• Join - It's Free

A New Curator Policy Observation #1

Started by Private User on Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Related Projects:

This discussion has been closed by an administrator.
Showing 1-30 of 48 posts

Geni curators should have no right to take control over another user's work (a profile managed by an active user) by making it a Master Profile.

Private User

) If this is a general rule you would like to implement - you need to send your request to Geni.

2) if it is related to a particular profile where you think you have lost control over profile you have added, you should specify it.

Not a Geni Curator but I'm on here enough to answer this question.

The Master Profile (MP) designation signifies the standard, most comprehensive and accurate profile for a given person.
You're work is still recorded in the revisions tab as to not take away your contributions and work.

There are many reasons to have MP profiles.

The best reason is to show that this profile is well researched and is reasonably complete. Considered the most accurate information to date anywhere online, though mistake could still be included once better sources are available.

This is the World Family Tree and most all data Public and up for Public discussion. I know it can sometimes feel intrusive the closer the relationships are to you. Not all our Ancestors are "ours". Private trees are great for personal research but Geni is a Public Tree. To resolve issues you could kindly initiate a conversation with said person and work out issues or escalation with Geni per their Policy. Here are the main reasons MP exists.

https://www.geni.com/projects/Geni-Master-Profile-best-practices/28084

Thank you Annber for a detailed and very precise response.

That was a very nice post, Amber. Thank you.

To add a couple things...

1) When we make a profile a Master Profile, we do not become the only people "controlling" it. The managers are still the managers, and other users can still work on the profile. The only exception is locked profiles, and those are extremely rare.

2) Sometimes users are upset when we lock fields, but we only do that in cases where there is consistent confusion or inaccurate edits, or where we are absolutely certain that the fields are correct and cannot be improved upon. (I personally lock cited, complete fields on profiles I curate.) But if a field is locked with inaccurate or incomplete info, you can (and should!) contact the curator and let us know so we can update the fields.

3) Curators are imperfect, and sometimes we do make mistakes or wrong decisions. We're generally happy to fix those situations, but if you think a curator has done something inappropriate and isn't responsive to your feedback, you can always write to misconduct@geni.com for assistance. That's a much, much more effective approach than a discussion thread, especially since Geni management don't usually follow these public threads.

May I second Jadranka's compliments to Annber and also congratulate Annber for a most insightful and accurate summation of the situation.

Thanks also to Ashley "through the eyes of a Curator" and it also contains useful insights too.

I see a lot of demagogy based on opinions. You could write a book justifying what you do, but that doesn't change the fact that you take over the full control of a profile that you didn't create. John, tapping other curators backs is not a topic of this discussion, feel free to create your own curator of the month discussion.

This is not a rule that I would like to implement, it is a basic respect to another user that I would like to implement.

Hi Branko, I am a little surprised, given the length of time you have been a Geni user that you have only just discovered and MP on your area of the tree. I would point you to read the message above from Amber Lynn Collins who is NOT a curator but knows her stuff it seems..

I simiply emphasise that an active user does not lose control when a profile is made MP unless the fields have been locked. In these circumstances please do contact the Curator in question with your information.

We're a friendly, helpful bunch of people.
Wishing you luck researching your family tree.

Terry (in Oxfordshire)

Private User: Which of "your" profiles has been made MP, please? How did it harm you, please?

I am sorry that you are disappointed by the MP feature, and I know that we won't change your mind about its value. I respect that you have your own opinion.

But we need to stick to facts, and for the benefit of others reading, I want to stress that it's simply not true that an MP means that curators "take over the full control of a profile that you didn't create." As stated above, managers and even non-managers can still work on an MP the same way they would any other profile. It's literally not possible for us to remove managers from MPs outside our Family Groups. The managers lose no rights when an MP is made. The only exception to that is locked profiles, which are a miniscule percentage of MPs.

It sounds like perhaps there's a fully locked MP that you'd like to work on and can't. If the curator is not responsive to you, I again encourage you to write to the e-mail address above for assistance.

It harms me by disrespecting users and their research. It sends a message: hey, you are not capable taking care of the profile that you created, we will do it for you... because we know better than you. Terry made an comment here based on an assumption that that "I have only now discovered and MP...which is not only incorrect, but it is also disrespectful, implying that I am ignorant. " I didn't keep record of all profiles of mine that were made MP, but I will find an example.

How does it harm a curator to contact the profile manager and ask, hey is it okay if I made this profile a MP?

I am not disappointed by the MP feature, I am disappointed by how, and why, a few curators use this feature.

Branko, I completely understand you and share the same perspective.

Hi Private User

Thank you for getting more specific, although I still don’t really understand the problem. Are you finding curators unresponsive? Are you unable to edit MPs you manage or contribute to?

In my tree areas, and likely in yours, because that’s the nature of names, I liberally curate profiles so profiles cannot be mismerged. Would you prefer we “not” work to avert a profile crash?

Personally I find it unreasonable to be averting a "crash" that didn't happen on a profile that has an active manager, that is not very likely to have a crash in the future and until "crash" actually happened a couple of times. There are some profiles that need curating while most other's don't. I absolutely understand that Pablo Picasso's profile needs a curator. Most curators that I work with do respect my point of view even if they don't necessarily agree with it. I thank all of them for respecting my wish. If somebody makes an incorrect merge I will let them know about it myself. If something like that keeps happening, I might ask a curator to MP the profile. I believe that a curator shouldn't curate another user's profile based on an assumption, before consulting the profile manager and getting an approval to do so.

Thank you, Shia!

Hi Private User

We are obviously working in different areas and with different tree issues. I’m in the historic space (before 1850) with multiple managers, including many inactive ones, populated by GEDCOM uploads, and often with few details. Mismerges are constant. I’m working on disentangling two or three at the moment; and if they happened once, they will happen again (and they do).

So, this use of the Master profile is not at all relevant to your point. After all, we probably are not mis merging Pablo Picasso.

What profile are you talking about, then?

Making a profile a Master Profile simply means that it is the one that should be respected if there is a conflicting data issue. Making an MP automatically adds the maker as a curator but it doesn't give them any special ownership of the profile. Being a manager doesn't either. It simply puts you on the notification list if a message is generated about that profile.

People need to stop seeking power and realize that we are here to create the largest family tree inclusive of every human being who has ever existed (with no duplications).

Sorry Marsha, you are incorrect. Making an profile a Mater Profile does give that curator more powers and ownership over a profile than the ordinary user who created that profile has. By joining in to this conversation and making your statement you are establishing your power over me. If you wanted to prove that you are not interested in power, you could've said that it really doesn't matter if we curate a profile or not, since we are not looking for power and control.

A few weeks ago Thomas Föhl, A Geni Pro Curator, changed Margareta Morgenstern, born Gosebruch, a profile that I created, into a Master Profile. I sent him a message, politely asking him to undo that action, which he didn't consider important to answer, nor to follow.

Thanks guys. Awesome responses. You all work hard and appreciate you!

I'm sorry you're upset. Seems the issue is you'd prefer if the Curator message all the managers of said profile and discuss making your relatives a MP beforehand?

Anyone on Geni can work on a MP or a Non-MP with few exceptions like locked fields or profile under the 150 year mark that are private. Geni members become active and inactive all the time as well as Curators. I work on MP that the Curator is no longer on here. Other Curators have to take over those when they do become active or hot profiles again,getting merged or documented. I'm all over Geni, in everyone's tree searching... linking and connecting.

Myself, for example will be super active and maybe not do any Genealogy for awhile. At this time I have 65 merge issues but cannot be resolved because my second cousin doesn't want to merge people under the 150 year mark. So I "get" how frustrating some policies are. I wasn't asked if my 5th Grandfather was made into a MP but I saw it as an opportunity instead,to gain the most accurate information and have help.

As stated before,no one can steal your contributions as there're recorded in the profiles. I've contacted so many profiles or started Public Discussions and received zero response. Getting others involved leads to wonderful discoveries.

MP focus and highlight that particular person and could help bring a relative or someone who knows that line better and have pictures, documents or heirlooms. I'm not saying there won't be negative experiences with users or disagreements. I had a disagreement the other day,messaged the person and we both felt we should leave that up to Geni to decide. Messaged a Curator I liked and came up with the best option. Some profiles are a mega merge nightmare and need a Curator. Maybe your relative is a prominent person in history and that needs recognition and highlighted.

I can understand why you're upset as someone whose done hard work on a profile like my Grandmother that took 2 years to straighten out a trainwreck.

I value people like you who work hard on research and being active to contribute to this wonderful hobby that we mutually enjoy. I hope you can see the benefits of MP and collaborating on them. 😊

What I am finding interesting is that a policy is being proposed without a due diligence to ascertain if the policy is warranted or desired.

Most curators that I work with do respect my point of view even if they don't necessarily agree with it.

So, then, I take it you do “not” have a specific example of what you are calling “discourtesy.”

Is there a “on behalf of” example, then?

I will also note:

It is the explicit intent of curation to protect the researcher(s) input from corruption. It is exactly the opposite of disrespect: it is honoring and preserving the work done.

Additionally, we now have the ability to request Master Profiles in a fashion similar to any other request. (I do not think we always did.). I use it for active, single manager profiles, and recent profiles.

But, aside from disambiguating and meeting Geni’s mission as described, the reality is that I am requested by members to make the profiles they have worked on into MPs.

You may wish to rephrase your Policy Observation # 1 to better meet more Geni manager desires from the volunteer team.

Isn't the Thomas Föhl case an example of disrespect? I have never used the word discourtesy. You putting words in my mouth that I didn't say is a an example of curator disrespect.

If you feel a curator has disrespected you, you should e-mail misconduct@geni.com to ask Geni management for help. Posting publicly about a specific curator is usually not a constructive approach.

Curators -- a majority of whom have full-time jobs or other obligations, and all of whom are volunteers -- receive an enormous number of Geni messages, and it can take us a while to get back to people. We don't mean any harm by it.

I could not find Margareta Morgenstern, born Gosebruch, but I am almost certain she is not in Branko's family group.

As per comment of not getting an answer, I wander what the message said.
Respect goes both ways.

Are you aware that I had the Customer Service deleting my profiles about a year ago? I sent them messages they never answered, so I started discussions. It took a few days of useless curator advice and attacks on me, but eventually deleting stopped. I provided a bunch of examples of deleted profiles, but nobody seemed to care, they kept asking me for more and accusing me of not following "policies". History repeats.
If you were genuinely interested in resolving a problem , you wouldn't gang against somebody making a suggestion. Would it hurt you to say: Thank you for your suggestion. We will consider it on our next meeting."? I am amazed on how many of you are so busy, but have time to belittle somebody.

Look at Anton Mihanovic, Jadra.

Showing 1-30 of 48 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion