My brother was an only child. How do I know? I read it in a family history book. What else did that book say? Who knows? I threw it away the moment I realized I don't exist.

People have been recording family history for decades and centuries, in all sorts of ways, with varying degrees of accuracy. Thankfully, genealogies as a whole have gotten better over the years, as the standards for "acceptable" have risen.

But human nature being what it is, genealogy researchers still jump to conclusions they shouldn't, still take the easy, lazy way out, still skip the step of documenting their sources. And frequently quit before they're done. Those slackers are wasting my time and yours, and leading their own descendants astray with their lies and half-truths. Don't you.

As publishers, the same genealogists also make mistakes on the output end. They abbreviate to fit the page. They save money by using a font too small to read comfortably. And they never explain what "should be" (but usually isn't) obvious to the reader.

Decide today to do it right. Commit yourself to not publishing another junk genealogy, one people should heave instead of read and believe. Produce the genealogy you'd like to read!
(Fortunately, that's easier to do using a genealogy program.)

Rule One: Use your head. Does it make sense?
Rule Two: File your shoulds and value judgments in a drawer.
Rule Three: Document (footnote) everything.

Each and every fact claimed in your genealogy should immediately be followed by a footnote (or at least an endnote) number, and every footnote should allow the reader to confirm your claim. Or so purists claim. (Endnotes are just re-positioned footnotes.)

In reality, documenting everything would at least triple the work involved and slash your fun to a pittance. Being human, you won't. Being time conscious, you won't. Being cost conscious, you won't.

Knowing you won't, what do I suggest? Read the next page, Sources, twice.