Mysterious Messengers or "Can't we just get along....."

Started by Grand Imperial Poobah on Friday, September 3, 2010

Participants:

Showing all 16 posts
9/3/2010 at 4:55 PM

In the past month or so, I have received messages from profiles that don't exist. When I searched for them, they didn't show in the list. Has anyone had similar experiences?

The messages were a passive-aggresive attempts to get me to give up management of the 2000+ profiles I have entered. I was told to give them up. One suggested I give up my profile and start another. One said all of my historical ancestors had been taken/absorbed and lost to me. One, even, hinted at "or else....."

There has to be a means by which we, the private-managed genealogies, can co-exist with the Great Big Tree-ers. We should be able to support the endeavors of the other side.

I ask the members to enter into a mature discussion. The goal will be to have several solutions which will be submitted to Geni.com for review and incorporation. The solutions must be agreed upon by both sides. Remember, we are trying to work together.

Private User
9/4/2010 at 2:25 AM

Robert,

There might be some misunderstanding here. You ARE a part of the Big tree already, and that is why your profiles are being merged.

For instance you come up as related to me (which of course would not happen if you were not connected to the Big tree):

Robert Morris is your 21st cousin five times removed.

You

(I'm skipping several generations here for privacy reasons, but you should be able to check yourself by visiting my profile)

Samson Nilsson Tjugum Suphamar
his father

Nils Jensson til Simling (Semeleng)
his father

Jens Andersson Simling Losna Tandla
his father

Gudrid Fartegnsdotter Simling, til Simling (Semeleng)
his mother

Fartegn d.y. Filippusson Losna, II
her father

Gyrid Sigurdsdotter
his mother

Sigurd Gautesson Gautson Galte, I (Torsnes)
her father

Gaute Sigurdsson (Galte)
his father

Sigrid Guttormsdatter Torsnes (Guthormsdatter)
his mother

Gjertrud Dugalsdotter
her mother

King Dugal of Suderoyene Ruaidhrison of Kintyre
her father

Ruaidhri Ragnaldsson of Garmoran (Ranaldsson)
his father

Helen Ragnhild Hilda Reginaldsdotter de L'Isle
his sister

Helen (Elena) de Galloway
her daughter

Elena de Quincy, of Winchester
her daughter

Eudo Eon / Eudes la Zouche
her son

William La Zouche 1st Lord Zouche of Harringworth, Baron
his son

Millicent la Zouche
his daughter

Margaret Deincourt
her daughter

Elizabeth [Baroness Despenser] de Tiptoft
her daughter

Margaret Despencer
her daughter

Agnes Wentworth
her daughter

Margery Margaret Bigod (Constable)
her daughter

John Bigod
her son

Sir Francis Bigod
his son

Dorothy Barnes (bigod)
his daughter

Thomas Barnes, I
her son

Thomas Barnes, II
his son

Thomas Barnes, III
his son

Hannah Brooks (Barnes)
his daughter

Stephen Brooks, Jr.
her son

William Brooks
his son

Samuel Sheldon Brooks
his son

(you will know the line from there and to yourself)

To understand how the Big Tree works, please read this announcement from Geni:
http://www.geni.com/discussions/6000000009728208335

If you have questions, the Curators will answer (I sent a link to this thread to them all), and if you really want to get out of the Big tree and have a completely separate tree, you might have to quit the current account and start over, without inviting anyone or collaboraitng with anyone. Also contact Geni Help.

9/4/2010 at 2:36 AM

robert you tree is part of the big tree, you obviously have no clue what you are doing. you have been undoing all the merges that have been occuring, and as for "Remember, we are trying to work together." you arent cooperating with anyone, have blocked me and are causing alot of damage to the work of others.

Private User
9/4/2010 at 3:15 AM

Ann Marit,

Thanks for the path statement. Dorothy Bigod is my first cousin 19 times removed. So now I have relatives in Norway! Who knew.

9/4/2010 at 5:37 PM

I asked for this discussion to be mature and work towards solution.

I don't object to being linked to the Big Tree. I _do_ object to having ancestors' files taken strictly because they are beyond a certain generation or year.

If I want to contribute a file, I should have that option. A manager could have their files flagged as _potential merge_ or something similar.Merges should not be on an "opt-out" basis. Managers should have the choice to merge or not prior to having their files added to other merges

I have a questions concerning viewing the tree that may help-- How can I view the tree and _only_ see what I have entered without having it cluttered with hundreds of children and spouses for the same person? Or, being able to follow the tree, forward and backward, without the clutter? Is this possible?

Private User
9/4/2010 at 7:39 PM

"How can I view the tree and _only_ see what I have entered .."

Doesn't changing to the vertical view accomplish this for you? It does for me.

9/4/2010 at 11:47 PM

I do wish for some pruning shears that private-tree managers can use to cut off their connections to the Big Tree ..... it's very sticky to try to disentangle when someone's started making potential mergers, and even stickier when some of these mergers have been completed.

9/5/2010 at 12:22 AM

robert, we are trying to clean up the hundreds of children, but whenever we do, you go and undo it all. if you want to view the tree without the hundreds of children there is a button for "direct ancestors only" which will only show your ancestors and make the rest hidden. please let us clean up the tree without undoing everything. there are many people working non stop to do this.

Private User
9/5/2010 at 12:43 AM

People working non stop and around the globe. I see you're "down under." It is very nice to have the results of your work available to me on ET. Thank you.

Private User
9/5/2010 at 2:23 AM

@Robert Morris:
It seems from your answer that you still do not quite understand the implications of being part of the Big Tree:

You wrote: "I don't object to being linked to the Big Tree. I _do_ object to having ancestors' files taken strictly because they are beyond a certain generation or year."

I don't understand what you mean with "Files taken" - if you mean merged with the main line/duplicates, this will eventually happen to ALL duplicates WITHIN the Big Tree. Your files (profiles?) are not "taken", but they are merged. The information is kept in the new Main profile. If there are discrepancies of information, the best sources will be chosen.

"If I want to contribute a file, I should have that option. A manager could have their files flagged as _potential merge_ or something similar."

See above: ALL duplicates WITHIN the Big Tree WILL be merged.

"Merges should not be on an "opt-out" basis."
Exactly: they are not, as long as you are in the Big tree: all duplicates will be merged.

"Managers should have the choice to merge or not prior to having their files added to other merges"
This contradicts what you just said in the previous sentence. It is not possible to merge some profiles in the Big tree but have some "outside". Being in the Big tree is an either/or situation.

"I have a questions concerning viewing the tree that may help-- How can I view the tree and _only_ see what I have entered without having it cluttered with hundreds of children and spouses for the same person? Or, being able to follow the tree, forward and backward, without the clutter? Is this possible?"
This has already been answered above: In your tree view settings you can chose to view Direct Ancestors only. Also choosing the "vertical" option will do that, but restrict the number of generations viewable simultaneously.

Most people would however not describe siblings, cousins, additional spouses etc as "clutter" but additional information about the family tree ...

As Alvestrand mentioned there is no current way of getting out of the Big tree once in.

As Jason Wills pointed out, Undoing merges does not help either, it just makes the work of getting the Big Tree in shape take a lot more time (as well as making a lot of people annoyed with you as you Undo their hard work). We have to ask you to please stop that immediately.

I hope all this made it clearer to you how it all works. We're all trying to find solutions. If this Big tree (as described above) is not what you want, then it is possible to cancel your account and start over, without any collaborators or invited family. (See more information in the Discussion I linked to in my previous post.)

9/11/2010 at 6:43 PM

@Anne-Marit-Berge, I have some questions about your answer

--...the best sources will be chosen"--If there are noticable discrepancies, will they be retained with a note or overlooked in favor of the most common information or all information kept and stacked and each contributor's submission viewable by clicking on theier name?

--"all duplicates will be merged"--At what point are similarities considered duplicates? I have seen merges that had nothing in common other than a single fact (relative, date, or locaction) and merges with everything the same with the exception of a single fact? Is this where the human factor comes into play for review and apporval/disapproval?

--I can';t seem to find "tree view settings". I have looked. Can you point this out for me?

Lateral familial relations is additional avenues of information. Clutter is one woman with 120 children (most with the same five names) and fiften husbands(with the same names). These are what I meant by clutter.

"In for a penny; In for a pound", I think amply applies to being part of the Big Tree. Though it is bitter medicine to swallow, i do accept it as the only remedy.

