How Things Get Messy
When I began researching my own family tree, I made the same mistakes most novices do: I copied down the names and dates that I found on other people's family trees that appeared to link to my own, assuming that the information was accurate, usually without considering the source of that information.

Fortunately, fairly early on my research brought me in contact with Margaret Fleenor. She taught me some very important lessons that have served as a guide for me and that have changed my approach from How much information can I gather? to How accurate is the information I am gathering?

In one of our early correspondences, she said, If there isn’t a document to prove an event like a birth, marriage, death, etc. ever happened, as far as your research goes, it never did! What she meant was, just because we see a date for an event on someone else’s family tree, if there isn’t a source document listed, we shouldn’t trust it. We shouldn’t include it in our own family tree and share it with others — primarily because the more often people see something repeated, the more likely they are to accept it as fact.

FamilySearch.org
One of the strengths of FamilySearch.org is that the research is collaborative — meaning (in theory) each individual appears only once in the gigantic family tree for all mankind. If you connect your family to an ancestor who is already in that gigantic tree, you are instantly connected to all the research that has already been done by others.

Other advantages include:
 - It offers Research Helps similar to hints on Ancestry.com as new documents become available
 - It is completely free

However, because everybody shares all the research in FamilySearch.org, anyone can edit, change, merge, delete it. This can be VERY problematic. For example: We do not know the name of Lewis Scalf’s first wife, who was also the mother of Lewis’ first five children. The first wife apparently died and Lewis then married Elizabeth Blackburn, with whom he had additional children. Numerous times people have merged Elizabeth Blackburn with the first wife and I have had to go back and undo the whole thing.

Many of the commercial family tree software packages for computers allow direct access to FamilySearch.org and Ancestry.com. As people link their family trees from their home computers, they often assume their information is more accurate than what is on FamilySearch.org and merge their ancestors with existing individuals, but only keeping the names, dates, and other information from their own database. This can erase a significant amount of research on individuals.

As I said before, in theory, each individual would only exist once. In many cases, people upload their family trees without merging, and FamilySearch.org ends up with duplicate individuals. When people come across these duplicates, they don't always pay attention to dates, locations, etc. and people get merged who shouldn't — I have seen merges of individuals who were two generations apart.

Lack of Attention to Details
When Lewis and his family left North Carolina, some of his sons went to Kentucky, some to Indiana, some to Tennessee, and some to Georgia. As often happens in extended families, certain names will appear more frequently. It wasn’t uncommone for some of Lewis’ grandsons and great-grandsons in Tennessee to have the same name as his grandsons and great-grandsons in Kentucky. In some cases these same-named individuals were even born in the same year. It frequently happens that when someone finds a census record or marriage license that should belong to the one in Tennessee, they mistakenly link the marriage and the children to the same-named individual in Kentucky — and again, occasionally a generation or two apart.

These mistakes are easy to make, especially since census records normally list only the birth year. It is even easier to make when these same-named or similar-named individuals are from neighboring counties in the same state. For this reason, we usually can’t base these links on a single document, like a census record.

This confusion can even happen with expert researchers. Lewis’ son, Benjamin, had a daughter named Mahala or Mahaley. There are marriage records for a Mahala Scalf and William Moon, but the Moon could possibly be Moor or Moore. There is another record for a Mahala Scalf (or Scalph) marrying James Moore. William’s wife was referred to as Mary A. Moon in other records. Additionally, during those same years there was also a Roseanna Moore who some believed was the same person as Mahala. There were even statements from a descendant that were taken at face value (we assume direct descendants would have accurate information), that later turned out to be incorrect. It took extensive research to solve this puzzle, using documents that weren’t available previously.

The lesson-learned from this is: If the documents don’t make a relationship absolutely certain, it is perfectly fine (and is actually preferred) to keep the individuals and their families listed separately or unattached to parents until more detailed information is available. In other words, it would have been better to NOT list either of the Mahala’s or Roseanna as the daughter of Benjamin Scalf until additional information became available.

Getting Caught Up in the Moment – Excitement
Family History research can be exciting. There are several known Scalf family lines that we haven’t been able to tie into the main Scalf Family Tree yet. If you find a document that finally builds that bridge that ties it all together... the feeling is beyond description. But the excitement is also present when we THINK we have found that missing document.

Neil deGrasse Tyson said, One of the greatest challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you’re right, but not enough about the subject to know you’re wrong. This also applies to family history research. When we think we have it right, our excitement can blind us. We might stop digging... finding other documents that might end up proving us wrong.

If you get caught in this trap, just know, you’re in good company. Just about every family history researcher has allowed themselves to jump to conclusions at one time or another (this includes me). Most of us assume that we are all descendants of Edward Scarfe and that he came from the Isle of Man (myself included). But there is absolutely no proof of this. (See Confusion About Edward Scarfe)

Case in Point: John Scarfe (b. 1670)
  The following example shows how assumptions can lead to multiple errors.

