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. 
No don’t dump your research you have done the best you can.
Whilst it is probably correct that your research is not based on ‘original records’ if you take the view that the original record is the first written record of the event, you have used what are the first official records (or photographs & scans of the first official records, which is what Parish Registers on microfiche/film and online digital images are). Though to be pedantic Parish Registers were made from day books and notes often on scraps of paper, and are therefore transcripts and census, other than the 1911 are transcripts of mainly secondary information, but that is why we researchers try to amass as much information for a particular event as possible from a range of independent sources.
From what you write you are aware of the limitations of the sources that are available and have taken steps to ensure your information is accurate.
If you think about it to compile an accurate family tree from original sources it would have to be compiled by each and every ancestor who appeared on your tree recording their part in the process, each conception would have to be recorded at the time by the two people involved and each woman would have to be monitored for a reasonable time before and after each conception to be sure of the facts.
As the life events of our families and ancestors were not recorded in such a way we have to rely on official records and understand that these records will contain errors and omissions and we try to nullify these errors and omissions by the use of other records.
No tree can definitely be 100% accurate as the official records we base our trees on are complied from information supplied from 3rd parties after the event.
One only has to ask a policeman about witness reports of an accident or event to see that each witness supplies a different information to describe the same event.
Cheers
Guy
