I don't know what is reight, and what is not.
It is when you are a pro user possible to disconnect a profile from the tree,
but shall we do so in order to:
1. maybe force some uncoorperative managers to accept a request on collaboration
2. get a nicer and clean tree - more correct tree
I don't think it is nice - but
If some manager does not want to cooperate then I guess it is safe to assume that he does not want to be part of the big tree. Then it is acceptable to disconnect this person's profiles from the big tree. However, if a merge was done by this person, then maybe it would be wise to try and contact the person first.
I have encountered a problem where a profile belonging to a manager like this has two sets of parents, one set his own and another set linked to the big tree. Because I do not collaborate with the manager I am unable to "unlink" the profile from the big tree.
I see you are not a pro yourself, but as a pro it is possible to unconnect two profiles, if the profile in question only have one connection to the bigtree, and you unconnect that, the profile is so to say fallen of the tree.
I don't think we shall use this method without trying to worn the manager first
and be very concios to use it. If it spread out and is being used without great caution it may lead to total anarchy;-((
Yes, I agree with you that we shall always try to cooperate (which is Geni's main idea), but when a manager has not responded to any of dozens of merge requests within a few months time, I usually consider it a lost cause and disconnect all profiles manager by this person to clean up the tree as you said.
As I said, I was unable to unlink the profile because I don't have rights to edit the profile. It is only connected to the big tree through the duplicate set of parents.
The profile is here: http://www.geni.com/people/Axel-Nilsson-Posse/305484046960007109
As I was mentioned this before; there should be some kind of a mark/note alongside the manager's name about his activity and also his willingness of merges status. If someone doesn’t wants his profiles to be merged we should not forced him to do it, the main problem with that is , once someone did merge before with one manger the tree is linked to that manger even if that manger didn't wanted to do that at all.
Günther and Ofir: my practice is to only merge with those profiles managed by people whose names I recognize as partners in the big tree. By partners, I mean people who have already merged a lot of profiles and are inextricably interwoven.
Since I am a very active merger, if I see a new name arise, I am quite skeptical that someone just went to Hot Matches and tried to merge ALL the profiles together--and many of those people just want their profiles to be left alone.
When I use Hot Matches, I only start a merge with people with whom I'm already collaborating, to be safe.
If I find a family tree that matches mine, that has good information, and with whom I'd LIKE to partner, I write to that manager and ask if we can work together. I never just click on a link to start stacking their profiles on top of mine. Doing that is what has caused many of these problems, I think.
Did you mean specifically on some profiles or just in general?
As I've wrote before I don’t use the hot matches unless I'm collaborating with the other managers.
I also send messages for new managers, and if they reply ask them about merging our information together. (if someone else hasn’t done that before me)
@Pamela as I understand you, you are talking about managers outside the tree!
I never try to contact them.
I think what Ofir and I is talking of is Managers/poofile already in the tree, but not merged into reight place, and here is a problem with noncooperative managers, and it is those profiles I think we must find a solution on, I think many allready just unconnect them, but would that be reight, and how much efford do we have to do before doing so.