We know John Scarfe married Mary Greves (b. 1673). We have a copy of his will that provides excellent information about his family (see Elmer D. Scalf’s Chapter II - John Scarfe (Scalf).

• A common assumption is that Edward Scarfe was the father of John Scarfe (b. 1670). (See Are We Related to Edward Scarfe?) [Guilty Confession: because it is hinted in Elmer’s book, I included this on my own family tree and haven’t bothered changing it.]
  It is also generally assumed that Edward Scarfe came from the Isle of Man . (See Was Edward Scarfe from the Isle of Man?)
  However, based on these assumptions:
   - People found a record for an Edward Skarfe, baptized in Malew, Isle of Man, in 1650, listing his father as John Skarfe Edward Skarfe - 1650 Baptism.
   - These family trees reference another source for John Skarfe, this time listing his wife as Mary. This record also shows the couple had a son, John Skarfe.John Skarfe - spouse Mary Ancestry.com Link
   - Combining the information from these two documents, we have John Skarfe and wife Mary, with sons named Edward and John.
  
  This leads to our next bit of confusion.


• If we search our family tree for names, ignoring dates, we indeed find a John Scarfe whose wife is Mary (Greves), with sons named Edward and John Scarfe (among other children). As a result, several online family trees list the parents of Edward Scarfe (b. 1640 or 1650) as John Scarfe, derived from the John Skarfe above, and Mary Greves, the first name from the baptismal record of son John, and the surname from our own family tree.
  For Mary Greves to be the mother of Edward Scarfe (b. 1640-1650) her birth year would need to be around 1610-1620. The trees that list a birth year for Mary Greves show it as 1612 or 1613 and cite two baptismal records as their source:
   - The baptism of Mary Greves on 5 Apr 1612 in Worchestershire, England.
   - The baptism of Mary Greaves on 24 Feb 1613 in Derbyshire, England.
  


• There are a number of issues with these compounding errors:


1. The baptismal record for Edward Skarfe assumes that our Edward Scarfe is from the Isle of Man, for which there is no proof.


2. This record does not list a mother. The connection of John Skarfe (the listed father) to a wife named Mary (from the sources listed on the various family trees) is based on a baptismal record of their son, John Skarfe. However, a more careful examination shows this baptism occurred in Chatteris, Cambridge, England on 23 Jul 1704.  John Skarfe (son) - Baptism (Found by simply clicking on the name of the son on the record for John Skarfe - spouse Mary above.)
   Both the location and the date eliminate this family as being the same as John Skarfe of the Isle of Man.
   Therefore, we can’t conclude that John Skarfe’s wife was named Mary.


3. Even if her first name were Mary, the surname of Greves was from the wife of John Scarfe (b. 1670), who is assumed to be the son of Edward Scarfe, and NOT the same individual as John Skarfe, who the baptimal record identifies as the father of Edward Skarfe.
   We’ve now gone from far-fetched to ridiculous. Not only is the first name from an erroneous source and the surname from the wife of the wrong John Scarfe, both the sources for Mary Greves’ birth year are from cities in England, with no reason to believe either ever lived on the Isle of Man.
   Adding a touch of humor to this silliness: If John Scarfe and Mary Greves were the parents of Edward Scarfe (b. 1650) and his brother, John, and Edward had a son named John Scarfe who married Mary Greves and had sons, who are the same Edward and John above, Edward would be his own grandson. This is reminiscent of the old song by Dwight Latham and Moe Jaffe (recorded by Ray Stevens, Willie Nelson, and others) I’m My Own Grandpa.


• But we’re still not quite done! As I mentioned above, John Scarfe (b. 1670) also had a son named John Scarfe (b. 1712). Many online family trees list the son’s name as Jonathan William Scarfe (Scalf).
  If you examine the sources for this individual, the only one that lists his name as Jonathan William Scalf is a WWI Draft Registration Card - over 150 year after our John Scarfe lived. I suspect people simply accepted all the hints Ancestry.com recommended without first checking to make sure the hints made sense.
  (NOTE: When you review hints in Ancestry.com it can automatically update your information with the information from the hint, transferring the WWI name to an individual born in 1712.)

All this mess is for just one family. Unfortunately, these errors are more far common than you might think. A good deal of my available time for research is spent trying to correct these errors, rather than being able to dig deeper into documents recently made available.

I’m not pointing out these errors to place myself on a pedestal. Believe me, when I first started out, I was guilty of making most of these same mistakes myself. Becoming a good researcher is a process that can only be developed through practice — and by learning from our mistakes.

