Mike, then please help me to understand how, for example, despite being reported as an abandoned tree, Nicholas Ryan Bouchard remains the only manager of this profile: <private> Albert
David Lee Kaleita It probably will make them disappear, but I am so frustrated with what is going on that I don't care. If I get new potential merges, I will act on them and maybe something will happen.
In my opinion, Geni management is pandering to the ones who have abandoned their trees in the hope they will return someday. This is being done at the expense of the loyal Geni users, paying and basic, who are actively working to improve the tree.
My 2 cents worth. YMMV
David, your issue points out an ambiguity in this statement:
"For private profiles within the user’s Family Group, management is transferred to the nearest active relative in their Family Group"
...nearest active relative in WHOSE Family Group? Turns out, the inactive user's. The reason for this is technical (the performance of looking at the family group range for each of potentially tens of thousands of managed profiles) but it's one that we've been meaning to tackle. I'll see what I can do about that.
Mike Stangel, to get around the technical performance issue that you mentioned, couldn't you instead do the check for total abandonment right at the moment a user tries unsuccesfully to complete the pending merge?
I disagree. Eldon should cancel the merge request, whether there are others involved or not. It would save the others going through the same painful process as Eldon.
The problem (there seems to be a parallel discussion) is that the profiles will then return to Eldon's Merge Centre as suggested merges. He won't know which ones he has already put in this category, and would probably end up initiating merge requests for them again.
FYI: There are some 'behind the scenes' discussions about ways of separating "merges I can do alone" vs "merges that need cooperation" -- and perhaps even "merges which are not likely to happen". What goes on each such "list" will differ based on your membership level.
This, of course, is in no way meant to imply a commitment to any such thing, but I thought y'all might be encouraged that Geni is listening to the frustrations of dealing with the various varieties and flavors of merges.
Kenneth, I remain completely opposed to removing matches or pending merges that are believed to be (or have a reasonable likelihood to be) correct. If the match or pending merge is INCORRECT or WRONG, however, then that's a completely different story. I spend most of my Geni time these days unlinking such bad pairs.
Not being able to complete a GOOD merge is not a good reason, in my opinion, to break/remove that pending merge- even if it makes your tree messy looking in the meantime. This project is not about being pretty in the short term- it's about cleaning up all of the loose ends in the long term.
Marking "not a match" is (in my mind) distinctly different from dismissing a pending (proposed) merge!
When you tell a pending merge (e.g. from a blue cross on the tree) they are different it does NOT seem to also dismiss the possible tree match. Maybe it just takes a while to do so, but I've looked a profiles after dismissing a pending (proposed) merge and the "tree match" still shows up in the now-separated profile (at least one of them...).
Two reasons for (perhaps temporarily) undoing a pending (proposed) merge:
1) the little "possible matches" is far less intrusive than the big blue "+" on the tree view.
2) Much more importantly: Pending merges block relationship paths, particularly if their parents are not already merged.
So, by leaving them as just "possible matches" (even though 99.99% sure), at least most of the 'calculations of relatives" will be happy. If one *does* get the attention of that other manager, then the merge can be proposed (initiated) and completed without leaving the path disrupted or the annoying big blue plus on the tree view.
I would NOT get rid of the "possible match" that is likely; but, unless a manager has been online recently, I'm not likely to initiate the merge.
That "possible match" is sufficient (for me) to serve as a reminder.
Remember, if the "possible match" is with a private profile I might not have enough info to definitively decide one way or the other until the other manager responds.
Which reminds me: the 3rd reason to decline a proposed merge may be that I compared the profiles, thought they might be a match, but later found out additional information which showed it really wasn't, and so would then 'undo' the (hopefully not yet completed!) premature merge.
You're more likely to get a faster response in the "Curators, please help" thread:
It's a long story about Rulene, - she inherited automatically her son-in-law's(?) profiles when he suddenly closed his account and she probably got choked by them and stopped using Geni.
They cause no problems since Pro users can access all public profiles now, and if you have problems with private profiles within their family group _you_ are actually _the problem_ violating their right to a privacy range and should back out, - probably by deleting your public version of their private profiles.
If you disagree let us take it as a case by case where you post a link and ask for an advice of what can be done. There are other active users in that family group you can ask to help.
;-) Sorry about that, - I always try to understand WHY people ask about other's login. Technically that is private info that should not be published, so I always try to focus on the reason for asking. Since pro users have access to all public profiles it is usually about some private profiles managed by them and prefer that focus.
The exception is of course when you want to ask them about sources for their profiles, but a login date does not help for that except of giving you a hope that you get an answer.
You are probably right with your guess as to her motivation but she may have a completely innocent explanation as you say.
Also the discussion is public and will never be deleted, other people reading your post later today, or years in the future, might not understand your objection or realise that you had good intentions.
Regulars know your reputation but someone new to Geni or the discussion board might view that post as very aggressive.
(I know i am probably guilty of the same thing sometimes, no one is perfect).
Nah, - I try to pinpoint the main cause for any Pro user who ask for help, especially in the attn curators discussion.
It's always about private profiles and in just a few cases Curators really can help by detecting that the criteria for keeping that profile as private is not present and we have some tools to fix that.
In most other cases we should more often turn around the question and ask: Why are you having public profiles of people which falls into someones privacy range which is not within your own privacy range?