Hi, Reader,

One of the advantages of doing genealogy for a long time is that you start to see the same problems show up again and again — even when the records, tools, and technology change.

Most research stalls not because records are missing, but because something important gets skipped early on.

What’s usually skipped isn’t effort. You work hard. You gather records, build timelines, and follow leads. The gap shows up elsewhere — in how evidence is weighed, how assumptions creep in, and how quickly conclusions are accepted once something looks right.

A few patterns I see repeatedly:

Researchers move forward without fully understanding what a record can — and cannot — tell them.

Connections are made before all the implications of the evidence are considered.

Information accumulates faster than it’s evaluated.

None of this is new, and it’s rarely intentional. With so many records available — and now tools like AI that make it easier than ever to keep searching — it’s easy to confuse activity with progress.

The tricky part is that these issues don’t always surface right away. Research can look solid on the surface and still be built on weak foundations. It’s only later — when contradictions appear or a line won’t hold up — that the skipped steps become visible.

One shift that’s made the biggest difference in my own work is this:

Before I look for anything new, I make sure I fully understand what I already have.

Not just what a record says on the surface — but why it exists, what questions it can reasonably answer, and where its limits are. If I can’t explain that clearly, then adding more records usually doesn’t help. It just adds weight without clarity.

That mindset alone changes how research unfolds. It slows the right parts down and speeds the right parts up. And it often reveals that what felt like a lack of records was really a lack of interpretation.

This isn’t about being cautious or conservative. It’s about being precise.

In future emails, I’ll continue to write from this place — focusing less on accumulation and more on evaluation. Not because tools and records don’t matter, but because they only work as well as the judgment guiding them.

If you want to explore this idea further, this article may be useful:

​Avoid This Critical Genealogy Mistake in Your Research

It looks at a common research trap — staying busy while missing what actually needs to be evaluated.

A quick note as RootsTech (March 5 -7) approaches:

I’ll be following the conference virtually this year, and I’m paying particular attention to new tools, AI, and the educational sessions.

I’ll share a bonus email during RootsTech with a few early observations.

I’m also planning a YouTube Live later in March to talk through my RootsTech takeaways. I’ll share details closer to the date.

Until next time,

Lisa