Adopt a Collaborator

Started by David Embrey on Wednesday, April 28, 2010


Profiles Mentioned:

Showing 61-90 of 95 posts
5/4/2010 at 9:46 AM

Judi, the woman who has been helpful to you in the past is Private User . It's nice to give them credit for being helpful.

Bjorn - really since being forced into this collaboration - my tree is non-existent now -

this is all that remains of over a 1000 profiles I entered by hand -

I would not dump nor turn over anything that was not connected to the BIG TREE already

No one was going to massacre Davids Scotland lines that I had to pay to have researched - in the late 1970's and early 1980's

No one was going to Massacre my dedicated research to the Emery, Edington, Hardesty, McKee and Vandeventer line as has happened to the Smith-Hinckley and allied lines -

5/4/2010 at 1:07 PM

All ...

For the record, none of us is perfect and their certainly are plenty of stones to throw, I for one have made plenty of mistakes. The people that we should be appropriately upset with are those like Rulene, et al, who will not involve themselves at all cleaning the mess.

While Judi chooses to keep collaboration to a minimum, I have found her to be almost masochistic in the amount of time she puts in. Also, she's been very detailed with research.

Being pulled into the big tree isn't exactly a new issue, she is being honest and STILL working with us, plenty of others have taken their toys and gone home, i.e. Arthur Thorstensen.

We can all learn a little from how Daniel B Williams approach the merge problems he found yesterday.


I guess I am just a fool -

But I was taught that you documented and documented and documented that there was never enough documentation - - that if you challenged, changed information - you documented WHY you did it -

Most of my research was done through library loan when i was a member of the New England Historical Genealogical Society and national Genealogical Library and also when my local library refused to order census microfilm because the librarian/director did not and would not learn how to do it and because he had the conception that genealogy was frivolous and did not belong in our local library he went to the point of disposing of what little genealogy books there was even to biographical county histories; that others had donated or the library had bought back in the early 1970's - I either bought microfilm back then (1980's) and i joining what was then AGLL (American genealogical lending library) which eventually through mergers or acquisitions did not care for the small fry of the genealogical world - became Heritage Quest

I started out on a 2 floppy Kaypro 5 1/4 disk computer & no hard driver or internet - I bought from Evertons - it took me over 10 years to computerize my files I had researched from 1976-1986 when i got my first computer my next computer I bought in 1997 from Everton's - and it was the "LEMON" - they forgot to hook up the 5 1/4 drive they said i did not need but how do you get all your data from 5 1/4 disks to 3 1/2 and onto hard drive???? They wanted me to pull out the screwdrivers, pliers ect and hook up via phone - I have lost vast amounts of data since 1997 because of computer problems - I have lost Barron data that can never be replaced because I did not share the whole files down to today only the point of interest - Joesph Barron the Indian interpreter - - I have lost the transcription into paf of a 12 1/2 foot long by 3 foot wide of the Rumbarger family - -

Oh well - I just wanted a means to preserve work with my info other than having to constantly flip back and forth between 5-6 files - etc. - My children are not interested in any of it at present there are no aunts and uncles - in fact only 1 aunt out of 2 living and she is un-married so cares less about family history , no cousins interested either

5/4/2010 at 2:35 PM

Judi, if Bjorn doesn't mind, please have the Stacey Kohl profiles transferred to me. She and I are only about 8 generations apart, so we share many profiles in our tree. I may not be her closest relative who is an active Geni user, but I am most certainly the most active Geni user who is related to her.

Private User
5/4/2010 at 2:46 PM

That is OK for me, nothing is better than having some closer related maintaining them, but as I said we should also look for some close family member to take over their family profiles, including her selves.

Stacey have six invited users, but I don't know if any of them is active, but we should check it out.

Private User
5/4/2010 at 4:07 PM

Hey! what has happened here?
Isn't this a adopt a collaborator discussion thread?

I was about to say wow! that's collaboration with a big C to all the help Living P did for Richard N. I think it was very - v e r y - kind of you Living!

Then I got a headche of al the screaming

Good Night!

5/5/2010 at 4:45 AM

I agree, Susanna. I was trying to find a way to close down this thread, since it seriously headed down a rat hole. Maybe we can bring it back on track.

Still working to reduce merge issues for Gwyneth McNeil and Private User, but once I get to a point where I cannot help them any longer, due to my limited permissions, I will put out the call to help once again.


5/5/2010 at 6:44 AM

Going through Gwyneth's there's several managers who apparently have no collaborators, or none I collaborate with, does anyone know these people:

Private User
Susan ... Discussed above
Private User
Private User
Private User
Unknown Profile
Bernard Raimond Assaf

Private User

There's also a bunch of Kristal Amber Fawcett zombies.