How to Become a Good Researcher

CAREFULLY Compare Multiple Sources
For me, piecing together family trees is something like being a detective solving a mystery. When I am able to figure out the proper connections with all the proper documentation, it gives me such a sense of accomplishment... it’s a real rush!

Just like detectives we watch on so many of the police series on television, solving a case requires careful attention to detail, and not just relying on one source, but rather, gathering information from every available resource. Carefully consider all the information (names, dates, locations) and compare it with what you already know (such as the books on this website and documents you have already found) to make sure the new information makes sense.

Keep a Record of Your Sources
If you use an online family tree, this may seem like an automatic thing. But let’s say you have an ancestor’s death certificate and it isn’t one of the hints available online. You can manually add a source and incluce an image of it. You can keep notes in a written document and include links to images of documents – the way this webpage includes them.

Going back to the example of a police detective, how credible would the detective’s testimony be in court if it didn’t include a record of the evidence? It is the same with family history research. Documetation is key.

Healthy Skepticism – Don’t Believe Everything You See
One quick example: We might assume that we can automatically trust that the information people give about their own immediate families is accurate, but this is not always the case. Obituaries (and even death certificates) often include mistakes. They are only as accurate as the people who provide the information.

Granted, the following is an extreme case, but my wife’s grandmother had gone by one name her entire life and didn’t know her own birth name was different until her son dug up her birth certificate and pointed out the difference to her. My point is, keep digging and don’t assume every document you find is completely accurate.

We need to exercise caution, even with carefully researched material. Although the books written by Henry P. Scalf and Elmer D. Scalf provide excellent information, unfortunately in many cases they did not provide the sources that would make it possible for others to duplicate/verify their research. Even though both of these authors have well-earned reputations for excellent research, without documentation I would still have to caution taking it with a grain of salt, meaning, don’t take it face value. Use their books as a starting point for your research, but again, If there isn’t a document to prove an event ever happened, as far as your research goes, it never did.

For this reason, I would recommend using Margaret Fleenor's book, The Scalf Family in America as your primary source. Margaret often included references to Henry’s and Elmer’s works, but then provided the documentation within her chapters to support these references. Whenever she shared her professional opinion, she clearly stated it was not based on documentation and that more research was required.

IMPORTANT: I strongly recommend that if you find something on Ancestry.com, FamilySearch.org or any other online source that differs from what you find in Margaret's book, especially when it comes to well-established research, BE VERY CAUTIOUS BEFORE ASSUMING YOU’VE FOUND SOMETHING NEW. Of course, as more and more records become available online, every once in a while, minor corrections and clarifications are necessary, and I continue to make these edits. But the information on this site, and in her book particularly, has been carefully researched by people who – although perhaps not professional genealogists – are clearly experts.

With that said, our Scalf family tree continues to grow and add new generations. The release of the 1950 U.S. Census, for example, gives us access to a great deal of new data that we will need to add. I welcome your input about your own extended family if it has not yet been updated, as well as any corrections or clarifications to existing information.

Park Your Ego – Be Humble
You are going to make mistakes. No matter how carefully you research, you will miss things someone else will pick up on. Be as excited about information someone else finds as you are about things you discover yourself. You’ve heard the expression, Two heads are better than one. There’s a lot of truth to that. Collaboration, cooperation, sharing what you find with others... we’re not the only members of our family tree. Many others have an interest in having a complete and accurate record of our common genealogy.

And finally...

HAVE FUN!!
Only a very few make money as professional genealogists. For the rest of us, it’s a hobby. What’s the point of having a hobby if it’s no fun? If you start feeling burned out or you have hit a roadblock and are feeling frustrated, walk away from it for a few weeks, a few months, or even a few years.

One thing that energizes me: Letting my ancestors become more than a collection of names and dates. When I take time to find out as much as I can about one of my ancestors, how they lived, the important events in their lives, the heartaches, the accomplishments... I feel a real bond — a literal connection to them. Through this process I have met some ancestors who have become role models in my life and whose strength of character I strive to emulate. I feel like I truly know them... and love them. And in a way that I can’t fully put into words, I get the sense that they appreciate that I have taken the time to learn about them and to form a connection with them... that they love me, too.

My wife, Cindy, never really got into family history. It was her dad’s thing, and he kind of forced his interest onto his kids. So Cindy always felt a natural resistence to it. It wasn’t fun for her.

A few years ago we took a vacation to Germany. Her great-grandfather was the only member of his family who emigrated to America. We got to go see the family farm and walk through the village where they had lived. We went to the Catholic Church where for generations their baptisms, marriages, and funerals had been held. As she sat in one of the church pews, my wife experienced a miraculous change of heart.

This is where they sat – this is where they lived, she said. This is where I come from. This is a part of me.

And that is what it’s all about.