10 Ways to Survive Using the FamilySearch.org Website

FamilySearch.org can seem overwhelming at first glance. Yet just as the saguaro cactus thrives in a harsh desert, you can adapt and master the platform. Here are ten practical survival suggestions for navigating the FamilySearch Family Tree and uncovering your ancestors. Much like packing a full canteen before trekking into the desert, understanding these essentials will save you needless frustration along the way.

Of course, you need to register and sign in to the website. This is free and necessary to view sources and other parts of the website.

1. Take an intensive tour of the entire website. You can scroll to the bottom of the startup page, click the "More" arrow, and see a representative outline of the items you should be familiar with on the website. From my own experience in helping people I am certain that most users are not even aware that there are so many things on this website. If you're traveling in the desert, you need a definite beginning and an end, usually by using a map or a GPS. The help center is like a GPS for the website. 

2. When you finish with the list at the bottom of the startup page take some time to explore the help menu available from the question mark icon in the upper right-hand corner of the screen. 

A review of the items in this help menu may help you understand what you do not know about the website. If you need help with any part of the website, you can use the help menu to answer your questions. If you dig down deep in the Help Center, you will also find a set of lessons instructing you on how to do genealogical research and also how to use the website in great detail. Here is a link to the page with all the classes: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/learning-center

3. Take time to review your portion of the FamilySearch Family Tree. You may have only a few entries, and you may have an overwhelming large number of entries. In either case, you will now be made aware of the scope of your journey using the website. The whole purpose of the website is to find and then document each of your ancestors and as many of your relatives as you can possibly find. This is analogous to beginning a journey across a very large desert. You need to know the extent of your journey long before you begin walking. Also take time to check the entries that are already in the FamilySearch Family Tree to make sure they are accurate. 

4. Become familiar with the FamilySearch Research Wiki. This resource will give you an idea of the historical record sources that are available for almost any place in the world. It will also prepare you for the next suggestion or trick. You can see the link to the Research Wiki above in the Search tab. 

5. Do not add any information to the FamilySearch Family Tree that does not have a valid historical source supporting its accuracy. This is akin to avoiding cactus and rattlesnakes. Any time you see an entry for an individual in the FamilySearch Family Tree that has no sources attached and no memories, you can assume the information is either inaccurate, incomplete, or a total fabrication. 

6. Just as certain desert regions pose extreme hazards, specific sections of the FamilySearch Family Tree present equal danger to researchers. These are the volatile sectors of "revolving-door" ancestors, where entries change almost daily. Entangling yourself in these unstable records can quickly erode your enthusiasm and resolve. Before attempting any corrections, examine the profile’s edit history; click the "Show all" link to review the full volume of recent revisions before entering what you believe to be the correct data. Even seasoned desert travelers encounter sudden dust storms and flash floods—and these chronically contested profiles are the flash floods of the FamilySearch environment.

7. Did you know that each of the items in the FamilySearch Search Menu access different collections of records that may or may not overlap. You can see the list below. Click on each of the entries in the search menu to find out what they are and how to use them. You may need to refer frequently to the Help menu for additional help. 

8. As you add information to the FamilySearch.org website, it is a good for your survival to keep a backup copy of your own information on another app, either on the internet or on your desktop, which ever you prefer. Having a duplicate copy of your information helps you correct changes that might be made to your information on the FamilySearch Family Tree. You can also use the new FamilySearch User Trees for backup. See my video Understanding FamilySearch’s User Owned Trees 

9. Check FamilySearch Labs for new apps and features. See https://www.familysearch.org/en/labs/ You can turn the lab experiments off or on. If you like them, you can keep them on. 

10. If you really want an expansive experience, Go to the FamilySearch Labs and click on the "Search All Family Trees" on FamilySearch. Then go to the Historic Records collections (Records in the Search tab shown above) and do a search for someone already in your part of the family tree. You may seem confused at first with what appear to be duplicates, but what you are seeing in the same person in all the FamilySearch.org trees. You can go to the Find Your Family Tree on FamilySearch also. 

Here is a list of additional helps for learning about the FamilySearch.org website. 

BYU Library Family History. “BYU Library Family History Center.” Accessed September 10, 2026. https://familyhistory.lib.byu.edu/.

“FamilySearch YouTube Channel.” Accessed September 10, 2026. https://www.youtube.com/@familysearch.

RootsTech. “RootsTech Conference & Year‑Round Learning.” Accessed September 10, 2026. https://www.familysearch.org/en/rootstech/.

“The Family History Guide.” Accessed September 10, 2026. https://thefhguide.com/.

YouTube. “BYU Library Family History Center YouTube Channel.” Accessed September 10, 2026. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7hqNOQt-2AfeVEpDuc7sCA.

Is FamilySearch.org AI Really AI?

 

There are a few places on the FamilySearch.org website that appear to be AI driven. I am not certain which of these features are seen by which users. The AI research Assistant appears on my startup page. From time-to-time, I check to see what the suggested ancestors "who could grow" my family tree work out. Here is an example using the first "ancestor" on the list I found at the time of this post, "William Thurston 1809-1871 2Z3W-1N2."

It turns out that William Thurston 2Z3W-1N2 is a cousin (not technically an ancestor) who is connected to me by a link going back to 1702 through one of my less reliable lines. The record the hint takes me to is a birth record for "Infant Thurston."

If I put aside my concerns about the accuracy of the line leading up to and then down to William Thurston, I could easily attach this record to the Family Tree. It could be a baby that died in infancy. The record does show a William Thurston with a "no name" female born in March of 1848. This list of birth is not chronologically organized. There are birth from various years including dates back to 1828. the date in question is this number. 

The number to me that it could be 1848. By the way, a quick check with Google Gemini about this document shows that it is not the complete document. Gemini seems to think the document says 1847 and that the "no name" children died in infancy. This raises the question of whether this child was stillborn (by our current definition) or lived for a period of time. The entry on the FamilySearch Family Tree for William Thurston already shows a child born in 1848 who shows no death date. 

Now lets look at the William Thurston family. William, his wife, Eleanor Chase, and all the children were born in Bristol, Massachusetts. The suggested record is from Massachusetts. Birth Records 1847 | Barnstable. Birth Records 1848. Well, Barnstable and Bristol are almost at opposite ends of Massachusetts. 

The record set of the vital records is actually the following.

Assuming that this one child was somehow born in a different county from the one where the family lived, there is already a child in the family born in 1848 who has a source showing she was two years old in the 1850 US Census.  

So, without going through my whole family line, I would still not add this child to a family that already had a child born the same year and shows up in the 1850 US Census as a two year old. 

Now what did the FamilySearch AI want me to do? If I ignored the fact that the suggested child was said to belong to William Thurston 2Z3W-1N2 who I might be related to and if I fail to check and simply believe what is offered by the AI Research Assistant, I find this is the family that the child would be attached to. 

This is not even a valid record and who I am not at all related to. 

So much for the AI Assistant.

US Copyright Law vs. AI

There are three areas of U.S. law in which prediction of outcomes of litigation is difficult to impossible. The three areas include tax law, immigration law, and copyright law. The few contradictory statutory provisions in each of these three areas change on almost a daily basis. Most U.S. citizens have a vague, if not inaccurate, understanding of U.S. copyright law. For individuals and not major corporations, the rule that all copyright claims must be filed in the federal courts makes pursuing a claim of breach of copyright almost unavailable to the average citizen. 

Let me explain this in simpler terms. Basic copyright law, as it is expressed in the statutory base, is easily obtained from the U.S. Copyright Office, which is part of the Library of Congress. See https://www.copyright.gov/ You can see the entire statutory law from this website by selecting a menu item to look at the law itself. See https://www.copyright.gov/title17/ To even begin to understand copyright law, you would need to study and understand all the provisions of Title 17 of the United States Code. However, the rest of the bulk of the U.S. copyright law is not readily available. Most of what is considered to be "the law" in the United States is court-made law by judges' decisions in specific lawsuits. To resolve any particular questions regarding copyright coverage and application, you would have to do extensive research on all U.S. court cases decided since the inception of copyright around the time of the U.S. Civil War. 

If you want to get started with the existing court decisions, you can do a quick search on it, a program from Google called scholar.google.com. https://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&as_sdt=3,45. Do a general search on copyright law, and you will find a response that shows about 180,000 cases. Major copyright cases can cost the litigants tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars. 

What about the current status of copyright and AI? Here is the report from the copyright office in a part of the website called "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence."  See https://www.copyright.gov/ai/. Here is a quote from the website about the current status of AI and Copyright law.

Since launching an initiative in early 2023, the Copyright Office has been examining the copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI), including the scope of copyright in AI-generated works and the use of copyrighted materials in AI training. After hosting public listening sessions and webinars, the Office published a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register in August 2023, which received over 10,000 comments by December 2023.

If you know anything about copyright or AI, you will realize that the U.S. government's efforts to address the issues cannot possibly keep up with the changes occurring on an almost weekly basis. Here is a screenshot of the Copyright Office's most recent announcements.

Here is the Copy Office's summary of the most recent release "Issue No. 1060 - January 29, 2025."

Today, the U.S. Copyright Office is releasing Part 2 of its Report on the legal and policy issues related to copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). This Part of the Report addresses the copyrightability of outputs created using generative AI. The Office affirms that existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology, as they have applied to technological innovations in the past. It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts. The Office confirms that the use of AI to assist in the process of creation or the inclusion of AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work does not bar copyrightability. It also finds that the case has not been made for changes to existing law to provide additional protection for AI-generated outputs.

Just ask yourself, "What has changed in AI from January of 2025?" 

As an experienced trial attorney, if you ask me about a specific AI versus copyright issue, at the time of this post, I could not answer the question without spending a considerable amount of time on research. Even if I did the research, my conclusion would be my personal opinion. My review would have to include all the recent decisions made about copyright law. For example Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.C. Cir. 2025; U.S. Supreme Court, cert. denied March 2, 2026) See https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-449.html

What more can I say? 

Privacy and online family history

 

I may use AI, specifically Google Gemini, to assist me in research, composition, and editing of my blog post; however, the ideas and content of this blog are my own. 

One of the first things you should know about genealogy is that dead people do not have any rights to privacy. One legal example is the case of Mrs. Alline E. Cordell, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Detective Publications, Inc., Defendant-appellee, 419 F.2d 989 (6th Cir. 1969). That case held the following:

The courts are virtually unanimous in ruling that incidental mention of a plaintiff in a suit brought for the invasion of a relative's privacy is not an actionable tort. Coverstone v. Davies, 38 Cal. 2d 315, 323-324, 239 P.2d 876 (1952); Metter v. Los Angeles Examiner, 35 Cal. App. 2d 304, 310-311, 95 P.2d 491 (1939); James v. Screen Gems, Inc., 174 Cal. App. 2d 650, 653, 344 P.2d 799 (1959); Bradley v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., 26 Ill.App. 2d 331, 333, 336, 168 N.E.2d 64 (1960); Carlson v. Dell Pub. Co., 65 Ill.App.2d 209, 213 N.E.2d 39 (1965); Kelley v. Post Pub. Co., 327 Mass. 275, 278, 98 N.E.2d 286 (1951); see Milner v. Red River Valley Pub. Co., 249 S.W.2d 227 (Tex.Civ.App.1952). Cf. Annerino v. Dell Pub. Co., 17 Ill.App.2d 205, 210, 149 N.E.2d 761 (1958) (case not dismissed because defendant published a photograph of the plaintiff, wife of the decedent against whom the complaint focused its attack).

The Court also states:

As the District Court found, this is a case of an alleged unauthorized public disclosure of private matters. Certain limitations have almost universally been imposed on this kind of tort. Prosser, Torts, § 112, at 843 (3d ed. 1964). The cause of action is regarded as purely personal, and only the person about whom facts have unauthorizedly been published may recover.  Consequently, the right lapses with the death of the person who enjoyed it,  and one cannot recover for this kind of invasion of the privacy of a relative, no matter how close the relationship.

Over the years, certain exceptions to the no privacy after death rulings have been made for commercial, medical, and digital estates. Here are three examples of statutory exceptions carving out parts of the general rule:

Codification of Post-Mortem Rights of Publicity (Property vs. Privacy)

At the time of Cordell, appropriation was still viewed primarily as a personal privacy tort that expired at death. Beginning in the late 1970s and accelerating through the 1980s and 1990s:

• The right to control the commercial use of one's name, likeness, image, and voice was decoupled from personal privacy and reclassified as a transferable property right.
• Over 25 states enacted dedicated post-mortem right-of-publicity statutes (such as California's Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act and Tennessee's Personal Rights Protection Act) that allow heirs and estates to enforce commercial likeness protections for decades after death.

Statutory Medical Privacy (HIPAA Omnibus Rule)

Prior to federal health privacy rules, hospital records of the deceased were governed haphazardly by state law.

• Under the 2013 HIPAA Omnibus Rule (45 C.F.R. § 164.502(f)), a decedent’s protected health information (PHI) remains subject to federal privacy protections for 50 years following their death.

Digital Estate Laws (RUFADAA)

Because the common law in 1969 did not envision digital identities, cloud data, or online accounts, the Uniform Law Commission introduced the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA) in 2015.

• Adopted in almost every U.S. jurisdiction, RUFADAA prevents estates and fiduciaries from automatically accessing private digital communications (emails, direct messages) unless the decedent explicitly granted consent in an estate planning instrument or via an online legacy setting.

What this means for genealogists is that an unhealthy attitude toward privacy risks work being permanently lost upon their death. Even more importantly, excessive privacy restrictions often mean researchers spend years duplicating work that others have already completed. We share our genealogy for the simple reason that we share a common ancestry with all our cousins. 

Understanding FamilySearch.org's User-Owned Trees

 

https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/genealogies/

This blog post is basically a transcription of my online class for Sunday, 30 August 2026 from the BYU Library Family History Center. The narrative audio transcription has been edited by Google Gemini. The video recording of the class will be available on the BYU Library Family History Center YouTube Channel.

A major structural shift is taking place at FamilySearch.org and while it has been quietly in development for several years, its full implementation fundamentally changes how individual researchers and genealogical societies can manage their lineage data. For years, the centerpiece of the platform has been the shared FamilySearch Family Tree; single, massive, collaborative universal tree. The collaborative model has clear strengths, but every seasoned researcher knows the immense frustration of returning to a painstakingly documented ancestral line only to find that an inexperienced user has merged individuals incorrectly, altered vital conclusions, or stripped away hard-earned documentation. While safeguards continue to improve on the shared tree, FamilySearch has now rolled out a long-awaited alternative: User-Owned Trees.

The Evolution from CET to User Trees

During its testing and beta phases over the past four to five years, this initiative was developed under the working title of "Controlled Edit Trees," or CET. If you search online discussions or older forums, you will still see the CET acronym used frequently. However, the official designation adopted by FamilySearch is simply User Trees. The defining principle behind a User Tree is ownership and control. Unlike the open, shared Family Tree where any registered user can modify deceased individuals, a User Tree belongs entirely to the creator or designated managing entity. You decide who has permission to view, edit, or contribute. In practical terms, it functions much like hosting an individual pedigree database on desktop software such as RootsMagic, or maintaining an individual tree on platforms like Ancestry or MyHeritage. This is not only a welcome development for individual genealogists seeking to safeguard complex research; it also provides genealogical societies, lineage organizations, and family associations a stable environment to publish and preserve curated lineages without the risk of arbitrary public alterations.

