm working with you now on a thread in Co. Down, and your research and your approach to it is excellent.

Sources are what they are, many times they contradict each other. A good researcher can determine how they harmonize and what they actually tell us about the ancestor/event, etc.

As someone has already said, unless you intend to publish in a journal somewhere, the purpose of citations is so other people can find your source. Just cite what you have, if necessary note that it is a secondary source. Maybe the next person can take it a step farther.

My sources are sloppy, but no one has complained about the research, and rarely if ever has anyone found fault with it. I suspect strongly that it is the same in your case.

As for degrees and credentials, just remember the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. Enough said. I learned a lot more in high school than in college, I've needed my degree to earn 3 1/2 days of income in 50 years, and the only college course I wish I kept my notes from was one on historical research.

[oldohiohome]

More cynically, I suspect the other person is a professional genealogist or aspires to be, and they can't bear to see an amateur do work as good as theirs. Amateur meaning only that you didn't pay $$ (or Pounds, I don't have that sign on my keyboard here in US) for a few years courses in genealogy, but you still have enough brains to know where the records are and how to make sense out of them.

[Rena]

I have been remiss at citing sources on my online tree, in the last couple of weeks I have started going through and entering source references and cross referencing what information they support with side notes regarding the value of the each source eg when there is some sort of discrepancy.  I have 2 degrees including a post grad research degree (granted not in history) so the fact the questioned how I passed and i feel maybe others have been thinking the same discredint my qualifiactaions, letting down the image of my uni etc.

Was considering writing up my daugter's tree and getting it bound for her 18th and had wavered as  worred about embarrassing her.   I had settled on doing it but now questioning it again.  Been crying tbh.

Try not to dwell on the matter Pharma.  We rootschatters outnumber that person and we're all here on our white chargers ready to right a wrong. 

Whoever spoke to you would have a field day with me, as some of my information can't be gleaned from missing bmd's but from contents of last wills/testaments.  I don't put my sources on my online trees, why should I give ancestry, myheritage, etc. further free information?

 Pharma said:
The person who said it isn't a relative.  They said it because I made a comment about how many different things one Scottish BDM could provide some evidence for and they replied that they weren't proper evidence I tried to put forward my case why they counted as evidence and the best available in most cases.  Was told I didn't understand, how did I get my degree etc. I've only just manged t stop crying.  Pathetic I know but has really upset me.

One branch of my family were from the European mainland but I never received one single image of an original document - all information was sent via typed lists by a church archivist, who painstakingly listed all the witnesses shown on the various bmd's because some, or all, could be relatives and that information is valuable to researchers.  I assume this is what you meant during your conversation to this unknown person. 

[Rena]

Keep up your great work. Your only mistake was not citing the identity of your gormless critic.

When it all comes down to it the only real primary source is watching a birth and following that person through his entire life. Hey, I might even use that in my signature.

Martin

 

[oldohiohome]

And nothing on ancestry.com matters except the records. The trees are mostly mythology, so I would care very little about what anyone who had a tree on there said about my work. You might be better off not putting it on there, for that matter.