This is in response to the five worst sources of genealogy. I will not even mention this so-called ‘expert’ genealogists’ name or his site. His excuse: something about increasing traffic. Try spam, which most of us will ignore.
Last week’s hurried post was an attempt to correct a book written in 1906 by an ‘expert’ genealogist that many people have copied and passed around for many years. Proof is in the picture and the source is noted for any to check out.
Blogs are one of the best sources of genealogy; people talking about their grandparents, their lately deceased Aunt Betty or cranky Uncle Elmer, first-hand knowledge, pictures, recordings and videos, or what it was like growing up in Malta, Idaho or Misquamicut (sic) Rhode Island.
There’s more to genealogy than birth, marriage and death.
Blogs are the new backbone of genealogy research, opening up communication between people discussing and commenting on the most recent post.
Many bloggers teach, give hints and tips to help improve researching techniques.
There are also Graveyard Rabbits who spend countless hours photographing and transcribing sometimes nearly futile to read weathered headstones. et al.
Even our primary sources are rife with possibly bad info:
Census takers with bad hearing or in too big of a hurry to get home for the evening, estimating ages haphazardly.
Bishop’s transcripts, copies of the original parish records.
Registered wills, Oh, my gosh! They too are not originals merely copies.
And let’s not forget that all the original English parish records were written on paper in 1537 through about 1598, and then transcribed between 1598 and 1601 onto parchment by order of Queen Elizabeth.
Conclusion: I like blogs, instead of an ‘expert’ site in which tons of people have done the wrong lines and where anyone with a little cash is descended from Charlemagne.
Word of the Week:
Sneafin = Reprimand
No comments:
Post a Comment