Beyond the Static Files of the Past

Having multiple trees hosted on FamilySearch is not a new concept. Long before the universal Family Tree, the platform hosted millions of records across static compilations accessible under the FamilySearch Genealogies Collections such as the Ancestral File and the Pedigree Resource File (PRF) served as digital repositories for decades. The Ancestral File represented early static lineage submissions to the Genealogical Society of Utah, while the Pedigree Resource File allowed researchers to upload GEDCOM files. The major limitation of these legacy collections was their immobility: once submitted, they were frozen snapshots in time. Correcting an error required compiling and uploading an entirely new GEDCOM, leaving old, outdated submissions perpetually preserved in search results alongside corrected ones. User Trees modernize this infrastructure into a dynamic, manageable system. Rather than uploading static dead-end snapshots, you can now curate, correct, and update your lineage in place while retaining complete administrative authority.

Integration with Full-Text Search and Modern Discovery

This shift coincides with a much broader transformation of FamilySearch's underlying search engine. With the expansion of AI-driven Full-Text Search and features tested through FamilySearch Labs, the way documents and trees are indexed is moving away from rigid, pre-extracted summary indexes toward deep textual search across entire record repositories. Under new aggregated search tools, records and lineages uploaded across user trees and genealogical databases are indexed so that researchers across the globe can still discover connections to deceased individuals without compromising the integrity of your master tree. Deceased ancestral profiles remain discoverable, yet the authority to modify the underlying data rests strictly in your hands.

Accessing and Managing Your User Tree

Because FamilySearch has designed this feature to coexist alongside the shared tree rather than replace it, you will not find a prominent banner on the main landing page. Accessing the interface requires navigating through the search hierarchy:

1. Log in to FamilySearch.og and select the Search menu from the top navigation bar.

2. Click on Genealogies.

3. On the Genealogies landing page, scroll past the search fields down into the lower section of the page, where you will find the prompt to manage and upload your individual family tree.

From there, you can import a standard GEDCOM file exported from your primary genealogy software or build your line directly within the interface.

A Note on Virtual Classes and Moving Forward

This discussion formed the focus of my final live Sunday class presentation for the BYU Library Family History Center. The library is refocusing its instructional resources toward in-person student services, meaning live webinar broadcasts and virtual Sunday classes are concluding. Past class recordings, handouts, and webinars remain fully archived and accessible through the BYU Library Family History Center learning portal and the library’s YouTube channel. I will continue sharing regular research strategies, evidentiary analyses, and technological updates directly here on Genealogy's Star and across our ongoing educational channels.

If you have held off on integrating your work with FamilySearch out of concern over unauthorized merges or overwritten evidence, take a serious look at User Trees. They offer the archival reach of FamilySearch while keeping evidentiary control firmly where it belongs: with the researcher.

Should You Use AI to Repair or Enhance Old Photos

 One of the strange quirks of fate is that I have inherited thousands of old photos. The majority are unidentified. I guess my relatives decided they couldn't identify the people either, and I was a willing recipient of the whole pile. About 4,500 of the original photos came from my great-grandmother, Margaret Godfrey Jarvis Overson. She was a professional photographer, as was her father. Her collection went to the University of Arizona Special Collections Library in Tucson, Arizona (see Overson Family Photograph Collection). There are also about 1,000 of these photos online on FamilySearch.org. (see Margaret Godfrey Jarvis Memories).

The old photos are all in the public domain. 

I am also a professional photographer, though not as active as I have been in the past. See my Walking Arizona blog, where I have just over 5,000 photos online.

Now what about using AI to repair or enhance some of these old photos? You can see that the photo above has several problems. The photo is torn and has a significant crack or line. Parts of the photo are obscured, and the boy's faces are washed out with little detail. The first issue is AI itself. AI does not repair or enhance the photos. It takes the original photo and regenerates or generates a similar copy, only with the additional information that it's missing from the original photograph. Here is a simple example of Google Gemini's Nano Banana's enhancement effort for this photo with a simple prompt to repair and enhance. 

There are a few differences between this "enhanced" photo including parts of the photo that were missing have been restored, and the photo has been cropped slightly, apparently across the bottom. Most people would agree that it is an improvement over the original photo.

However, for historical purposes, it is not the original photo. What happens if I use a very developed, specific prompt giving instructions to Gemini about the actions it should take with regards to this old photo? 

Here is the prompt that I am going to use: 

Act as a master photographic conservator and senior digital restoration specialist specializing in archival preservation and Adobe Photoshop. Your objective is to analyze a historical photograph and generate an actionable, surgical digital restoration plan that prioritizes ethical conservation over cosmetic recreation.

### Core Guiding Principle

Adhere strictly to the Principle of Minimal Intervention: repair only what is compromised to stabilize the image, leaving 100% of authentic original detail, paper texture, and natural film grain intact. Never recommend global blurs, aggressive noise reduction, automated AI over-smoothing, or destructive layer merges.

---

### Step-by-Step Assessment & Repair Workflow

1. Medium & Baseline Analysis

   - Identify or estimate the photographic process (e.g., Daguerreotype, Tintype, Albumen, Gelatin Silver, Cyanotype) and approximate era.

   - Catalog critical intact elements (e.g., facial feature micro-details, authentic paper grain, midtone density) that must be strictly protected from alteration.

2. Damage Inventory & Categorization

   Map the damage across three distinct categories:

   - Structural Defects: Cracks, tears, missing emulsion/substrate, fold creases, punctures.

   - Chemical & Surface Deterioration: Silver mirroring, foxing/mold, water stains, fading, chemical discoloration.

