Family group members

Started by Randy Schoenberg on Saturday, June 9, 2012


Profiles Mentioned:

Showing 1-30 of 52 posts
6/9/2012 at 10:13 PM

I need people to help fill out the Family Group Members list. Go to and tell me what your count is and maybe you will make the list.

6/9/2012 at 10:36 PM

You'd think with a large, sprawling family like mine, I should make the list. But no, that would be just half-siblings and step-siblings ;)

Private User
6/9/2012 at 10:38 PM

I have the system set on '2nd cousins and closer' and those of my Beloved Husband on 'immediate family' and 'immediate inlaws' and i must say, I am very proud to have a sav/fety-rate of my lif/ve-data of .......


and the amount of 'Removed lovers, oh sorry Relatives' is only ONE !

So I realy expect me not to come in one of your lists, or do you plan to add also an amount of geni-users who have a score of ZERO (0) for a particular distinction?


6/9/2012 at 10:53 PM

Zero family group members might seem like an ideal number in some families, but it would be pretty odd for a genealogy site ;)

6/9/2012 at 11:23 PM

It's a little bit special with this genealogy site, as the parade goal for it is "The World Tree". There are two extremes ZERO (0) group members versus almost every one back to Lucy in Africa and everyone active on Geni has to chose some level of who to collaborate or be "relative" to.

For the projects one has to be very open and some, referring to the "ruels" or Geni-promises years ago, does not like that as if a profile 100-150 years ago with 12 children is only a "relative of mine".

There are problems, of course, with all the younger and living persons/profiles and in the case of some new projects I've seen I must say I'm a bit surprised. E.g. is the Geni-project about 2012 Olympic games in London. It's absoloutely only young and living people active there. But how to treat them as "realtives" or "family"? How to treat a Goldmedal winner 2012 on Geni?? Shall all the profiles be private? Are they in that case of any geneaological interest? It might be if it's a son or a daughter of a manager, but it would like odd if profiles who died 100 years ago are closed due to the "5-generation promise" from Geni and maybe 1 open profile for a living person without no connections backwards. Or just private profiles.

6/10/2012 at 3:11 AM

I have 84 people in my family group.
Rina Talmore

Private User
6/10/2012 at 5:18 AM

Agneta Åhrberg : as long as only direct family-members are managers of the profiles of living FAMOUS and they decide to make an URL on a project-page to their personal websites, I can see no harm in making projects for National Medal-winners. So I try to invite only people of the Countries involved and who I know by good collaboration or personaly to help me documentating the contributions of that particular Olympic-team or nation to the 2012-summer games:

you like to help with that challenge? would be great if I can set-up an project-paragraph for SWEDEN.

groetUnujMu =jeannette from holland, europe.

6/10/2012 at 5:46 AM

I have 186 people in my Family Group. It is set to the maximum.

6/10/2012 at 5:49 AM

Jeanette: As you say, the direct family members must decide about the living profiles. Whether famous or not, I belive. The link to the project "since 1850" shows a project with participants that the profile owners must be kind of proud of and it is of course a bigger willingness to keep the profiles open to others but close relatives.

I looked at your project (the linked) and I must confess: I'm an absouloutely nobody in sports and sportmen off all kind. I know one name and that's Carl Lewis. I just loved to see him run. I have no sources, no books about sports and I only sometimes read the sportnews. I am totally convinced I cannot contribute to any sport-project geneaological. Sorry : )

6/10/2012 at 6:40 AM

I believe that public persons living or dead should have public profiles on Geni. This would include politicians, sports figures military and basically anyone who is even a little bit famous. I made a profile for A J Foyt and his family. they are all well known and have their own websites so there is no need for them to be private

6/10/2012 at 7:40 AM

I agree with you Eldon. "Famous" or people living on kind of being public, having websites and so on ougth to be public on Geni. I don't know how much is under "copyright" from a specific website and if not anything told about the geneaolgocal matters it might be because they don't want thos to be a part of their "public life". Sometimes I do recognice today "famous" names but don't know if the living persons wants to be connected to their ancestors. (E.g. I found an evil murderer in a wellknown swedish family and noone of them says anything but "O yes, I have heard of him. Lucky it's not on our branch of the family." But as far as I can see there is no different branches! They've just erazed the person/murderer from the family. The sibblings are here on Geni. He is erazed from the official sources and it's only 80 years, about two generations away. He will not become a "Family group member" for more than 80 years more I think.

6/10/2012 at 8:46 AM

260 for me.

6/10/2012 at 8:59 AM

Ok Hatte and Eldon I added you. I have lots of "family group" members, as Geni defines them, because I always invite other users to join my family group so I can see their tree and help them build it and merge their profiles. So far, there is no other way to do this. But Geni has a 1,000 limit on invited family group members, so I have hit that wall and have to cull people in order to add new ones. The ones above 1,000 are users who are automatically in my max family group (4 generations up and down, I think).

6/10/2012 at 9:19 AM

I have 108 (real) + 103 (forced) = 211

Private User
6/10/2012 at 12:45 PM

I have 199

6/11/2012 at 6:06 AM

As ridiculous as this might sound to Americans, most of my near relatives don't have Internet access. So my tally is quite low! Only 24. Once again, I strike out with the numbers. :)

Private User
6/11/2012 at 7:26 AM


6/11/2012 at 7:46 AM


8/26/2012 at 2:27 AM

I have 387 people in my Family Group and 1783 people in my Family tree

Only 121 for me

8/26/2012 at 3:53 AM


8/26/2012 at 3:16 PM


8/26/2012 at 3:43 PM

Tree = 1260
blood = 287
group = 101

Private User
7/25/2013 at 12:33 AM

I have 342, do I make the list?

7/25/2013 at 1:39 AM

Wow, I'm up to 55 now. I'm surprised by that.

7/25/2013 at 2:57 AM

1201 persons here...

Jaanus Luuse - how about you?

7/25/2013 at 3:44 AM

I decided to throw all out. 5 people in my familygroup and they are also not permanent.

7/25/2013 at 4:43 AM

142 for me.

7/25/2013 at 5:27 AM

I have 138

7/25/2013 at 5:47 AM


Showing 1-30 of 52 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion