Question

How do you use FamilyTree(on FamilySearch.com) and Findagrave.com ?
Both of these resources let people upload unverified information with no sources, and often no way to contact the contributor to question the information or offer corrections. I don't have the time or energy to try to correct other's sloppy postings[not talking wikitree, of course], so I generally take a pass on the data. Findagrave makes me pull my hair out - headstone information that is sometimes completely inconsistent with the text that someone has added. I have a problem with use of these sites as "sources".

Accumulating unverifed information and posting seems to me to be diluting the authenticity of  information, and is propagating errors for others to naively use as sources for their work. Do you have more faith in these sites than I do?

Answer 1

I don't use the family trees at all; I consider them the equivalent of the Ancestry trees - good for suggestions of where to look, but everything has to be checked and sourced - lots and lots of people put into the wrong families,bad dates, etc. My favorite was the guy who was born in Schenectady NY in the 1500s, when there was no Schenectady, and not many white women living in the area. Unfortunately, Ancestry has some sources that I can't find on Family Search.

Findagrave is also a toss-up. It's great if you already have your sources and it backs them up, and for suggestions on where to look, but it seems that the family information, when it's there, is not reliable.I do like the ability to search for other family members in that cemetery, or in that area.

Answer 2

I only use find a grave if a pic of the gravestone is displayed.

Comments

I do the same thing, but if I have other corroborating information, I will put the link to FaG on the profile usually as an "or" next to the other information, with both referenced.

I also suggest corrections to info on FaG that I see is slightly incorrect - Just the picture of the stone and the inscriptions can be enlightening. But just a name and some dates doesn't cut it unless there is something more and verifiable.

Answer 3

​Two examples... from my most recent profile addition, William T. Hays' WikiTree profile: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hays-4175

On familysearch find "Document Information", click on then see the words Citing this Record,  use as source.....

• "United States Census, 1870," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MZ2T-WBB : 12 April 2016), William T Hays in household of William N Hays (father), Pennsylvania, United States; citing p. 3, family 19, NARA microfilm publication M593 (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.); FHL microfilm 552,965.

On Find A Grave:  I use something like this:

• U.S., Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current Birth, Marriage & Death Name William T. Hays. Birth 19 Dec 1860 New Florence, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, United States of America Death 27 Dec 1906 Johnstown, Cambria County, Pennsylvania, United States of America. Then add the URL: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/109084965

Comments

I think the "correct" way to use the FindAGrave is to use the citation they provide, and then replace the "Find A Grave memorial no. ####" with {{FindAGrave|####}} That puts a virtually permanent link to the grave information on FaG.

Answer 4

I seldom use FSFT, but when I do just for hints to find records. I use FindAGrave for hints about names, dates, locations and family, then search for records. I do use FindAGrave as a source for burial locations. I have also found gravestones that differ from dates on records.

Just this week I contacted the manager for a FindAGrave memorial with no location or headstone but some interesting text. It turns out she had a notebook written to capture memories about family history in 1894 by my ggg grandfather’s granddaughter and wanted to share this with possible descendants. I now have images.

Yesterday I found a memorial that had the cemetery location as death location, but I had found a death certificate. I reported it, suggested a correction and was amazed when it was made in less than an hour.

Answer 5

Family Search has documents.  You must review the documents, not just take the transcription as it stands.  Use your brain!  Does the document represent the person in question (how did he get from X to Y in a month?)?  You can't accept the trees you find on Family Search (even the ones submitted for LDS baptism often have errors), but the documents are there.  I use Family Search daily.

There are problems on Find-a-Grave (FAG), but probably no more than there are here.  I am a high contributor to FAG--every one of which was created from the sexton's record, most with additional information from the death record.  To say that all of them are created out of thin air is unjust.

FAG and Billion Graves are excellent for verifying that the death record for a particular person with a fairly common name belongs to your subject, if members of the family are buried in the same place.  Photos of the gravestone also helps validate the spelling used by the family at the time of death (yes, there could be errors, just as on church records).

No record of any type can be guaranteed as accurate.  A genealogist uses all available hints to approximate the truth.  It is a matter of weighing the value of a source, rather than automatically dismissing it.

Comments

Kathy,

Thank you for your contributions.

Excellent point about entries created from the sexton records. The cemetery where most of my ancestors are buried is an excellent example of this, and sections are named by surname. In this case, the town and church records all burned in the 1875 fire, and later records were lost when the storage building collapsed due to snow on the roof.

Answer 6

I try to only use FindaGrave as a backup to other sources.  But rather than using the url on the profile I use a sticker, as the url can change if they revamp the website, so the link gets broken.  The sticker is - {{FindAGrave|Memorial Number}}

Answer 7

I think that people take an overly-negative view of Ancestry public member trees and Familysearch Family Tree.  Like anything else, Wikitree included, a tree that is completely unsourced and/or a thoughtless copy of another person's tree has questionable value.

This said - a lot of people on Ancestry and on Familysearch have posted trees that do have sources.  I have also found a few trees that have clues on ancestors that have led to interesting discoveries down the line.  Case-in-point, an unsourced public member tree on Ancestry had a first name for a male ancestor that I was able to find in two different paper records - along with a maiden name for his wife that seems to be appearing in my Ancestry DNA matches.

Not everyone who does genealogy likes to provide and cite sources - particularly at the level that we try and meet here on Wikitree.  But - these unsourced trees can be useful if we take what we see and follow up with our own research.  This is why I will never completely discount an unsourced family tree on Ancestry or Familysearch.

Comments

I agree!  This is my approach as well.

---

I have a collection of handwritten worksheets done by my wife's family that goes back several generations. Whenever I can dig up actual documentation (birth, death records) these agree, and I have some pictures of family bible pages as well. FaG and Ancestry would probably disagree, but knowing who did the charts, and talking with many of the family members listed, makes be believe that they are more accurate than some of the info on the  websites.