Researching in the 21st Century. Would you go back to the 'old' ways?

 I started researching 36 years ago, last January and to say that the genealogy bug bit and bit hard would be an understatement. I love the finding of old records, interesting newspaper items and holding something that my ancestors wrote or touched, well the feeling is beyond belief.

Last week the Society of Australian Genealogists had the usual members only Hangout and it was on this topic. Views were many and varied. 

I commented on using microfiche and how you could go cross-eyed looking at them. Another said she still uses them as they often have more/correct information that what comes up online. Mistakes are made in transcribing things across, especially with names. 

Some mentioned going in to dusty archives and getting the books of the shelf and going page by page through them, for that vital piece of information. Still others mentioned cemetery searches and children commenting that 'other families had picnics at the beach, why did they have them at the cemetery?'. This brought much laughter for those present.

Another raised the point that 'why would we want to go back to that way? DNA and everything online is better.'

So is it?

My thoughts are that DNA is another tool in the genealogists tool box but should be used with documents, to check and verify that you have the correct person. Not just accept that what you are spoon feed, from green leaves on websites.

Also NOT EVERYTHING is online. You miss so much but not seeing original documents.

I think that we need a good combination of both the old and the new. With a very healthy respect for what we find online.

It is sad to think that there are researchers, out there that think they can sit at home and add to their tree, by accepting what others (really a machine) feeds them, without looking deeper into the people that collect.  20,000 people on a tree isn't good if you haven't researched all of them, give me my tree of 182 researched people anytime!

So what do you think?