Issues merging to create the "Big Tree"

Byron, I started to respond to several of your very valid points and then realized that you're probably just blowing off steam and there's nothing to be said that will end up being very helpful. I'm going to post my response anyhow, if for no other reason than at least you'll know someone heard!

During a bloody battle several years ago over Naming Conventions, it was decided that the first name and surname fields should remain as clean as possible, with all alternatives going in the AKA field. The problem is that people either don't know they should be doing it this way, or are resistant to this convention. There are almost as many reasons for the variations as there are users. Many users don't understand how databases work, or how Search works, or they simply have emotional attachments to specific name variations. We will never get full agreement from all users on some of these historic profiles, but continuing to educate each other may help lesson the problem with time. At least, that's what I tell myself!

Using all caps is a carryover from pre-digital days. If someone learned traditional genealogical conventions before switching to computerized genealogy, they may believe that's still the way to do it. All-capped surnames was a very helpful convention then and it's not always easy to break old habits. I agree that it's annoying, and I take the liberty of "fixing" it every time I see it, which probably annoys others as much as all-caps annoys me... ;-)

Even more annoying is the failure to use any capitals at all. While I can understand the all-cap issue, I absolutely do not understand someone who fails to use capitals when trying to communicate with others. If you want to demonstrate your individuality, dye your hair green. But don't join a team effort and then behave in obstructive ways. Sheesh. No judgement or anything... /grin

Geni's new defaults should fix the zombie problems eventually.

Ask a curator to MP any profiles that you are sure are correct, or that need to be protected in merging.

You sure sound frustrated! I feel your pain. I have days when I get so aggravated that my eyes are bulging, too. I guess that's the nature of the beast, that when working with others there are going to be times when we irritate each other. I have to remind myself sometimes that this is still so very much better than working alone - and, most days, way more fun, too!

The new code to detect and make deceased / public is being released incrementally. I believe (check the new privacy discussion from Customer Service for specifics) that process will complete a couple of weeks from now - mid July. I also believe it will result in a huge reduction in "the zombie issue."

An easier practice to get across to new members might be

- resolve data conflicts at merge time to the left, which is the suggestion generated by Geni. The system "rewards" the most complete data fields.

http://www.geni.com/discussions/136757

Byron - I think you're not understanding the implications of the new release. It's addressing exactly what you're discussing (well, not the naming conventions). So stay tuned - it "is" improving.

Byron -- it is my understanding that the only Public Profiles requiring someone else's permission to complete the merge are Public Profiles in Stand-alone trees. And my suggestion to you is to totally ignore those!!

Any Public Profile in the World Tree does not need someone else's permission to merge. Any Pro -- possibly any user - can merge on their own decision. (One of the reasons some of us do not want our Profiles Public.)

I would suggest that perhaps a merge should be by a two way approval process. This MAY cause us ALL a lot less grief.

I'd say sources are most important. Thats what I had discussed with Harald Tveit Alvestrand today :)

Sharyn - there are many casual users. In the historic tree, at this point, waiting for 2 way approval brings it to a grinding halt, & errors accumulate. I speak from bitter experience.

In the family group, where there is personal knowledge, of course it's a different story. But that's the 20th century & "not" what I call "the historic tree," which is record based.

And segues me neatly into Ahmad's point. :):)

Source your data!

Then - teach everyone to "look" at the sources.

Sometimes, we are working on more than one site at a time, I think that creates a sense of "wholeness" for that person, but, others are left with fragments of information. Working in the tree, should be the focus, in respect of genealogy and using Geni.com. Its still my only tree :)

I've been working with "the wiki process" of piecing together bits of information from merging many profiles that represent the same person, & it's really quite miraculous, how well it can work.

In my ancestry it's because of "following the surname." The Howton's don't have as complete a record on the people who married in, and vice versa. So by putting together the Howton records with the Lawson records with the Stailey records (and so on), we get a full picture, where we only had a partial view before.

I don't know that process, but I work on a spread sheet, collecting all data for a name. My problem is, I have this information, and, its not on the tree yet, is disconnected and, if I want to put it on geni, I make little trees, and, the other day, joined one on :) I am sure, as usual, I have the process back the front :(

I have lots of French background, and I believe from Canada, but protestants logically.

Byron Jason Whitesides I frequently work on people I don't have a proven relationship with.
Sometimes it's because some gene test showed that someone in their family had a match, and I'm trying to find it; sometimes it's because it's a person I know and I'm trying to help with their ancestry; sometimes it's just because the tree piqued my interest.
I do want to be careful enough to leave tracks of where I have my information from, so that others who discover my work and *are* related can check what I have done and verify the sources i've used.

It's part of my joy in the Big Tree - that I have the opportunity to find information added by others - and that I myself can add to it.