CG common mistakes
CG · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
The candidate submits a research plan that is only a list of repositories or websites to search, without a bounded research question, known facts, hypotheses, and prioritized record groups.
It is easy to mistake search logistics for research planning, especially when the problem feels broad and the candidate wants to start searching immediately.
What to do instead
Begin with the objective and the person, event, place, and time to be documented. State known facts and conflicts, formulate one specific question, list testable hypotheses, and select record types that could answer it. Include scope limits and next steps.
The candidate bases a conclusion on an online index, abstract, or transcription and cites only the website name or URL, without identifying the underlying record, creator, date, place, and locator.
Search results are convenient and appear authoritative, and the candidate may not distinguish the finding aid from the record itself.
What to do instead
Classify the source as original, derivative, or authored; inspect the image or request the record when possible. Cite the underlying record and the access path, including creator, title, date, place, item or page, repository, URL, and access date.
The candidate treats every statement in a record as equally reliable and uses an age, birthplace, or relationship from a census or death certificate as if it were exact, without assessing the informant.
The candidate may memorize source, information, and evidence labels but not apply them to each fact, or may want a simple answer rather than a reasoned one.
What to do instead
For each fact, record the source type, the informant's likely knowledge and bias, whether the information is primary, secondary, or undetermined, and whether the evidence is direct, indirect, or negative. Corroborate before concluding.
The candidate merges two people with the same name in the same county or with an uncommon surname, assuming they are one person because no other candidate is obvious.
A desired pedigree or a promising record can encourage identity conflation, and the candidate may not systematically test distinguishing details.
What to do instead
Build an identity matrix of name variants, dates, places, occupations, associates, property, and migration. Seek records that explicitly link the person to parents, spouse, or children, and state why alternative identities are accepted or rejected.
The candidate writes a conclusion as a bare assertion or as a source-by-source inventory, without showing how each link in the reasoning follows from the cited evidence or how conflicts were resolved.
Research notes are often dumped into prose, and the candidate may believe that citing many sources is the same as proving a conclusion.
What to do instead
State the question and answer, discuss evidence for and against the conclusion, explain conflict resolution, and cite each factual statement. Separate the proof discussion from the research log and use a clear sequence from known to inferred.
The candidate copies information from another researcher's compiled tree or a client's files without attribution, permission, or independent verification, or quotes copyrighted material at length.
Compiled trees are easy to access and may seem like harmless background, while ownership and confidentiality rules can be unclear in practice.
What to do instead
Cite all prior work and verify every borrowed fact independently. Obtain permission for unpublished or private material, paraphrase rather than copy, quote only what is necessary, and document the chain of custody for client materials.
The candidate omits prior searches and negative results from the research plan, so the plan proposes sources already checked and gives no reasoned basis for choosing the next record group.
Negative results feel like non-findings, and the candidate may focus only on what remains to be found rather than on what has been ruled out.
What to do instead
Include a search log summary with sources searched, access conditions, negative results, and remaining gaps. Use those results to justify the next source choices and to avoid repeating work.
The candidate selects only easily accessible online sources and ignores original, local, or offline records that could answer the question, without explaining why the chosen source is sufficient.
Online searching is fast and familiar, and the candidate may not know the jurisdiction's record coverage or finding aids.
What to do instead
Survey the relevant record types and jurisdictions before selecting sources. Use finding aids and catalogs to establish coverage, then justify why each selected source can answer the question and note what remains unexamined.
The candidate seeks only records that support the preferred hypothesis and explains away contradictory evidence instead of actively testing disconfirming possibilities.
Confirmation bias is natural when the candidate has invested in a lineage or wants a clean answer, and contradictory records may be harder to interpret.
What to do instead
List disconfirming evidence early, seek records that could refute the hypothesis, and write an explicit conflict-resolution section. If the evidence remains inconsistent, state the uncertainty rather than forcing a conclusion.
The candidate infers parentage or sibling relationships from household order, shared residence, or historical kinship terms without an explicit relationship statement or corroborating link.
Enumeration order and familiar modern meanings of terms such as cousin or nephew can seem to imply relationships, but historical usage and household composition vary.
What to do instead
Do not infer parentage from census order alone. Identify explicit relationship statements, guardianship, probate, land, or church records that link individuals, and interpret kinship terms in their historical and local context.