Curators merging is insane

Roger,
the only way to keep a clean tree is to have a local copy in an other system.
I managed to export a gedcom copy to MinSläkt before the big merging disaster started (one copy per week from 201002).
I am very happy that I did, since now I can check my input, sources etc when correcting data, corrcting trees and doing merges.

Knut: I do have a local copy in my genealogy application/database. So far I have more than 18000 people in it. I do not trust to have it only on a hosting web site.

Since I notice that I'm not the only one not fancy with the curator system, why don't the Geni staff let the programmers add an option in the settings so that it would be possible to choose interference from curators? That should be an easy thing for them to program. It could be a checkbox named "Allow curators do merging in my tree" or something similar.

Adam,

You were not removed as a manager of any profile by any curator. As a curator, I do not have the rights to do so, nor do I even know how when it comes down to it.

Yes, Roger, I do notice the stampede of users agreeing with you. :)

How long have you been on Geni? When I became active on the site, the "one world tree" was a mess. Now, not as much.

This is due to the volunteer (as in not paid) efforts of the curators and the enhancements to the application geni has been introducing in a rapid development environment.

If you have suggestions to geni for programmatic changes that as specific as the one you mentioned, raise a help ticket, help@geni.com. Then you can track the ticket and its progress with those that have the ability to assist your issues.

I feel you being sarcastic EIH.

Only in the first line. The rest of my post was 100% sincere and meant to convey information rather than respond to invective.

So Roger, I'm still waiting for your response. Are you in or out? Do you want your profiles to contribute to the collaborative knowledge base (and be merged into master profiles), or do you want to go elsewhere and have a standalone tree that only you yourself has built?

Those are your choices at this point. Geni is not going to change the system to accommodate standalone trees--that has been made clear by Noah Tutak. Geni has made a full commitment to an integrated collaborative family tree model, and Geni is implementing that model through a system which includes many collaborative tools for users to use (especially Pro users) as well as the leadership of a group of curators to help administer the merging and profile building in the collaborative effort.

So I think you've been told everything, and you just need to make a decision. There's no need to keep complaining about it.

Or no use complaining about it?
My primary reason for joining Geni was so that my family could read the tree on the net. My secondary reason was to find now living relatives by the matching system. Which I actually did. I discovered some really nice relatives in Minnesota, and we even merged our trees. But that's all I wanted. I didn't want my tree to be merged without my permission.

I feel that you are saying that on those conditions, I better decide to be out of Geni. Is that correct?

Personally I'm saying that your concerns can be best addressed by help@geni.com.

Roger, I'm just being very honest with you. I'm saying that Geni is clearly a place where the collaborative, shared tree is the model, and this is not a site for independent family trees. In addition to your newly-discovered Minnesota relatives, you will also discover many others--all of those who share management with you on the historic profiles, for example. At this point, since your tree is already partially merged into the "Big Tree" on Geni, there is no way to keep your remaining public profiles from being merged in with their duplicates en route to becoming master proflles. I'm asking you to consider the benefits of this system. I'd even like for you to contribute your efforts toward this system. But with or without you (and preferably *with* you, and your cooperation, the merging will go on, because that is how Geni now functions. It's really as simple as that.

I actually disagree with Erica, because I don't think you'll get any response from Geni help that you haven't already received, and we are being much more bluntly honest with you than Geni's diplomatic customer service reps will be.

The bottom line is that Geni's new and revised system, started in late August, is working, and working well. Geni is not going to change course because of a few disgruntled users, because your opinions are outweighed by the much more numerous voices of the people who are happy to be part of this system. That's just the economic truth of the situation, since Geni is at base a for-profit corporation, and its direction has been user driven. Geni has found a distinctive niche and is developing and constantly enhancing the system and technologies to make this collaborative knowledge-building happen. And it *is* happening. I suspect that if you spoke directly with Noah Tutak, Geni's President, he would tell you what I've seen him tell others, which is what I'm trying to convey to you: If this system is not what you're looking for, and if you disagree with it, then Geni is probably not the right genealogy site for you. But if you decide to stay and participate, you will hopefully gain a great deal from the process (like having wonderfully-researched master profiles for your historic ancestors).

I do wish it were possible to separate my tree from the forest, in order to work on it. It's been helpful having the forest to guide me, but I get lost in it at times and I have to work on my tree elsewhere, as I have trouble finding some of the people I initially added to my tree before it became part of the Big Tree. Is there a way to do this I haven't discovered yet?

Linda, you can do a search and look under "Managed by You" or "Connected to You" in the search results tab.

Pam,
you sound very "Bushish"!
I thought Geni was a collective project, building on individual efforts.
Of course lots of problems were created when the rules were altered without notice.
I have been totally busy with merging and data fixing - very little effort to increase the tree. On other hand there are lots of things happening in other parts of the tree.
It would be valuble to know your opinion, as a scientificly educated person, on the three conecting
Cerdic, king of the West Saxons
with
llus of Troy, King of Troy

If it is correct it is a scientific brake through – but I would like to go through the sources before it was entered in my tree.

