It’s easier than ever to explore our family’s past with access to an increasing number of online records, family trees, and genealogy societies. But while the rise of the internet has been invaluable in this regard, undesired consequences have made the life of a family historian more difficult.

The circular evidence trap

This is likely how most common genealogical mistake unfolds. Researcher A enters a tree and a guess about a birth year. Researcher B hits copy on that tree. Researcher C hits copy on B. Now there are three trees and the platform’s algorithm thinks three trees with the same birth year is evidence.

It’s not three pieces of evidence. It’s three people copying the same original guess.

That’s circular evidence and it’s everywhere. The appearance of consensus is not evidence. When you see the date repeated in a dozen trees with no citation to be found, it should be a red flag, not confirmation. The only way out of this trap is to find the document that supposedly spawned the information and read it for yourself.

Records of the event vs. records of the person

One of the most helpful ways to approach genealogy is to ask yourself: what was this person at the scene of, and when?

For instance, a death certificate is a primary source for the date of death. The informant was likely present at the event or immediately learned of it. A death certificate is a secondary source for the date of birth of the deceased – the informant is reporting something they were told, possibly decades earlier, possibly incorrectly. Even professional genealogists can help you understand these distinctions when evaluating documents in your own research.

Birth year errors of five to ten years on death certificates are common.

The negative search

Many genealogists view the absence of a name in a record as a negative scare, when in reality, it’s a tremendous win for your research. The absence of a name in a specific source can sometimes provide as many clues as finding that person’s name in a different record.

For instance, if you believe your ancestor was living in a certain county in 1880, but you can’t find them in the census for that area, it’s time to reevaluate your search. Either your ancestor’s name was spelled differently than you expected (remember, names can be easily misspelled) your ancestor was missed or skipped over during the enumeration process, or your ancestor wasn’t living where you thought they were.

Negative evidence forces you to question assumptions and broaden your search, often leading to breakthroughs you wouldn’t have discovered otherwise. What seems like a dead end is actually redirecting you toward the truth.

Brick walls and when to bring in help

Many dedicated, very experienced genealogists might locate the same records you have and come to a very different, or even incorrect, conclusion because they have not analyzed in-depth more accurate primary information that supersedes standard sources. Continued research might lead to formulating a better research question which will provide you with a more attainable result. And evidence-based decisions should lead to more effective allocation of resources.

If you want lasting results, genealogical research should be a focused, well-considered, efficient approach to problem-solving; it should be managed like any project. A professional genealogist does not just spend money on another set of eyes; they apply expertise not available for free. They can provide guidance on the genetic proof attempts you are making by offering a perspective on what else must be sought or what other records may support that genetic scenario.

DNA is a tool, not a shortcut

DNA evidence is a primary biological source, and it is extremely reliable. However, it cannot stand alone without paper evidence.

If two people share DNA, it means they are biologically related to one another – nothing more. You don’t know who they are, who their parents are, where they were born, where they died, where they were buried, who they married, etc. DNA results must be interpreted in the context of what you already know from your research. If you want to identify relationships or fulfill a genealogical proof standard, a combination with traditional archival research is necessary.

The strongest genealogical conclusions emerge when DNA evidence and documentary records work together, each validating and enriching the other to create comprehensive family histories.

Treating your tree like evidence

Moving from names gathering to fact checking fundamentally alters the way in which research is conducted. You need to have a source for every piece of information in your tree. And the source must indicate the author, the date, and their actual knowledge on the matter. If there are discrepancies between two sources, you must figure out which one is correct instead of simply choosing the one you like better.

Last modified: April 9, 2026