   - Optical / Scanning Artifacts: Dust, scratch lines, scanner glare, sensor noise.

3. Non-Destructive Photoshop Layer Architecture

   Provide an explicit, bottom-to-top Photoshop workflow organized into dedicated layer groups:

   - Group 1: Base & Registration (Locked original capture layer, working duplicate, reference guides).

   - Group 2: Structural Repairs (Sample All Layers healing/cloning, custom texture patching, brush modes).

   - Group 3: Texture & Surface Cleanup (Frequency Separation: High/Low parameters, localized Clone Stamp / Healing Brush settings, blend modes).

   - Group 4: Density & Contrast Correction (Targeted Curves adjustment layers, localized Black & White/Channel Mixer adjustments, Luminosity masks).

4. Surgical Tool Specification Table

   Present a structured table mapping each damaged area to its precise repair method:

   | Location / Feature | Damage Type | Photoshop Tool / Technique | Layer Settings & Blending Mode | Preservation Constraint |

   |---|---|---|---|---|

   | [e.g., Subject's cheek] | [Scratch] | [Spot Healing (Proximity Match)] | [Dedicated Blank Layer, Sample All Layers] | [Avoid adjacent pore texture loss] |

5. Quality Control & Verification Protocol

   - Specify a "Difference Mode" or toggle-check inspection routine to verify that zero alterations have spilled into undamaged zones.

 The advantage of using the prompt is that more of the original photo is preserved, and there are no apparent additions other than the original photo's missing areas  

But I suspect that those people who are using AI to enhance photos would be expecting something completely different from of this photo "restoration."  My long, specific prompt would not do the changes. It explained in great detail the reason why the changes could not be made for historical reasons.  if I go back to ignoring the specialized prompt, and simply give some additional details to the photo, outlining the changes needed to the first copy of the photo you might get something like this:

 My prompt consisted of the phrase, "Take out the large crack, take out the dark spots all over the photo, and enhance the background." I think that most people would agree that this was a better enhancement of the photo, but any connection to the historical, original photo has been almost completely severed.  the background has been completely changed. Details have been added, especially to the floor and the faces.  my guess is that as long as this technology is available, it will be used by most people, including most genealogists, to enhance their photos, especially very damaged photos like the one I use here as an example. 

The most important issue is ensuring that the original photograph is preserved—both as a physical artifact and as an unedited digital representation. Whenever an enhanced version is shared online, it should be clearly marked as AI-enhanced, with the original copy provided alongside it.

As a quick note, none of the photos I put up on FamilySearch have been enhanced or changed in any way by AI.

Why I Use Google Gemini to Help with Writing my Blog Posts

 

What I have learned over the past years is that I have a tendency to skip words and misspell a lot of words. Even when I proofread my documents, for some built-in reason I cannot see the errors. For many years, I have been relying on spell checkers and grammar checkers to correct what I say. However, with Google Gemini, I can take this assistance to a much higher level. Because my typing ability is degenerating over time, I also have moved to dictating with voice transcription almost everything I write. However, this causes a problem because the way I speak is more colloquial and not as polished as my writing should be. Here is an example. I dictated the above sentence using Wispr Flow. Now I am going to ask my Gemini assistant to review my paragraph for spelling and grammar and accuracy. Here is the product of my prompt. 

Over the decades I have spent researching, writing, and teaching, the physical mechanics of how we get our thoughts onto the page have changed dramatically. We have moved from typewriters and carbon paper to word processors, and now to advanced digital workspaces. Along the way, our physical limitations and habits inevitably catch up with us. Over the years, I have noticed a persistent tendency in my own work to skip words or misspell terms, and even during a careful self-proofreading pass, the mind often sees what it intended to write rather than what is actually on the screen. For a long time, standard spell checkers and basic grammar tools offered a helpful safety net, but they were limited to rigid dictionary lookups and simplistic syntax rules that frequently missed the real context of a thought.

As typing becomes more physically demanding over time, adapting our workflow is essential rather than optional. Moving toward voice dictation tools like Wispr Flow has transformed how quickly and easily I can capture ideas, but speaking naturally introduces a distinct set of challenges. Spoken language is inherently colloquial, full of conversational shortcuts, loose phrasing, and informal cadence that does not always translate cleanly into the polished, structured prose required for published research, case studies, or instructional articles. Dictation solves the mechanical problem of typing, but it leaves the editing and refinement stage wide open.

This is precisely where modern artificial intelligence tools like Google Gemini provide practical value. Rather than functioning merely as an aggressive red pen, an AI assistant can be used as a sophisticated editorial partner that bridges the gap between raw, dictated speech and coherent written analysis. When you feed a spoken draft into a language model and ask for an evaluation of spelling, grammar, clarity, and structural flow, it evaluates the passage in full context. It identifies dropped words, straightens out winding colloquial sentences, and flags ambiguous phrasing without stripping away the writer’s original meaning.

However, utilizing an AI assistant in your writing workflow requires the same discipline we apply to documentary evidence: trust, but verify. These tools are assistants, not substitutes for critical thinking. When reviewing the output generated from a prompt, you must read the suggestions critically, ensuring that the tool has preserved your authentic perspective and has not introduced unintended distortions or hallucinations. Use voice transcription to get your thoughts down freely without physical strain, leverage AI to refine and polish the mechanics, and always give the final piece a rigorous manual review before sharing your work.

Yes, this is what was written from what I dictated in my first paragraph. Here is a copy of the prompt that I used. 

# Role & Persona

You are an expert genealogy educator, researcher, and tech columnist writing in the authentic, authoritative, and practical first-person narrative voice of James Tanner from *Genealogy’s Star* (https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/).

# Core Philosophy & Tone

* **Voice:** Practical, direct, experienced, tech-forward, and encouraging yet realistic. Avoid hype, fluff, marketing jargon, and sensationalism.

* **The Core Bridge:** Emphasize sound evidentiary methodology (original source records, careful citation, critical evaluation) while embracing modern digital and AI tools as aids—never substitutes—for sound research.

* **Format & Style:** 

  * Write in an essay/narrative style with smooth paragraph transitions.

  * Avoid fragmented listicles, excessive bold topic headers, or artificial corporate section titles.

  * Write with the perspective of someone who has spent decades in libraries, archives, and digital repositories, understanding both the pitfalls beginners face and the nuances advanced researchers care about.

# Task

Write a comprehensive, engaging blog post based on the source link(s) or summary provided below.

# Article Architecture

1. **Contextual Lead:** Open with a thoughtful reflection on how the technological or methodological landscape in genealogy is evolving.

2. **The Core Topic/Tool:** Introduce the specific tool, dataset, platform update, or methodology found in the source material.

3. **Practical Application & Analysis:** Discuss how researchers should practically use it, highlighting both its strengths and where it requires caution (e.g., verifying against original documents, avoiding common assumptions).

4. **Conclusion/Takeaway:** Conclude with practical advice on what the reader should do next in their own research.

# Input Data 

[PASTE YOUR LINKS, NOTES, OR SOURCE TEXT HERE] 

This is a third-generation prompt, meaning that I had an initial draft. I had Gemini critique it and rewrite it, and then critique it and rewrite it again.   you might notice, but it does right in my style.  reviewing the rewrite from Gemini, I find very little to criticize or change.  this is, of course, the time necessary to review it, read it carefully, and make any changes I think are necessary.

in any event, I use the following as a notice that what I have written has been reviewed or altered by Gemini. 

The content of this blog post has been reviewed  for accuracy and content by Google Gemini.

Legacy Family Tree Webinars introduces Learning Paths

Read the full announcement on the Legacy Family Tree Blog

Over the years, I have given a number of presentations for Legacy Family Tree Webinars. They have a family tree webinars section with an extensive number of high-quality presentations. It has increased its global influence by becoming part of MyHeritage.com. 

With a library now exceeding 2,700 genealogy webinars, finding a specific entry point or structured educational sequence on Legacy Family Tree Webinars has presented a logistical challenge for many researchers. To address the sheer volume of available content, the platform has introduced a new organizational tool called Learning Paths.

Designed to function as short, focused courses, Learning Paths consolidate three to six related webinars into a logically sequenced curriculum. The initial rollout includes over 100 pre-created paths organized by subject matter. The curated sequences guide researchers from foundational concepts—such as beginning family history and understanding DNA estimates—to advanced applications like resolving conflicting evidence or incorporating artificial intelligence into a research workflow.

To streamline navigation, the paths are categorized by experience level, methodology, historical record types, and specific geographic regions, including various U.S. states, Canadian provinces, and European countries.

Beyond the pre-constructed options, the platform also offers a custom building tool. The "Build Your Own Learning Path" feature allows users to select any webinars from the broader catalog and organize them into personalized study plans. A highly practical function of this tool is its shareability. Genealogists can distribute their custom-curated lists to local genealogical societies, special interest groups, or family members, facilitating collaborative learning or guiding relatives through introductory topics.

The new feature includes an integrated progress tracker to help users manage their viewing history and resume their studies efficiently. Upon completing a path, the system generates a printable certificate of completion.

Enrolling in the paths, utilizing the custom builder, tracking progress, and generating certificates are available at no cost to all users. However, access to the video content itself continues to follow the site's existing model: webinars designated as free remain accessible to the public, while viewing any members-only videos within a path requires an active Webinar Membership.

See this presentation also: Introducing Learning Paths at Legacy Family Tree Webinars

This post was created, in part, with assistance from Google Gemini.

Introduction to the FamilySearch Help Center

 

https://youtu.be/StO6PCVtEpw?si=mL1IINrl1MlqDKr6

Navigating a platform as expansive as FamilySearch can feel daunting, but the built-in Help Center is designed to guide researchers through every stage of their family history journey. In this instructional presentation from the BYU Library Family History Center, I provide a clear, comprehensive walkthrough of the Help Center’s vast features and resources. Viewers will discover how to access self-paced learning modules, search thousands of instructional articles, and utilize tailored research pathways designed for both beginners and seasoned genealogists.  

Beyond basic search tools, this video explores deeper support layers, including the Learning Center’s country-specific research guides, technical skill lessons, and the interactive FamilySearch Community. Tanner also outlines key support avenues—such as specialized helper tools for consultants and direct contact options with FamilySearch specialists—giving you the skills and confidence to solve tricky genealogical problems and make continuous progress on your family tree. 

The BYU Library Family History Center classes will be discontinued after August 30, 2026. The videos here on YouTube and on youtube.com will remain active for an unspecified period of time. For more rare information, see the link below. 

https://familyhistory.lib.byu.edu/online-learning-update

You can view my own YouTube channel using the link on Genealogy's Star Blog, this blog.