It would be valuble

People tend to be sensitive about family.

Merging may shock many. I was lucky that when I started with Geni, I knew that the GEDCOM from which I started my tree remained safely copied on my computer. Reassuring too was that the earliest merges I encountered were deep in history and added far more facts than I knew.

For users whose immediate ancestors are merged first or who see incorrect data, such security may be shaken.

In recent months, master profiles have bolstered my conviction that unifying our records will be possible. Geni's tree resembles Wikipedia in its infancy; as it matures, it will ripen. I hope that as many as possible contribute, for many are the descendants of our common ancestors.

Curators I trust to act as Wikipedia's administrators do; with circumspection and precision. I have never had personal cause to doubt that they do.

As for Cerdic and the Trojans, Knut notes the claim's incredibility. Geni contains many mythological ancestors, who all know to be ahistorical. Yet, at least until we do know the true parents of real ancestors who made claim to come from ancients or gods, it may be worth preserving their false trees. They reveal what mattered to our real ancestors, and so tell us about their dreams.

Knut: that's one good example of many, when I in my first post said that my tree after merging of curators, now contains a lot of false data. And who wants that in their tree? If curators have the freedom of merging, then they also should be responsible of cleaning up the big tree. And that also means that curators must have the possibility to disconnect some branches with false data. Do they have that possibility? How is it possible for a few curators to clean up such a gigantic tree this is going to be?

I disagree with Grant. Mythological ancestors should not be a part of Geni.

If you are interested in mythological ancestors, then it should be an own application in Geni, not in the "big tree".

Curators do have the responsibility of cleaning up the big tree. They are doing so; it is an immense task, and welcome your help.

Mythological ancestors need not be a part of a large project. I have never added them and never would. Nevertheless, they are interesting. Documentary genealogy, as all traditional genealogy is, tells us about what people believed, who they thought were their parents -- it is anthropological. Many traditional genealogies are false: children were illegitimate, or adoption was treated like biological parentage. Children may have been disowned or subject to damnatio memoriae. We have to be very careful about our assumptions. Until we know better, it's safer to err on the side of inclusiveness and add a note, "traditionally ascribed as parent of X, but proven otherwise by source Y"

Genetic genealogy is biological. I hope that we add it. It may clear up many mysteries. Yet Geni ought to add more complex relationship features, such as adoption and guardianship, no later than when it adds DNA. Real life is very messy, and that's part of the joy of genealogy.

I should add that erring on the side of inclusiveness prevents future researchers from mistakenly claiming a new discovery. Instead, they see that their 'discovery' was made and was wrong.

Jarl,
my first estimate was the the curators would not be able to coop with
all the faults in their lifetime. And that is due to the constant inflow of faulty merges from new users. So my point were to lock the Masterprofile, when they were correct and start to build correct master-trees.

@Roger

wonder if i am the one to blame,for many of your issues.

all these hundreds of douplicates in the big tree,are just beeing cleand up.
if you go in to any profile,and look up the : resolve data conflict
you will find all the profiles names and dates there.
when the lines are clean,then we also can go in and give them the right names and dates.
and give them,what is right according to history.
and not some funny idea some one just have added.

so Roger ,even tho you are a part of these merges.
you can contribute by helping out with these things :-)

help us all,to get the history right :-)

Ok. I get your point, Knut. And as you said, I wonder if the curators will coop? Merging is a fun and useful function, and just takes a second to do. But all the cleaning up afterwards could probably take weeks, if it was a big tree merged. I think curators should clean up before merging next tree. They must be responsible for their actions. Or?

Roger, the curators ARE busy disconnecting all the faulty conections, as are the rest of us. I myself am constantly working on the anglo saxons including Cerdic mentioned above and am disconnecting wrong connections. it is a big job but as time goes on it will get much better. when i joined geni in 2009 the big tree was MUCH worse then it is now. But thanks to the immense efforts of everyone including myself it is getting alot better. Curators and master profiles are making a gigantic difference, and wrong connections can and WILL be fixed. it is only a matter of time.

How can I disconnect wrong connections, not being a curator? I must have missed that function. Please let me know.

go to relationships tab in tree view, wait for it to load, disconnect wrong parents

Great! Thanks, Jason. Now I can disconnect my nobility branch if I like. :-)
Maybe I will stay with Geni a little while longer. :-)

good. hope you can be a valuable member of our community

This was a good discussion--thanks, everyone. And Roger, I hope you will join us. But be sure to PLEASE not disconnect any relationships that are correct if there are other people involved, because in doing so you would cut other people off from their ancestors.

And Knut, I have no idea what you mean by "Bushish." And I don't know anything about the Cerdic-Ilos part of the tree, so I will defer to someone else on that. We curators tend to find our niches and work on certain areas, and that is not within my realm of expertise in any way.

I guess Knut is reffering to President Bush speak from 2001 when he said "You're either with us or against us...".