Curators - Fix First, Then Merge?

Started by Private User on Monday, September 27, 2010
Showing all 13 posts
Private User

I sent a suggestion/question to Geni - and "they" asked me to post it here for other Geni users to comment on....:--

Could it be possible for the Curators to First "Fix" the Profiles -- and Then merge them?
I believe that an art museum Curator would first be concerned with establishing that the piece of art was "correct" (real/original, etc.). Then, once they were sure of its validity, they would be interested in acquiring as many of these correct/real/original "paintings" as possible.
It would seem that by merging profiles first -- no matter how "wrong" they may be -- might be counter-productive -- since so many people might become frustrated or angry that they now have thousands of profiles/ancestors with questionable provenance.
Would it be Possible to change the "method"?
Is the purpose of Geni to connect with Real ancestors and/or cousins? Or, is it only to have lots of people you can Say are relatives, whether true or not?
Please consider this. Thank you.

Hi Bob,

Now you've raised an interesting question! But I would submit, it's *not* just for curators -- it's for *all* of us to discuss.

At the moment we have -- excuse me for not being a math head, I'm more from the art museum world -- 40 some curators and 9 million some profiles, many of which are duplicates, but many of which (i.e., my original 1,000 profiles) are in fact unique.

There *is* a great deal of quality data in geni and I don't submit my own profiles as that evidence: I am more likely to submit yours. The problem is that the new user (or new EXPLORER) cannot easily find the quality data.

So in fact our **first priority** is to *identify* and *mark* that quality data ... and that's why geni deployed the Master Profile program. Concurrent with identifying quality data is getting rid of the less quality data ... which is why we merge and ask the community to help us merge.

When I started volunteering to help "super merge," a wonderful experienced user explained to me that the quality of the data enriches and enhances which each subsequent merge. It's like an army of "secretaries!" Yes, sometimes merges bring in bad relationships and spurious claims, but the end result of a profile with many managers is in fact many pairs of eyes and hands, checking and verifying vital statistics and family relationships with each "pass."

There is also no reason not to start our "phase two" of enhancing master profiles to true genealogical and histological standards. We already have three "workgroups" going and invite the community to join them:

- Anglo Norman Knights
- U.S. Presidents and Vice Presidents
- "Mayflower" Passengers and Their Descendants

If you need the discussion links, let me know. And there are more workgroups and projects planned around historical areas ... and we're all open to what the community wants to see worked on as well.

Private User

Erica, thank you for your input.
One of the "personal" problems I have run into - is that my research showed that I did have one "line" that went back to the "kings of Norway". While many others have much more information about this group of ancestors (and some very good sources), merging any of them also brings an additional 15,000 "ancestors". One problem,. then, is -- how can I (or anyone else) find Real sources for all of these?
The other problem is that, if you do a merge which brings so many more thousands to a tree, the time it takes to go from one page to another increases exponentially.
And, ultimately (if that Is the goal of Geni).....What would happen if you became "connected" to a few million, rather than many thousands?
I do not pretend to have the answer to these questions. I merely ask whether the more experienced (and computer-savvy) have any suggestions.
And, what Is the goal of Geni -- is it quantity - or quality -- or somehow both?
In the meantime, while I am happy to share whatever information I have found, I am hesitant to do "Big Merges".

Don't worry about big merges, worry about genealogy!

There are several curators (and others) very actively engaged in the Viking / Scandinavian tree (I know they arrived on my tree through the Kings of Scotland). I'm sure they will be along to describe their scholarly *and* clean up work ... but I'm wondering if some of your own work can be helped by adjusting your settings?

For instance, I generally only work three or four generations at a time, at most -- and really, single profile at a time, full screen, when I'm trying to verify data. That way I "filter" out the *visual noise* I don't really want. And to be honest, I haven't even "visited" my own Kings of Norway for months.

"One tree" is very large and geni is a very rich platform. To be honest, it's going places web-based genealogy has never done before. It is *far* more multi media, hyperlink, and documentation oriented than any other site I know of. In fact it's almost an embarrassment of riches: I'm pretty tech savvy and I'm still finding new features. :)

I do think that by working with your settings, you may be able to filter your screen down to the areas that interest and engage you. Then you can help ensure your corner of the tree is the best possible in your own way.

