I know. I work in a photo lab. I see a large number of bad pictures. And that's what they are... pictures. I wouldn't call them photographs; I reserve that word for something... more than just a snapshot.
Sure, you can load up your camera with 400 ASA film and turn the flash on and the brain off and all your family pictures will look... like pictures. There's the family. Mm-hmm. Most photo albums are boring because the pictures aren't very good to begin with. There are even "Memory Books" where you're supposed to cut your pictures into interesting shapes to make them better, and add funny captions so that people who look at your album will get distracted away from the bad photographs and comment on how unique the layout is, and "isn't that creative".
On the other hand, I may be wholly wrong to suggest that most photo albums are boring because most people can't take pictures worth a darn. As my mother (a hardcore non-photographer) so carefully pointed out: "Why would I take pictures? 99% of what I'd take, I'd get better results if I bought a postcard." When she comes back from a trip, her pictures look much better than everyone elses... because she bought postcards, with photos that were thought out and planned by professionals, rather than snapped by tourists with Rebel G's.
So, why is it that most people's pictures look BAD?
It's the lack of a brain. In this you-push-the-button age, people have stopped thinking about what goes into a photograph... just point, check that all the heads are in the frame, and click.
This is not the best way to get quality photographs.
On the other hand, setting up on a tripod, posing everyone, using a cable release and a slow shutter isn't the best either... subjects tend to be impatient.
There must be a compromise.
Near as I can tell, a reasonably good toss up is the "environmental portrait". Often seen in newspapers accompanying interviews, these are actually half-decent pictures. Rather than saying "Hey little Timmy, Put your new sweater on that Aunt Paula gave you so I can take a picture and send it to her", snap a fast shot when little Timmy opens the package. Getting everyone used to the camera may take a while, but it's worth it. If little Timmy doesn't suddenly think that getting photographed is a chore, he's less likely to whine about it later. So, sit in the corner with a camera, point it at little Timmy, and snap away every so often. (A SLR or TLR with a top-finder may be helpful; less distracting to the rest of the family).
Say you're at the zoo. Rather than getting everyone together with big funny sunglasses on and cotton candy on their nose, snap them doing zoo things... like looking at the penguins. Little Timmy excitedly pointing out that the lion's cage is open is a far more memorable photograph than the cotton candy on a scrunched up nose picture.
Some of the best I've ever seen are those pointing out idiosyncracies in life and the world around us. I.e. white powder on the sidewalk, right next to the mosaic inlay in front of an old drugstore ("DRUGS"). Someone whizzing by on a bicycle, right next to the "NO BICYCLES" sign. Skateboards prohibited. No fishing. etc.
Out of the ordinary is great; but the ordinary can be done well also. By changing perspective; i.e. getting down low to the ground to take a picture of something close to the ground, rather than just pointing the camera down, you get a whole new image... rather than looking disdainful, the photo comes out a little more... sympathetic to the subject.
Slow shutter speed with a tight aperature makes nice motion blur on a street scene.
Wide aperature throws the background out of focus so that whatever ugly things the subject is standing reasonably away from look blurry, sort of like a backdrop.
Lack of flash has caused numerous pictures to be underexposed and consequently come out awful. Using a flash has caused numerous pictures to come out poorly lit and awful. Not underexposed; the film got plenty of light. "Poor Lighting" is a quality judgement. Light from the same angle as the lens causes all the shadows to fall so that they aren't really visible to the camera. Slightly better is a "crooked bounce", so that the light comes from off the ceiling at a side angle to the camera. MUCH better is off camera diffused strobe. However, this last is often too large and cumbersome to be carrying for snapshots. Bounce isn't TOO terrible; it means that the light is coming off the ceiling, it's reasonably diffuse, and it's not going to cause redeye nearly as much.
If you stand in "straight on" in front of a mirror and take a flash photo, you will get one hotspot on the picture for the flash, as well as a lot of the rest of the picture lacking exposure. Direct reflections cause all sorts of trouble... and that's what you get with redeye. The intense light from the flash is reflected as two small hotspots on the retina, and tinted red as it reflects (blood is red, remember? it looks red, meaning it reflects red light). On the other hand, it's a really neat way to make people look like vampires. Depending on your family, this is possibly bad. Easier to avoid it with either off camera flash or bounce flash.