Persons who have not been online for a year (Abandoned Trees)

David....I thought I said that.....if it is unreasonable for a person coded "private' and living if born prior to a certain year....they sould be made 'public'

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Justin's idea also has merit....(the only problem I see with that, in a lot of cases, the volume of profiles would be too large for 1 person to handle)....and besides, you could provide for that scenario by designating an administrator...couldn't you?)

But LOIS and ALEX.....I do NOT want management of your parents (even if they are truly 100 years old), or your siblings, or niece's or nephew's, or aunt's and uncle's......

Perhaps a codicil to the WILL that says "if I go missing for 6 months/9 months....that I authorize my administrator to contact "Newspaper Archives" or whomever to check for 'obits' and try to contact the nearest living relative that IS public to determine whether the person IS/IS NOT deceased...and proceed from there..."

If not deceased...then they would be deemed abandaned and come under the authority of the WILL.

Is that any better?

Justin Durand Basically, that is what I did but I asked customer service to make her a co-manager of all the profiles I managed. It might be that the easiest way to solve this would be a check box under Management to "Make this person a co manager of all the profiles I manage"

The law of unintended consequences is at work now. She is getting copies of all the messages being sent to all managers of a profile. I don't understand what Geni's purpose was in implementing that "feature"

David Kaleita does address one issue that Geni does not yet seem to have clear policies to address:

1) How does one address profiles of living persons which have "aged" beyond 'possible' lifetime? (e.g.: 125 years)

2) Same question for those profiles which are now out of the "Max Family Group" of any currently living, claimed profile. (e.g.: great-grandmother was on Geni, but now she is deceased, and all her children were already deceased, so that there are now are probably two generations which are no longer within anyone's Max Family Group).

re: #2: I know there is a Curator tool ('Check Public') which can fix those, but I happen to think it is unreasonable in the long run to rely on individuals finding those and bringing them to a Curator's attention.

re: messages to co-managers

That is a feature MANY have asked for -- for quite a while!

I'm not sure, but they may be able to be "muted".

I solved the inheritance issue, to my satisfaction anyway, by sending a Geni message to my buddy Pam Wilson, telling her if I die she is authorized to work with Geni staff to dispose of my profiles however she sees fit. Because Geni is constantly evolving and my relatives are constantly coming and going, I don't want to be any more specific than that. Of course, I'm trusting that Geni will honor a message sent by me during my lifetime.

One feature I would very much like to see is the ability to automatically add managers to profiles I manage in batches. "All descendants of ..." "Everyone in the maximum family group of ..."

A few times I've asked Geni to do this for me, where I use the List feature to clearly define a specific group. They've always been willing to take a few minutes, but I don't know whether they are set up to handle a deluge of those requests.

Faye - you stated above: "And there is nothing that says that a person coming INTO Geni who is discovered to BE a close relative should not be allowed to be ADDED (as a party of interest) to that person's profile...we now do it all the time by allowing co-manager's."

This is confusing me -- IF the person is a close relative of unclaimed profile AAAA then either a) Geni is not yet aware of it, because he has not accepted an invitation to or been merged in to his close relative spot on Geni - in which case why not take care of that? OR b) he is in AAAA's Max Extended Family on Geni, in which case that relative already is able to edit AAAA (regardless of whether AAAA is private or public) - so why the need to add as co-manager?

Are you picturing situations where all the current managers are not family members of AAAA ??? Or are you suggesting that ALL family members should be made co-managers or ??? I think I am missing something that was obvious to you - can you clarify?

Lois....

Not everyone IS or even WANTS to be on Geni....

I am talking about stand alone profiles in an area where the manager is the ONLY manager....

If a new-comer starts up on Geni...and it looks like they are related, why not ask them if they would like to be added, as co-managers, of that grouping...

That is part of why I proposed that USERS proclaim their families....the ones they belong to....not every profile they may have worked....

So...I am BALDWIN....and primarily in New England.....if a fellow new-comer appears that is also a Baldwin and works profiles in New England...would they like to be ADDED to a cluster of profiles?

The option would probably NOT be asked of a Baldwin who works in New Mexico....if I had no grouping within that area....if I have a cluster of profiles in Indiana...offer them to a family-member who is in Indiana...etc....the offer to come from the administrator of the unspecified bequeaths.

FAY

None of my relatives have said they are comfortable with profiles being Public for the Whole World to see, many have explicitly expressed the opposite. Some of my relatives would definitely be horrified if their Profile was made Public; some would definitely be horrified if the Profile of a deceased child, sibling, or parent of theirs was made Public; others might only be horrified about the latter if they realized it included info on the living also being made public (such as their place and date of birth from the Timeline of the deceased Parent). Altho everyone is different, it seems quite possible this may be one of those attitudes or outlooks that tends to run in families.

Erica - please do not impose what feels right to you onto all of us.
I was not planning to Will any of my Profiles to you, so no reason for you to panic on that score.

Again...NO LIVING PEOPLE TO BE MADE PUBLIC...

So specify that in the WILL.

But be REAL....people who died prior to a certain data ARE part of the public knowledge anyway....and this IS a genealogical site....and people ARE interconnected whether you or I want them to be....

I don't know of anyone that would even ASK that private infomation be part of a near-present profile....

If someone wants to know current home address, phone number, favorite ice cream, whether they cheat on their taxes (or even pay taxes) let them go to Facebook or some other place..

Really, you should not jump to conclusions Lois....

Geni is NOT an expose' site..and anyone who treats it as such should be expelled....and they have been in the past..

We were talking about profiles under the managment of people who have left Geni or might die....and what happens to those profiles....they can't just remain stagnant...that would defeat the whole purpose of creating a tree in the first place.....

I thought that a WILL would be the best (though not an all-encompassing answer)...so that people could bequeath to whom they wanted..

So bequeath your immediate profiles (those within your allowable range) to one of your relatives that is like-minded....and assign an administrator to act in regard to the remainder....a person who will utilize their own judgement as to whether a profile of a long-deceased profile be made public or not...and make it their business to work and protect those closer to present-day.

The ball would be in your court...it would be YOUR 'Will" and state YOUR preferences for those close to you.

Trust me, I'm far more panicked by the idea of trying to add co managers. I have not a clue how to work lists to refine those lists - and please guys don't teach me! I can't keep it straight beyond 2nd cousin anyway.:)

Lois in specifying a "policy" it is easy to define how to deal with the exception cases. Your Geni Will, with all the detailed and thought through requirements, as you specify.

The rest of us - set those profiles free, where they can help the genealogists to come either their infirmation.

Lois, you have reminded me of a rather important point: Even though birth, marriage and death records are publically-available information in most places, there is a big difference between allowing individuals to go to a local government office to look up such records on people they may or may not know, and making that information widely available on the internet.

Unfortunately [at least in the USA], there is little recourse if somebody wants to re-post this same public information on the internet, as long as it's all true.

In most states there are time limits before HARD documents are made public to anyone other than immediate relative...

David is right that an obit and many other factoids are readily printed in newspapers and accessible....but even there there are limits to what is said...and an obit only carries info that is provided BY the family of the deceased....(who dont just blab any family secrets or say what an ass uncle Joe was)...

And YOUR 'WILL' would allow you to be specific in regard to YOUR wishes.

Would you rather have your profiles just lanquish in the hope that a close relative MIGHT be interested...and stop all progress for just you...or do you want to be pro-active and make a WILL that tells of your wishes...

We still have all those profiles created by people who are no longer on Geni...that frustrate everyone because it halts all progress because it is 'private' when logic says the person has been long deceased and their identity is known anyway (in books, histories, public archives)...but "you can't get there from here" exists.....and it will only continue and compound unless a policy or people create WILLS to deal with 'those things we would rather not even think about' in the event something happens to us.

And we keep complaining to Geni management for THEM to do something, when we ourselves could be pro-active and not only protect our families (BY A WILL) but give management a much needed direction since they made promises to people...it is the PEOPLE who broke the agreement when they left......and left management high and dry...

How long are they to honor such agreements...6mos, 9 months...forever??

We might as well close up shop if you really want NOTHING to be done.

Because despite our wishes, time DOES march on....and people DO die...and profiles that made sense at one time to be 'private' don't make sense at all to be 'private' after a while..and people who are 'private' and alive tho born in 1760....come on...be real..!!!.

"Would you rather have your profiles just lanquish in the hope that a close relative MIGHT be interested ..."

I have had wonderful genealogy collaborators / informants send me their information on Excel spreadsheets for entry into Geni, as they know their immediate family is not (currently) interested in the compilations they've worked on for years, but who knows who might become available and interested in picking up the research done, so painstakingly, and develop it further.

This is the essence of collaborative genealogy and indeed - there IS no other kind of genealogy but this. Geni is a modern platform for doing what has "always" been done: recite who we are and where we come from, to the public at large.

Of course protect privacy of the living, that's not even a question. But let the living define that, for their immediate family only, and in the simplest terms possible.

You guys sure love your circular arguments and strawmen.
Fay: "..and people who are 'private' and alive tho born in 1760....come on...be real..!!!"
That Fay is called a zombie and the curators zombie tool should be used to address not a Will. As for the isolated trees and private sections with missing managers, well firstly instituting a new policy of Wills won't address the current situation so holding that up as driving factor is disingenious. Also many of those issues are caused by short term users or people who dont neccessarily grasp the World Tree concept, how likely is it that those people will understand the Will concept or bother with it if they even do know it exists?

Erica: "Of course protect privacy of the living, that's not even a question. But let the living define that, for their immediate family only, and in the simplest terms possible."
You're right this wasn't the question at all, a Will transfers management of profiles from one user to another user(s). The waters have well and truly been muddied by calls for automation of privacy settings being changed during the transfer. Alive, dead, family group, under 13 is irrelevant, if the original user has them set profiles to private that you would change to public discuss that with them when they are writing their Will.

Looking for a bit of perspective i had a play with the Family Lists tool.
Of the 2300 profiles i manage 62 are private, of those 62 all of them are living people. So if i left my profiles to Faye in a Will she would have exactly 0 profiles that would need investigating to determine if their settings were correct. If Faye was super diligent she could check the 62 to see if any of them had died without me noticing.
What about Erica?
If Erica left all of her 15000+ profiles to Faye she would have to consider 2000 private profiles (1500 are marked as living). So Faye would have to determine the validity of privacy setting for 500 deceased profiles, that's about 3% of Erica's profiles which doesn't sound onerous to me.
Let's look at a more extreme case - Lois :)
Nearly 1500 profiles managed basically all of them private, about 1000 of Lois' profiles are of living people so Faye would have to look at 500 private deceased profiles (33% of Lois' Will).

Obviously Lois' very high percentage of private deceased profiles reflects her public stance regarding privacy. As the recipient of Lois' Will I believe that Faye would morally have to accept that Lois' privacy settings reflect Lois' attitudes in life and that Lois wouldn't want all those profiles made public just because she died.

Alex...I am well aware of 'zombies'..which still exist...just not as extensively...

I was proposing something to the existing Geni users to address the situation going forward....and perhaps use some of the same logic to finally address the problem of the abandoned...

I would like to see discussions focus on the WE instead of the ME more often...but every proposal that has ever been brought forward has always had the same problem....it goes around and around and goes nowhere...no matter whether it is a logical move or not.

If you have something better to propose...by all means do so....

One last thing, i think that this idea idea of the Will is great for active knowledgeable users who die or otherwise lose access to Geni but i dont think what has been discussed should be used to set up a timer system for users who simply stop visiting Geni.
I do think a Timer tool of some description needs to be developed and enforced automatically on all new accounts, but the two tools should be very seperate as the two tasks are very different in my opinion.

Yes, great point, Alex.

It's an "I didn't want to leave you ..." plan versus "I'll probably be back, hold my place!"

Faye, I'm not surprised that you know what a zombie is, it does make me wonder why you mentioned it in this discussion though.

I'm perfectly in agreement for a tool where a User nominates another user(s) to become manager of all profiles which they manage in the case of a specified event (death, incapacitation, absence).
I've already said that a few days ago.
I only objected when the issue of changing the privacy settings (any of them) during the transfer process came up.

I have started several discussions and answered many others where recovery of already "lost" profiles has been the topic and i am usually in what could be loosely described as the Publican Party but i think that the caveats that you added to your original Will concept have turned a good idea into a bad one.

Alex

The tool called "check public" is time consuming and tedious and new zombies are created every day in error. Why do you think curators are so eager to find more automated solutions? :)

Do not put the burden back on an individual when the program can resolve it.

Many people don't have wills at all and have little idea on managing their inherited profiles. "It was my XYZ relative's work, I'd like to keep it going as s/he wished, but meanwhile I'm ...".

Lois should have a Will that specifies the information she's collected. I have no such info and am not likely to get it, so the simplest system (and rules) should prevail - of those that are interested developing our history further.

Faye we are cross posting so i'll stop now but as i always have to have the last word i'll just say:
"I've left you, please respect the way i behaved while i was here in the way you manage my profiles in future."

Ciao

Erica,

If Check Public is slow and boring make the tool better.

What burden? Why do you insist on focusing on this "burden". Anyone cluely enough with Geni to use a Will system is unlikely to have a rubbish Family Group so the "burden" will be slight if it exists at all.

The current discussion in this thread is supposedly about Faye/Eldon's suggestion of a Will on Geni, not how to get rid of zombies or reconnect lost trees or open up abandoned branches.

TTFN

Alex....my name is Fay

And I suggested using some of the same logic that we have talked about in regard to the 'Abandoned' profiles....the managers obviously are not available to make a WILL.

And since I proposed the idea of a WILL don't drag Eldon's name in...he may have started the seed...but I made the proposal...so bitch at me, not at him...OK?

And Alex....I suppose the "burden" depends on how many profiles you manage.....and so it IS a burden for some, even if it would not be so for you.

Night!

Fay (no -e-)

in a troll mood today Alex Moes? LOL

Sorry, I'm having trouble relating to this discussion at all. A "will" implies property/ownership, and I personally believe that otherwise publically-available information canned be left to someone else in a "will" per se, whether it is stored in the form of profiles in Geni or otherwise.

On the other hand, I suppose I can understand wanting to pre-arrange a replacement for yourself on all of the profiles that you manage, without actually adding them as a manager up front. If I was the software designer for Geni, I would want to solve this in the easiest way possible- such as just giving a field on your settings page to specify the userid (e-mail) of an alternate Geni user. If Geni is informed that you have permantly abaondoned your Geni account for any reason, they could then add whichever alternate user you've specified as a manager on all of the profiles that you manage. I don't see why it needs to any more complicated than that.

But I wouldn't call it a "will". It's just a pending manager change that would only be activated when you are done with Geni forever.

strange typo above:

canned = cannot

David - We do NOT want all our profiles to go to the same person. Your solution seems to have them all going to the same person - yes, or am I missing something?

Oh...I see. so THAT's what you mean by a "will"- assigning different things to different people.

Yes, my proposed solution above would only allow you to leave them all to the same person.

I personally have no need for that level of complexity in my own case, so I'm just going to quietly bow out of this discussion.

But just a word of warning: Geni prioritizes what it plans to implement in the short, medium and long term to add to their software. I think you're going to a have a very hard time convincing them that this feature should be higher priority than hundreds of other things that have already been suggested. They especially tend to shy away from solutions that are only necessarily complex in order to dance around issues of real or potential family conflict. It's too easy for them to simply not offer the feature at all.

Think of the solution that I proposed as appointing an "executor" to your "estate" of profiles. Leave your written "will" in the hands of your appointed executor. I'm pretty sure that Geni does NOT want to be the executor of ANYBODYs will.