As noted on the video itself, some of the images in this video were AI-generated. Additionally, I use AI for drafting, spell-checking, and conciseness for some parts of my blog. 

BYU Library Family History Center Sunday Classes and Webinars Discontinued

 

https://familyhistory.lib.byu.edu/online-learning-update

Yes, this says exactly what it means. The Sunday classes and webinars during the week are now canceled. I suggest you click on the above link and read the entire statement. The statement contains links to the following: 

• Kathryn Grant: Goldenrod Genealogy (https://www.goldenrodgenealogy.com)
• James Tanner: Genealogy's Star (https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com)

When you read this blog, you should now see a link to my YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/@jamestanner45

If you need to talk to me directly, I suggest we use the BYU Library Family History Center Virtual Help Desk. This gives us unlimited time to speak in a breakout room and also for me to talk to a number of people at the same time. You can make an appointment by contacting the library or contacting me directly at genealogyarizona@gmail.com This address has been genealogyarizona@gmail.com for many years, and I have passed out thousands of cards with the email address. 

Please click on the library's explanation link above and check out my YouTube Channel.

Thanks for you patience in this change. 

MyHeritage adds Y-DNA to trace your paternal line back

https://blog.myheritage.com/2026/08/new-on-myheritage-trace-your-paternal-line-back-thousands-of-years-with-y-dna/

For years, genetic genealogy platforms have largely separated autosomal testing—used for finding cousins across recent generations—from direct-line Y-DNA testing, which traces direct paternal lineages deep into human history. MyHeritage has bridged this divide by integrating baseline Y-DNA haplogroup reports directly into its existing testing database. Existing male MyHeritage DNA customers and eligible raw data uploads can generate baseline Y-DNA results without submitting a new sample. However, access to the reports is only included at no additional charge for users holding an active MyHeritage Complete or Omni plan. The MyHeritage Complete plan presently has a promotional first year price of $199 and then an annual renewal price of $299. The Omni Plan's promotional first year price is $239 and then $399 thereafter.

The Omni Plan is MyHeritage's all-inclusive bundle. It adds access to external properties owned by MyHeritage, specifically historical newspapers via OldNews.com, collaborative tree tools on Geni Pro, and the entire library of 2,000+ educational sessions on FamilyTreeWebinars.com.  

Because the analysis relies on the limited Y-chromosome single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) captured during standard microarray autosomal testing, the resulting haplogroups represent broad, ancestral branches—often dating back to the Middle Ages or earlier. For researchers seeking high-resolution matching and sub-clade identification within recent genealogical timeframes (the past several hundred years), MyHeritage offers an integrated pathway to upgrade directly to FamilyTreeDNA’s Big Y-700 next-generation sequencing test. The FamilyTreeDNA Big Y-700 test is presently $399. These prices may change. 

The newly introduced feature extracts Y-chromosome markers already present in the raw data of biological male test-takers, eliminating the need to submit a new sample. Developed in partnership with FamilyTreeDNA, the analysis assigns qualifying users a foundational Y haplogroup and places their lineage on the broader human paternal phylogenetic tree.

Once activated through account settings, the tool provides five core reports:

• Haplogroup Story: An overview of the lineage’s classification, accompanied by historical context, a branch diagram, and badges outlining key lineage characteristics.

• Migration Map: A geographical model plotting estimated ancestral migration paths originating from early human populations in Africa, including divergence points for parent and sibling branches.

• Notable and Ancient Connections: Side-by-side historical comparisons linking a user’s lineage to notable historical figures and ancient DNA samples recovered from archaeological excavation sites.

• Country Frequency: A distribution breakdown based on comparative testing databases and academic studies, illustrating where specific haplogroups are most frequently reported worldwide.

These feature may change from the first introduced features. 

Regarding data handling, MyHeritage confirmed that the underlying computational models are licensed from FamilyTreeDNA but executed entirely within the MyHeritage infrastructure; user raw genetic data is not transferred to third-party databases during processing.

Access to the Y-DNA reporting suite is available immediately to male test-takers with active MyHeritage Complete or Omni subscriptions. Female users wishing to explore their direct paternal lineage will need to test a qualifying direct male relative, such as a father, brother, or paternal uncle.

This blog post was written with the assistance of Google Gemini. The post has been checked for accuracy. 

The Changing World of AI -- Tokens and Users

 

If you are wondering how to compare the various AI websites that have sprouted up over the last four years or so, there is a common way to do this. The most common comparison involves the amount of information, and to some extent the amount of detail and helpfulness of AI websites' responses. The comparisons are based on the total amount of information the AI chatbots have available. Tokens are the basic units of data (pieces of words, characters, or syllables) that the model processes at one time for input (your prompt) and output (its answer). Roughly, 1,000 tokens equal about 750 words.  See What are tokens and how to count them? 

The number of tokens available makes a substantial difference across three main areas: the context window (input/working memory), the output limit (generation size), and cost/speed. The following explanations came from Google Gemini. 

Context Window (Working Memory): The maximum input token limit determines how much information an AI can analyze at once. A small window (e.g., 4k–8k tokens) limits you to brief queries, while a massive window (e.g., 128k to 1M+ tokens) allows you to feed in entire books, hundreds of pages of legal transcripts, extensive codebases, or complex multi-document archives without the AI "forgetting" earlier context.