5/5/2010 at 7:58 AM

Hi, I know one of those people. :) To explain, my wife's cousin (Larry Steven Roach) added his entire GEDCON database he had at to, but then when he started getting dozens of merge requests per day, he tried to keep up but gave up. So he quit geni, leaving me as the profile manager for thousands of people I never added and don't care to research independently. As I started getting the dozens and dozens of merge requests, I wasn't unchecking the "collaborate" box that is (quite evilly in my opinion) checked by default. So I ended up with all these collaborators I did not even know.

Genealogy for me has been a fun diversion. I started out going through a book my grandfather wrote--his recollections--as a way to try to put the family tree on paper. All the while there is a much bigger tree for my family ancestry on, but I was interested in seeing how my grandfather's story could be transformed into a tree. Slowly I started adding other people in my family, and when I talked with my wife's cousin about it, he joined in and added his entire database.

Anyway, I was not comfortable with the collaborator tool since I did not know any of the people I had accidentally (by not unchecking the collaborate box on a merge screen) collaborated with. So I removed all my collaborators. I continue to process merge requests a few at a time every few days or so, and I admit to having a huge back log of merge requests--but that's ok. For now I'm not so burned out on it yet, as my cousin in law got and as I see from this topic some others have become.

So far now one has tried to merge my close family line so it has not interfered with what I originally set out to do to track the Assaf line. So if you will all have patience with me, I'll get to your merge requests as a matter of curiosity for the barons, barbarians, kings, etc. that I now manage by inheritance.

One question I'd pose for you all though: when I'm faced with a merge request, how the heck should I decide which information to keep when there is a conflict? I didn't research the original profile I inherited, so I can't really trust that, but I can't really trust anyone else either more or less. I tend to default to going with the main profile, but then sometimes it has things that don't make sense--like the same last name & maiden name, or having no spaces after commas (like, "London,England" vs "London, England"). So I just pick and choose what to keep on a whim.

When I merge my profile in with the presumably Big Tree main profile, which has dozens of managers, am I changing the main profile if I choose different things to keep than the main profile? Or am I only changing my view of the main profile? I don't want to undo the hard work of others, but again it doesn't make sense to override my profile's information with main profile information that just seems plain wrong, without even independently researching which is right. So like I said, I jsut pick & choose on a whim. Probably that is screwing up the profile, but what else can I do? I'm not going to research independently.

Perhaps this is the point of having a collaborator--someone else may be interested in sorting out exact birth dates or birth locations or maiden names. I'm not, so when I do a merge, I just pick what looks best among options without research.

I suppose I can make a pledge to just pick the main profile's entries when a conflict exists, but then I feel a bit guilty for throwing out my cousin's research--then again I don't know how he got it, perhaps he copied it from someone else's huge tree on


Private User
5/5/2010 at 8:29 AM

How wonderful to hear from you Bernard!

I am one of the requesters =)
I think the best solution for you - as for all of us is to collaborate.
But if you still want to do all the merges by yourself it is ok too, especially as we now know the requests will get merged when you can.
(Maybe you could collaborate with a few that you trust?)

Regarding conflicting data.
I think, that when you merge a profile in the well known historic line, you can relay on the main profile, as it has been merged perhaps a couple of hundred times. If there is a big conflict, don't make a choice, leave it for the main manager to deal with or send a message to him/her and maybe you can sort it out together.
The facts you chose will effect the shown information for everybody.
If uncertain - leave it unsolved.
When it comes to commas and big letters and spaces I think changes is absolutely ok :-)

Thanks for writing!

5/5/2010 at 8:31 AM

Bernard, you can complete the merge without resolving the conflicting data. Some of the resolution are no-brainers, names spelled with CAPS vs non-caps, locations abbreviated vs spelled out, but dates conflict more than most of the other data. You can ignore resolving conflicts, and a merge issue will go to managers of the profile to resolve the conflicting data (you will be one of these managers, but it will also go to other managers to resolve, as well).


Private User
5/5/2010 at 8:40 AM

Hello, Bernard. It is good to hear from you. I've come across your cousin's name a few times as well. What David Embrey has suggested is excellent. :) I can't add on to anything else he's said, but I agree with him. Also, London, England looks far better than London,England. LOL I think you're on the right track.

5/5/2010 at 8:54 AM

Susanna, David & LP:

Ahhhhhh! So I don't HAVE to resolve all conflicts. Well then it is very simple for me: I'll ignore anything that requires independent research to resolve the conflict, at least for those barons and conquistadors and and stick to grammar goofs and common sense decisions.

Carole: I'd be happy to relinquish control of the managed ones. In fact, I will probably do that from now on after I process a merge. If cousin Steve didn't care enough about them to abandon them, I don't feel bad at all about letting the other profile's managers battle out the details without me. As far as picking a successor for those I am the main manager for, I will try to take that decision seriously and make sure I leave it in the hands of an active user.

Good advice all, thanks!

5/5/2010 at 10:19 AM


Put them in the hands of Private User as he has the most collaborators.

Private User
5/5/2010 at 10:20 AM

Nice to hear from you, - I am also one one them who have tried to send you requests. I was working fine with Larry when he suddenly disappeared in the middle of a tree merge.

The "normal" way people should react on a merge request is just do a quick check if this is the first in a line and trust that the requester have done the more detailed check and also do the final cleanup if he/she is the main profile manager.

If you at the same time accept collaboration you also stop further requests from that manager on the merge of the rest of that line. You should assume that this person by sending a requests also continue the work on that line.

I have partly given up maintaining "correct" values in the main profiles since so many does not respect the choices there, - even if it is a compromise based on a long discussion among a lot of managers, so until a stack merge is complete I don't bother correcting the values each time.

Private User
5/5/2010 at 10:28 AM

Kevin Lawrence Hanit, - I don't have most collaborators (1364), Henn Sarv have over the double, but mine is probably more worldwide and his major group are people from Estonia.

Carole (Erickson) Pomeroy,Vol. Curator - we are talking about 4,882 profiles added by <private> roach (Roach), - you cannot transfer them one by one, but Geni have tools for that.

5/5/2010 at 10:36 AM


I knew that most of Henn's are people from Estonia.

I was one of the few people that Larry enabled to merge his profiles. If you go to MY profile you will see me listed as "a relative" of his, because this was done by him joining my Family Group.

If you go again to HIS profile, click on the Family Members list, and go to the last two pages, you will find ALL of the people he added this way. Perhaps we could make your life easier, by you agreeing to Collaborate, with those of us, who already had Larry's trust?

Private User
5/5/2010 at 1:43 PM

The best would be to convince Larry to rejoin Geni since he have the best knowledge of his profiles.

Serafína Liora
5/4/10 at 2:35 PM

Judi, if Bjorn doesn't mind, please have the Stacey Kohl profiles transferred to me. She and I are only about 8 generations apart, so we share many profiles in our tree. I may not be her closest relative who is an active Geni user, but I am most certainly the most active Geni user who is related to her.

I will only ask Geni to transfer to either Bjorn which I already done - or to Gene Daneill4

Stacey's tree is a disaster area - she as 2-5 profiles for everyone in it and there is alot of cleanup to be accomplished

I am going through each branch individually -

I am turning manager ship over to anyone who request merge - who gets it I am not sure but I relinquish managership with each merge requested -

Private User
5/5/2010 at 3:32 PM

UGH - I am putting myself up for adoption. I have spent hours on this thing and have barely made a dent in my merge issues. Over 1350 to go. So for you good semaritans out there - HELP! :)

5/5/2010 at 4:12 PM

Hi Lori-
I'll troll your merge list, but I have to warn you, I try to pick off the easy ones & leave the problem children for the experts!

friend who is a part of the USGenWeb project talked me into putting all my lineages (6 files/disks) with all the notes etc. here it is

from mother back @;tree=Bu...

from my son back @;tree=Bu...

alot of clean up but after alot of computer problems over the years - not knowing what I have not lost - and household sickness - maybe i can get to work on it as it is all combine it out there in full - so others can see to instead of sectioned down as I have been doing it.

5/24/2010 at 3:17 PM

Dear Shmuel:

I am rereading your suggestion from 5/5/10 and I admit I did not seriously consider it, but I will consider it now. I think that is a good solution. Since I inherited (Larry) Steve's profiles, it makes sense that I would inherit his collaborators. I'll ponder this and try to act on it soon.

5/25/2010 at 5:32 AM

Alright folks, baby steps... but I have decided to accept collaborate request from Shmuel on account of the collaborating he and Larry Steve had already done. I'll consider all my other outstanding requests in due time. Thanks for your patience. This isn't a full-time job! :)

5/26/2010 at 4:30 PM

Leona Catherine Olley Bloss Downey
George Charles Olley
I have 51 inlaw trees and not that long ago one of our illustrious members gave me instructions on how to condense them into one or two trees by opening another Geni account. I opened that account and tried to understand the next steps but the brain just did not grasp the mechanics of the whole thing. Would any of my collaborators mind volunteering to be comanager of my main tree in the inlaw tree and do the transferring idea. The other point of this exercise to start getting tree matches on the relatives in the inlaw trees too.
George Olley is the new account (my grandfather). I want to link all of it to his tree because his 2Xgreatgrandfather is the one I want to be the center of the family tree.
If there are any takers I will appreciate it.

5/26/2010 at 6:29 PM

Lois, if no one else has already come forward, I'd be happy to help.

5/27/2010 at 5:53 PM

I just got back into Discussions today after work to check and see if anyone volunteered. Accepted your collab and family group request so let's get at it! Thanks greatly! It's a co-manage so if I can be of any help, and of course any question feel free to message or email.

5/27/2010 at 6:16 PM

Lois, it seems that the profile of George Charles Olley (1888 - 1965) was claimed. In order to help you, I'll need collaboration and Family group access to that account also.

Showing 61-90 of 95 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion