Editorial standards
How we review genealogy archives and research tools
Our review process puts collection fit, transparent evidence, free alternatives and reader value ahead of commercial relationships.
How we assess an archive
AncestorAdvisor assesses an archive or research tool against the question a reader is trying to solve. A recommendation is conditional, never universal. The central test is whether the service is likely to contain and make accessible the relevant evidence.
- 1
Start with the research question
Person, event, place, period and record type.
- 2
Check that the collection covers it
Title-level or collection-level coverage using provider and institutional sources.
- 3
Check how you can access it
Free, library, trial, short-term and longer-term options.
- 4
Look at how the archive works
Search, filtering, browsing, image quality, export and citation features where verifiable.
- 5
Check the price and terms
Current plans, renewal, cancellation and limitations without assuming the highest commission is best.
- 6
Compare other routes
Competing archives, public collections, libraries, physical holdings or professional help.
The evidence we use
We prefer official collection directories, provider documentation, libraries, archives and primary programme terms. Volatile information is dated. If a feature, price or holding cannot be verified, we state the uncertainty rather than filling the gap.
Hands-on findings will be labelled with the search case, queries, date and limitations. Until a documented test exists, pages are described as editorial assessments rather than personal-use reviews.
How we handle commercial links
There are no affiliate links on the site at launch. If tracked links are added later, a clear disclosure will appear before or near the first commercial link. Commission will not determine ordering, ratings or whether a free route is recommended.
Corrections and updates
Archive holdings, prices, interfaces and terms change. Each substantial update changes the visible reviewed date. Corrections that materially affect a conclusion are applied promptly and the reasoning is reconsidered.
To report an error, use the contact page. Include the page URL, disputed statement and supporting source where possible.