It’s happened to all of us – someone posts information about your surname on a genealogy Facebook page or an online family tree. Your eyes pop and then the adrenaline rush hits. Could this be the clue you’ve been seeking? Everything seems right. The name is the same. The village is close to yours. The dates may be a bit off but we know that’s common in Greek genealogy. Your intense desire to find your ancestors may overcome a speculative thought that creeps in when you see that no source or notation is given. Brushing that pesky thought aside, you happily add the name to your family tree. Success!

But is it? No. You have just succumbed to one of the most dangerous aspects of genealogy research:  accepting someone else’s research conclusions without independent verification.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) is an established methodology to help us guard against making this mistake. Its 5 components are:

1. A reasonably exhaustive (thorough) search
2. Complete and accurate source citations
3. Analysis and correlation of relevant evidence
4. Resolution of conflicting evidence
5. Clear written explanation

When we see posts, comments or articles where the GPS standard is clearly not followed, we must not  accept that author’s conclusions as being accurate. We can take their information and consider it a possible puzzle piece, but one that must fit within the framework of what we have already verified. What others do—or do not do—should not upset us. We alone are responsible for the accuracy of our own research.   

Thomas W. Jones, who has lectured extensively on the GPS and has written the guide, Mastering Genealogical Proof (available here on Amazon), compares a jigsaw puzzle to genealogical proof (see this article): 

• Just as a picture emerges from assembled puzzle pieces, genealogical proof rests on the sum of evidence.
• Jigsaw puzzle pieces…may be found partly assembled. Valid genealogical evidence may be similarly easy to obtain and already partially connected…or scattered…then the situation becomes complex, requiring researchers to hunt for pieces…that answer a research question.  
• Some puzzle pieces may be set aside because they do not belong to the puzzle at hand. Genealogical proof resolves conflicting evidence by discarding information that is unreliable or not applicable to the research question.
• A clear picture or reliable answer may emerge even when pieces are missing…When the pieces are assembled correctly, pieces found later will augment the picture, not change it.  

In summary, it is incumbent upon us, the researchers, to follow the GPS by carefully reviewing each piece of “evidence” or information, checking its sources, analyzing its meaning in the context of our research, resolving (if possible) conflicting evidence, and writing clearly our analysis and conclusions. When we take these steps, we can confidently share our research with others.