Output Generation Limits: The maximum output token capacity dictates how long a single response can be. If an AI has a 4,000-token output limit, it cannot generate a complete 30-page document in a single pass; it will cut off mid-sentence once that threshold is reached.

Cost and Billing (APIs): For developers and API users, token volume directly drives pricing. Every token sent (prompt) and received (completion) is metered. A larger token budget means higher processing costs.

Back to Me:

What this means to a user is that the more complicated the requests that are made to the AI, the greater the cost. But the AI websites have a tiered subscription cost based on the amount of information processed or tokens used.

A comparison of the value of the AI website subscription could be made using a cost/token breakdown. However, consumer subscriptions are usually based on a flat monthly rate with usage caps. But comparisons can be made through the cost versus rate caps. High-end users work through an Application Programming Interface or API and are charged based on input and output tokens. Here is a table that Gemini generated showing the rate caps, reset windows, and soft limits of the most popular websites. 

Provider / Plan ($20/mo)	Standard Chat Rate Cap	Reasoning / Deep Thought Limits	Context Window on Web	What Happens When Capped?
ChatGPT Plus (OpenAI)	~150–160 messages every 3 rolling hours	Strict separate allowances for dedicated reasoning modes (e.g., weekly/daily limits)	~32k to 128k tokens depending on model	Automatically throttles down to a lighter "mini" model until the 3-hour window resets.
Gemini Advanced (Google)	High soft cap (rarely hits a hard message wall in regular chat)	Dynamic limits based on server load when using extended thinking/analysis	1M to 2M tokens (ingests massive documents/books directly in the web UI)	Temporary slowdown / cooldown notice; drops to standard Flash models if server capacity is tight.
Claude Pro (Anthropic)	Dynamic 5-hour rolling pool (~45 messages for long threads; more for short chats)	"Thinking Mode" burns through your 5-hour budget significantly faster	200k to 1M tokens	Hard block until the 5-hour rolling reset window expires.
Microsoft Copilot Pro	~100–300 turns/day (integrated across 365 and web)	"Think Deeper" runs at slower speeds during peak hours	Typically capped around 32k–128k tokens	Slows to standard processing speed or caps conversation turn depth.

See for example: Claude pricing in 2026: every plan, API rate, and what it actually costs, and Cost of building and deploying AI models in Agent Platform.

Again, from Gemini:

Core Mechanics That Dictate Limits

Conversation Depth Depletion (Claude): Anthropic calculates limits based on total token volume sent. Because Claude resends the entire conversation history with every new message, long conversations or large file uploads consume your 5-hour quota much faster than starting fresh chats. 

Fixed Time Windows (ChatGPT): OpenAI uses rolling 3-hour windows for general chat, making it predictable for burst work, but caps reasoning models with much stricter weekly or daily quotas.

Context Capacity (Gemini): Gemini offers the largest context window for consumers on the web (up to 2 million tokens), allowing entire archives or hours of video to be uploaded in a single prompt without immediately triggering rate limits.

Back to Me:

If you are a casual user of any of these websites using the free versions, it is possible that you have not encountered any data limitations. But a genealogist, for example, can run into an immediate token limit by asking one of the AI websites to transcribe or explain a long, difficult document. What is disturbing is that the lack of a token buffer can cause the AI chatbot to hallucinate or make up information. See Why Language Models Hallucinate.

If you doubt the accuracy of any of the AI output, I suggest you take time to learn how to ask questions and generate prompts. See How to Improve Any Prompt.

Another suggestion is that you spend time using your AI to explain the terms and conclusions of this blog post. 

A Major Update of Keep or throw away: the challenge of genealogical documents and photos

 

Over the past few weeks, we have spent a considerable amount of time working through tens of thousands of documents and photos and trying to reduce the number of documents and photos we save to a manageable one or two boxes for my and the same number for my wife. This post is a sequel to the earlier post called "Keep or Throw Away: The Challenge of Genealogical Documents and Photos." The key to this reduction is that thousands of the original documents were scanned and now reside on three large (16 - 22 TB) hard drives. One of those essentially duplicate hard drives in addition to my main computer are also backed up to the internet on https://www.backblaze.com/. Some of the documents, such as original journals, will also be offered to the BYU Harold B. Lee Library Special Collections. 

There are still some major decisions that need to be made. The main issue deals with original photos and original handwritten letters. All the photos can be digitized, and all of the handwritten letters can also be digitized. The issue is: which of these two categories of oath should be preserved as physical documents? 

Even when we are able to make the decisions and have decided on the original physical documents to be preserved, including letters, photos, certificates, and other historical artifacts, we will still need to work through the thousands and thousands of digital files. I certainly realize that most genealogists are not confronted with either the diversity or quantity of documents that were given to me over the last, going on, 45 years. 

One of the main issues is that, over the time period that we have been accumulating these documents, I have had virtually no contact from any of my vast number of relatives asking if I have the documents and if they are available for review. One tactic my wife has used is to take piles of the documents to family gatherings and offer to let anyone at the gathering take some of the original documents. Of course, all the documents offered have already been digitized also. 

Over the next few weeks, I intend to highlight and explain some of the interesting documents I have "discovered" while working through the piles. Here is an initial. example.

 this is a graduation certificate for my grandfather, and it is about three feet square.

Stay tuned for further developments.