I ask those who have taken the time to make the comparisons and suggest the merges to forgive my undoings. I started at the top and worked to the bottom until I found the information I had entered. Several people pointed out that I could scan through the list unitl I reachd mine and undo that specific merge. For nearly two weeks, this is what I have been doing.

9/11/2010 at 7:09 PM

robert, even if you scanned througy stack and removed every one of your profiles you would be wasting your time, many of your profiles have been permanently merged, so even if you unmerged every profile you wouldnt get your tree back. please just let us clean up, the tree will get cleaner with time, and soon we will be able to permanently lock profiles so that the correct information is saved.

in regards to the tree view setting look down at the blue bar in tree mode that says "preferences" then click "direct ancestors only"

Private User
9/12/2010 at 4:05 AM

Some answers:

*DISCREPANCIES
In most cases there are some sources that are more reliable than others (i.e. primary sources) and the information from those will be chosen.

I some cases there are several possibilities, and these will of course be described in the About description. The ability to mark some relationships (like parents) as "Uncertain" will probably come, as well as other technical options of marking various uncertainty.

* MERGING
All duplicates will be merged when they are real duplicates. If you refer to erroneous merges resulting in various generation loops etc, this is something we now work very hard to clear up, among other things by warning people to merge profiles in areas where Curators are now doing clean-up work, and for all to read the About sections properly before merging. To avoid errors many of the historical profiles in difficult lines will be locked for editing, merging and/or linking by Curators, to ensure that no more errors occur.

The reason why you have 150 copies of what is really 5 children is of course that the merge work is currently incomplete. This will slowly get fixed.

9/12/2010 at 5:28 AM

@Grand Imperial Poobah (love your name!:¬}) I would just add that if you have reliable sources for your profiles such as parish records or wills etc. then if you upload these as documents and then create them as sources then that will add strength to any research you have done and therefore further ensure that it is 'your' information that is retained in preference to someone elses unsubstantiated information which has possibly been obtained simply from an internet tree or the like. If what you have said in the past is true and you have carried out extensive research yourself then this will be an invaluable and much appreciated contruibution in our consolidation of the Historic Tree!

9/12/2010 at 8:32 AM

Hello Robert aka GIP :^). I am your 15th cousin thrice removed; our connection given by Geni is through the Neville family. My great-grandmother was a Morris so I also have an interest in Morris family history (but have not been able to trace that line back from the US to Europe yet). I am also a curator. I want to affirm that you are indeed entangled in the Big Tree, and that many of us are working hard (incredibly hard, 24 hours a day) to straighten out this tree, merge the duplicates, separate out the incorrect attachments, and develop well-documented sourcing and biographical information for each of our common ancestors in the Big Tree.

We curators really APPRECIATE people like you who have worked diligently to research your family history and who take pride in its integrity. That is exactly what we are striving for. It actually seems possible now, under Noah Tutak's leadership of Geni, that an integrated and comprehensive shared family tree might just be possible. We are collaboratively moving in that direction.

I understand your frustration--we have all felt that frustration!--and all I can say is to trust in the process and to help in any way that you are able. Information will be lost in the merging, certainly, but after we have established and locked down the Master Profile relationships (which will begin in a few weeks), then our collaborative task will be to build the informational side of each profile. And that's where your excellent research skills will be of great help. The more data you can provide about each profile, the richer it will be for all of us.

I still don't understand the mysterious messages you mention in your original post (did they come from particular people or were they anonymous??) but now that you understand the mission of Geni, I hope that you will join the effort. Hopefully, it will be worth it and we will have an unmatchable collaborative genealogical database.

9/12/2010 at 11:50 PM

and your STILL doing it after everybody has been telling you to stop. these profiles you are unmerging arent even yours

Sep 12, 2010 8:32 AM
Reverted by Robert Morris: Lúcia Pilla Damasio merged Eleanor Plantagenet into Eleanor Plantagenet, Queen of Castile.
Sep 12, 2010 8:31 AM
Reverted by Robert Morris: Lúcia Pilla Damasio merged Alfonso Sanchez into Alfonso VIII Sanchez.
Sep 12, 2010 8:31 AM
Lúcia Pilla Damasio merged Eleanor Plantagenet into Eleanor Plantagenet, Queen of Castile.
Sep 12, 2010 8:31 AM
Lúcia Pilla Damasio merged Alfonso Sanchez into Alfonso VIII Sanchez.

Showing all 16 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion