On 24/08/17 21:37, Paulo Canedo wrote: > perhaps even Genealogics can be discarded as rubbish because it is also a tree. I wouldn't discard it *as rubbish*, but I would nonetheless discard it. If you want to be considered a serious genealogist you need to be dealing with primary sources, transcribed and translated if necessary, or at the very least the sort of secondary sources that carefully discuss the primary sources. Genealogics is none of these things. It's a tertiary source, as it is derived almost entirely from secondary sources, and at times other tertiary sources. That's not to say Genealogics is not a useful resource: very much it is. But it should be used as a tool for checking the details of some family, rather than as the foundation of your research. Richard

> On 24/08/17 21:37, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > perhaps even Genealogics can be discarded as rubbish because it is also a tree. > At one point I enjoyed citing thepeerage.com because he actually cited sources like "Burke's Peerage 1957 page 245" which could at least potentially be looked up. But then he started using sources such as "Email from John Brown 2017" which is such an utterly worthless citation that he would be better off not even citing it. Because it made me realize the Daryl and I live in utterly different universes. Citations should be inter-linear, specific, and accessible. Otherwise you might as well just make stuff up and post it as fact. In addition to that, because I enjoy flogging dead horses, if you are *not* a member of this group, you have no business creating medieval genealogy websites at all.