Something has been bothering me for a while about Public and Private profiles, so I have looked up the following on the Geni guidelines.
The guidelines state that:-
• Living people and minors are private by default. You can make members of your Family Group private if you prefer. Only users who are within the Family Group can view private profiles.
• Deceased people are normally public. Any user can view public profiles. Geni's guidance is that profiles for people born in the past 150 years can be made private with no explanation necessary, however profiles for people born before that should be public. If for some reason you do not feel comfortable with a profile more than 150 years old being public, consider adding less information or do not add the profile at all (private profiles "gum up" the historical tree and require other users, who cannot view them, to create duplicates)
I have no problems with the first clause, but wish curators to consider revising some aspects of the first half of the second.
I fully accept that, “Deceased people are normally public (and) Any user can view public profiles,” but believe the application of, “Geni's guidance is that profiles for people born in the past 150 years can be made private with no explanation necessary,” has flaws.
If deceased people are normally public as stated above, the term “CAN BE” infers that the profile manager or a close relative also has the additional option of requesting privacy. We have all discovered that when a birth year is even presumed to be less than 150 years ago, privacy is presently being given automatically, whilst it is the ability to be made public that “CAN BE” requested. That is a direct reversal of what the rules indicate.
I agree that the addition of the words “no explanation necessary” were intended to avoid more recent family secrets being aired, but Geni management may not have considered that when combined with the secrecy that the 150 year privacy option offers, the ‘no explanation’ clause also gives any profile manager the freedom to hide submissions that deviate from factual evidence. It can therefore be used as a legitimate way for a profile manager to conceal alternative interpretations of findings from anyone better informed who may wish to enter into constructive discussions. I would argue, that any ruling which allows the concealment of submissions and use the privacy clause to effectively block further input from others, is not in the spirit of collaboration, nor is it in the interests of the wider membership, and therefore the ruling needs revision.
Regards Roy C Grant