What is your particular area of interest right now?

Private User

Erica - all 4 grandparents came from Norway, one great-grandparent was actually from Sweden (that info was not "confessed" until I was over 40!). So, until I learn more Swedish (& study their internet sources), all interests are in Norway.

Starting with church & census records, expanded to probate records, continued with "bygdeboks" (Norwegian farm history books), now added to with internet access to more records of all kinds, and help from 2nd cousins (on Geni) with more bygdeboks;
from central-southern Norway traveling East across & then up the coast to around Oslo; another line from Hedmark, going back to Gudbrandsdal.
No Mayflower/Revolutionary heroes - but plenty of family stories - plus stories from the farm history books (not all ancestors were "upstanding" - & Mostly common folk).
Main interest from "other people" is "kings-line" and where bygdebok research has gone back to 1600's.
Not so exciting to others....but nice to have for grandchildren....

Bob,
to emphasize one of Erica's points, by merging FIRST, and doing our best to ascertain that the "shape" of the tree is correct, we make it MUCH more useful in both the short term AND the long term. Cleaning up the clutter, makes it much easier to focus on the right profiles.

I've been working on Geni's Biblical Tree for three years now. At times the mess got so bad, with incorrect data merged in, that I had to make myself a "cheat sheet" of how the main-line should look. Now that line is [temporarily] locked-down tight, so despite merging in 20-30 new copies, it's still visible.

Private User

Question - if you have, say, 15,000 "ancestors" after merging (even though "only" 5,000 shows as a number) ---does it take everyone quite some time to go from page to Page?

Bob,

there are a couple of Icelandic sagas that have a (most probably fictitious) ancestry for one of the first kings of Norway that goes right back to Noah and Adam, through the kings of Troy. If you link to any of the Norwegian kings, you will get that whole cloud linked in too, which is one reason for the 15.000 number - you get all of Shmuel's biblical tree linked into your ancestry too!

I haven't seen much of a slowdown from this - I work with just a few generations at a time, picking a profile I know a source for and making his closest relatives conform to that source. Slowly, but carefully, we're at least getting the tree matched up to the sources.

We're not likely to ever know the facts of the old Norse kings' ancestry - but we do have the possibility of making the tree consistent with the sources we do have!

Private User

Harold, thank you for your reply.

Is there any hope of "dis-connecting" the "factual" kings from the "whole cloud"? (so us "legalistic-types" could add some well-sourced info, but not "the rest"?)
Or, would that actually anger/upset most of the Geni users who have King-connected?

I don't think there's much chance (or point) in disconnecting them - having the stories documented on the tree (once) means that we have something to compare all the uploaded trees and random information that people put on Geni to - I'd rather have the story told once, well, than to have to deal with 150 versions of the same story.

The pure fiction, where we don't have *any* sources, can and will be disconnected. But it's a huge amount of work to get there!

Bob, as someone who sees these connections a LOT, trying to disconnect them only last as long as the next big merge comes along... so as Harald says, keep one such, but well kept.

Private User

This was Not meant to be a discussion about "just me" and my particular situation, but, in general, for all....
Probably a lot was covered in the discussion started by Remi Pedersen - about Why are you doing Genealogy. It was there indicated that "fixing" is a stated goal of the curators.
I was just wondering if there was even a Way to do the "fixing" before the "mixing". Is that what the "master Profile" is for? I have seen a few of those recently.
Thank you for your replies.

Hi Bob,

Yes, the Master Profiles are to help indicate: this profile should be good and is the one to work with. They may still be considered genealogical works in progress, as there may be more sourcing to do, more documentation to provide, and more formatting tools to come from Geni to make all that easier. But some have been worked on for years already and should be pretty good.

You were talking about a backbone to the "one tree:" I think on Remi's thread, someone made a wonderful analogy to building a home.

The Master Profile blocks may not be plumb, but they should be solid.

Use them.

Showing all 13 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion