Family Tree Fails: Why Ancestry Hints Aren’t Always Helpful
Ancestry hints are exciting.
They show up like friendly search suggestions, waving at you, like a friendly neighbor with lemon bars. But some of them? They’re sour. They are built on other users’ click-happy fingers, who either don’t know or don’t care to review the record and ensure it fits the person they're researching. The GOTCHA moment?! The more people who accept this hint for someone, the more Ancestry’s algorithm promotes the hint to others, spreading bad information from tree to tree like chicken pox, but with slightly less itching.
Blindly saying “Yes” to an Ancestry hint is like believing Tom Hanks is actually three raccoons in a trench coat.
Could it be true? … I guess?
Should you base your entire family tree on it? I wouldn’t.
This post is a PSA in disguise: ancestry hints don’t equal correct records for your people.
One of the most common genealogy mistakes is trusting a hint simply because Ancestry suggests it.
Here’s how one specific Ancestry hint, suggested to me, and currently floating around in dozens of trees, managed to be more wrong than square pizza (it’s wrong, you guys, wrong.)
Meet MY COUSIN LouisE Sloan
The details below are backed up with birth, marriage, and death records
Full Name: Louise Edith Sloan
Born: 11 Jul 1907 in Homestead, Allegheny County, PA
Religion: Jewish
Marriage: 21 Jul 1930 in Pittsburgh, Alleghany County, PA
Spouse: Stanley Goldsmith
Death: 5 Aug 1981 in Palm Beach County, Fl
I currently have 27 Ancestry hints for her. I haven’t accepted a single one. It’s never my first move. When I add someone to my tree, I take what I know about them and search for records first. After I have exhausted what I can find online and locate within various archives, I will begin accepting or declining Ancestry hints. At that point, I can tell at a glance what is an accurate hint and what isn’t because I’ve already built a solid foundation based on facts.
Let’s take a closer look at one of the hints for Louise
It’s a church record from 1921. If you paid attention in class, your spidey sense should be tingling right now. Louise was Jewish … less fish and loaves, more sardines and matzah.
The hint has the following information in its transcription and on the actual record.
Name: Edith Goldsmith
Age: 14
Event: Episcopal Church Confirmation
Date: January 5, 1921
Place: St. Barnabas Church, Philadelphia
Birth Year: 1907
Let’s look at what matches up.
Her name mostly checks out. You’ll find a lot of variation in names across records, and it is entirely plausible that, since this isn’t a state or federal record, she went by her middle name Edith instead of Louise.
Her Age, 14 in 1921. That makes sense. She was born in 1907.
The state. Pennsylvania is where she was born and lived for most of her life.
If I didn’t spend thousands of dollars on my college education in biology and chemistry, and sharpened those research skills stalking my exes on social media, I might just accept this hint. It would be added to my tree and I’d move onto the next one (just like those exes.)
But there is so much that is wrong with this record.
She was Jewish, this is a record for a Lutheran church
The location is nearly correct, the state of Pennsylvania matches up, but the city of Philadelphia? Nope, not even close. Seriously, Philly and Homestead are as close as the wings of my 1980s hair. That is to say, they are really far apart. The 1920 census shows Louise living at home with her parents near Homestead, Pennsylvania. Was she living in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a year later? Maybe, but the city mismatch is a reason to look deeper.
Finally, in 1921, at age 14, Louise’s last name was Sloan. She didn’t marry Stanley Goldsmith until Jul 1930.
To accept this hint, you’d have to believe that Louise moved 300 miles across the state, converted religions, jumped forward in time to start using her married name, and was confirmed at 14 in a church she never belonged to.
The Lucille Ball “Ueeeegh” moment is this hint being suggested to me because others have it in their tree! Enough people have accepted this hint that Ancestry thinks I should accept it too.
I don’t always outright say “No” to an Ancestry hint, even if I am mostly certain that the record doesn’t match the ancestor I am researching. Sometimes I’ll say “maybe” so I can easily come back to it again in the future, just in case I find other documents that may support the record. But I mostly definitely do not say “yes” to it and add it to the tree.
How to Outwit a Misleading Hint
Don’t trust a match just because the name and birth year align
Check religion, location, relationships, and life events
Cross-reference with verified sources, e.g., census, marriage, birth, and death records
Treat hints as a reason to research deeper, not as fact.
Final Word: Be the Researcher Your Ancestors Deserve
Louisa Sloan didn’t get confirmed in a Philadelphia church at 14. So many Ancestry users have this in their tree for Louise.
But what if I hadn’t vetted that hint? That false record would live in her story forever. I’d also be helping Ancestry say “hold my beer” while it shows the hint to others.
Family research takes time and a curious mind.
It takes discipline.
It takes your husband rolling over at 4 AM and saying, “You’re STILL looking at records?”
“Nooo, nooo, I’m not…” and if you believe that, I should also tell you I’m really a raccoon in a trench coat.
