Grant,
I loved your point about: "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" ...
And also the importance of an anthropological approach. For instance, both of us have looked into the Cherokee tree, and learned, I believe, that the concept of "family" was not quite the same as the current Western model. War captives, ex-slaves, etc. were adopted and given full lineage rights.
Janice,
As extra copies of ancestor profiles reduce down to one and are made as correct as possible, in fact the relation-to-self will become more accurate and more precisely revealed and traced. To expect a moving database to reflect more tangential paths in a fixed and defined is unrealistic ... also, why is it needed? We are fortunate to have the Geni algorithm as a tool. I really don't want to sit there and recalculate all the time!
As an example in my own family lines, by helping to clean up, I am discovering that I descend from the same progenitors in three or four (or more!) different strands. Surely that will result in different paths depending on my start points?
Is everyone clear that in "one world tree" you can choose your view and area of concentration? I sometimes think users are overwhelmed by the complexity of the views available in the application.
Well, that can be simplified, as well as by using personal filters to better focus on your own historical interest areas.
Since the study of history calls on the work of everyone who has come before as well as those working now, I don't quite understand why anyone would want anything *but* "one world tree."