Mau I read you undelete part, and yes there are a undelete part. When you get a deleted profile, go to the profile and it will say "thais profile is no longer avaiable" With an obtion check all you deleted priles. Then you just press the little blue sentence on the right that says undelte profile. I have recovered some of mine the other day. There is also those that i manage that I deleted because it was duplicated. I left those.
I feel exactly as you, I am not prepared to spend time to check or redo any changed or deleted profiles anymore. I do not feel that my work and info on the tree is secure. Whether it is done by newbies or curators or people with privacy hang-ups. I have spend many hours on the tree doing house keeping. I can spend my time much more fruitful by doing research. The problem is that profiles have multiple managers due to collaboration and give them the power to destroy ones hard work. I tend to feel that this tree is not going to achieve its goal.
Judi, I think it's good that people get an idea of our level of frustration with married names considering the time we invest in the tree.
Maybe a good idea to take a step back at this juncture and also just remember where we come from. What we are doing and achieved in a few years is truly awesome.
In 2007 we had nothing. We couldn’t merge, (there was no functionality for it) , and there were only a few users, each on their own little mission. No one could agree on anything (not completely sure anything has changed ;-) but some were pretty much clear they don't want to collaborate or consider merging.
We somehow got past that and then went through a period where at progenitor level we had hundreds of unmerged profiles (one GREAT mess) and had to sort out up 70 peoples' often completely wrong trees converging. Still many of them not collaborating. All sorts of errors were prevalent and many, many people were still holding things back by not collaborating.
Geni was an application in infancy with serious issues and no ability to track or see anything happening.
Today we have hundreds of collaborators and thousands of users. We can estimate roughly 10 000+ based on traffic to the site from South Africa, but since many are working internationally this figure could be far higher. The tree is pretty clean and manageable and we have reached the point where when a newbie build into the tree us oldies would see them before they get too far and if we organise ourselves properly we can guide and manage them.
As an application Geni has added hundreds of features and improvements. Once the latest intended changes are done it would have evolved into serious genealogy tool and once we settle our remaining differences in approach to setting up profiles, our tree in general will be good enough to get the researchers involved, - which is still an objective and possibility for me.
We will get there if we all do, just what we were doing and what we are good at.
So send me where you want me to help with any frustration or want me to help monitor and housekeep and I will do so and in a few months, lets tackle the remaining issues and sort them out one way or the other.
A few people have now asked me about the strategy to use married names or not and what to do in the merge or when reviewing or building into the tree.
My advice have been to do what they use to do before the discussions started but as current feedback from Geni is that it may take several months to make the intended changes, we will need to try and come to some consensus and guidelines as we cannot operate in a vacuum. So we need to try and provide or determine some guidelines.
In order to do so, I would like to propose we use one of the following options. If anyone has any other options or suggestions, please let's have them?
1) Vote to use them or not. Majority votes determine.
'Yes' to use married names only for the living or 'No' to use them everywhere.. After X number of votes we accept the outcome as a democratic decision for South Africa.
Under this solution if Yes wins, married names will only be used or left in the tree where a source is available for such a name.
To determine which profiles fall under these rules, it will only apply to profiles of people deceased on South African soil.
(Only descendants of an SV/PROG's can vote).
2) Agree to leave and use married names for all woman born after 1850 and to remove and not use married names for woman deceased before 1850. The date selected as 1850 based on a brief study of gravestones and documentation. It seems unlikely that a married name can be considered convention for a woman pre 1850 and from a gravestone perspective 1875 seems to be a good date. Please note the discussion here for further input http://www.geni.com/discussions/93495?page=2
3) Do nothing. Everyone to continue as they did before. We all agree not to do general clean-ups. Putting an effort into a particular part of the tree considered enough justification to set that part of the tree as per your preference.
Anyone care to suggest 1, 2, 3 as per your preference.
<private> Preller@mau, I realise this thread is aimed at SA's only however even so I am still concerned that you seem to think it's OK for the SAs to decide what to do just on SA profiles. This is not IMHO realistic in view of how Geni works. Even though you have said the person must have died on SA soil, there will I predict be 1. occassions when the persons place of death is not known with certainty but are thought to have died in SA but may not actually have done so. 2.occassions when the person is adding a lot of profiles and doesn't stop to think... we've all gone into automatic mode on occassions I'm sure... and add profiles in the SA agreed format but don't change for profiles that are not wholly SA. 3. occassions when people dont' really appreciate these are SA standards only.
Guys, as I've said, I'm away in the Cape, and don't have much chance to look in here. I agree completely with Terry, and the other SA curators know already that the international curator consensus is solidly behind Terry's point too.
I think I've made it quite clear that as one of the SA curators I would not support anything that tries to make of SA a special case. We all know that there is no special case to made for SA naming conventions to be different to the rest of the Western world.
It really looks like dirty play to push for decisions to be made while I have said I would back off in response to a plea from Mau.
Terry, sorry I don't see why we cannot do things for South Africa only. We've done pretty well so far. Where place of death not known, we will consider it to be not SA if that will help. Our tree related to the SV/PROG is pretty well contained and identifyable and I see no reason why we cannot reach concensus amongst ourselves for our local conditions and tree. Users are able to decide for themselves and if it would help if we come to a decision, we will make sure it is highlighted in CAPS.
No, dirty play Sharon, trying to provide users with a guideline who are asking me to do so. I cannot help it that you are going to the Cape. We cannot stop working on the tree whilst you are gone. Also I see nowhere that the curators said, such and such an area cannot make decisions for themselves.
If it will help we won't move forward until you are back. I'm sure if we do you will continue to make things unbearable. I've only asked for people to provide a view of their preferences in respect of 1,2 & 3 and I believe it will advance our cause to get an understanding how people feel in terms of the options.. I don't understand your resistance to that?
Sharon, this is not my or your tree or the curator's tree. This is everyone's tree and I think everyone have a right to provide a point of view on what they would like to see us doing. I'm inviting for that opinion. If you have other options, please could you advise what they are. From your post it seems to me you prefer option 3?
Sharon if there is one thing you can learn from the maiden name discussions is that a one size fit's all approach will not work. I stand by my last statement. If you want me to introduce your view as an additional point, please advise, otherwise it still seems to me like you have a preference for 3?
Sharon, please take a step back and evaluate what I was asking for. Nobody making any decisions. I find it difficult to understand your resistance for us to get a view on people's preferences. We may just learn something about what people prefer.
Please note the line: "If anyone has any other options or suggestions, please let's have them?"
@Mauritz and Sharon
Both your proposals have merit from my viewpoint. I have somewhere heard:
"A MAN CONVINCED AGAINST HIS WILL IS OF THE SAME OPINION STILL"
A vote for different options can at best give you the preference of different users (regardless of their insight) and the majority might influence you to accept that option. You can however force nobody to accept that majority vote if he/she thinks that Geni caters anyway for different viewpoints.
I really don't want to get in the middle of this 'South African' discussion but Mauritz. you asked
"Which Geni guidelines are you refering to, by the way?'
I did remember Noah saying this..
"A couple of points regarding naming conventions on the South African tree.
1. I don't see where using maiden name only, in the maiden and last name fields, is discussed and agreed upon for the SA tree. It may be somewhere, I just haven't seen it.
2. As much as possible, the current fields should be used as they are set-up. Maiden name should be maiden name and last name should be last name. In cases where a married woman kept her maiden name, that should be her last name as well. In cases where she legally changed her name to a different last name, that should be used in the last name field.
3. Perhaps a better recommendation for this part of the tree would be for each user to change their name preferences to show maiden instead of last name.
4. Because of our revision system, none of this data is actually lost! Users can revert the revisions that removed the last name or replaced it with the maiden name."
Here's a problem with setting up rules. Even if you make every profile "perfect" some one will not like it. It is best to "go with the flow"
If you take out every married name, someone sooner or later will put them back in in his portion of the tree. Simply leaving it as is and changing the preferences to show maiden instead of last name will save you time and Hair.
For every one in this discussion there are thousands who wil not read it and many, even if they read it will not listen. This is true of every part of the tree in every part of the world, not just S.A..
Some of what you all are arguing about can be resolved with viewing preferences. Geni does not have a standard one-size-fits all format for entering data. It was designed to serve the needs of people of many cultures and many levels of expertise. You cannot force your standards on all the users of Geni if Geni does not have a standard. You will frustrate yourselves with constantly changing things to what you want and you will frustrate other users when you do. Find some tolerance. Find some middle ground. Collaborate. Compromise.
For goodness sake! What difference does it really make? I looked away for the day and when I looked again before retiring was met with yet another bunch of messages which in effect add up to tirades of a personal nature which are getting us nowhere but frustrated and fed up.
Use the preferences, see what you want to see, record the information regardless of what would or would not have been the "norm" at that date. How is it going to change your ancestry? My 8x Great grandmother was born with a certain name; she married a man with a different name (most of the time) and whether her contemporaries called her Mevrou "her husband's name" or not is neither here nor there. She DID take that name on, and Yes, in SA documents she was identified by her maiden name, as genealogically we like to do for clarity. Great for SA records. In English records the poor woman was lucky to be named let alone given her maiden surname! If on a database hundreds of years later we record her married name or not is neither here nor there. It doesn't change the facts, and for the sake of research we need to record all we can about our ancestors.
Let's stop this silly changing to and fro of names from married to maiden to married etc. etc. that I see happening on files I am either main manager on or am a joint manager on - it is so pointless and seems to have nothing to do with reality. It is all just madness and not really befitting grown ups who all enjoy finding out about their shared ancestry.
Geni is not the platform for all of this - do what you like on your private genealogical records where what you prefer affects no one else. Join something like Geni and follow the guidelines. Simple! It is a shared, communal tree!
June, Willem - I'm with you on this one. I'm going to unfollow these discussions too. I can't keep setting myself up as the lone protector of the SA tree in order to try and prevent an edit war. It's up to Geni and the other people whose profiles are affected by these changes to complain.
In future I will work only on my own family lines in the SA tree, and leave the SA curatorship to those who think it's worth all this fighting over.
I vote for "1 " because I honestly believe it is genealogically the correct way to record a profile of one person. If the majority vote against it, that is fine with me too, no hard feelings. I am not rigid and have worked wih the married names thus far and can carry on as before, no big deal!
Yes June, everyone seems to be worn-out and distressed by these discussions which are going round in sircles. We all have a right to an opinion but why keep repeating ourselves?
I for one would love to see everyone "agree to peacefully disagree" if we cannot find a middleground for our differences. But most of all I would like to see one big happy family again!
Vote and let's live and adapt to the outcome!
This proposal is about getting a wider perspective from our South African user community to better my/our understanding. I believe and trust they would be afforded a view and would be prepared to participate. They also have the right to a voice and opinion without reprisal.
Maria, I agree with you completely and it would be great to have people to actually communicate and define their preferences as I am asking so that we can come to an informed amd collaborative compromise.
Personally I still feel I'm still stuck at begin without it and I would like to continue to do something to find clarity for myself and others so as to be able to communicate a guideline to those who ask me appropriately and with confidence. I suppose option 3 would prevail by default if we do not get further input, but so would edit wars.
Angus, I may be wrong, but those guidelines then do seem to back me up not to use a married name on a profile where such did/may not exist? "In cases where a married woman kept her maiden name, that should be her last name as well."
Marvin, I'm trying to understand what the 'flow' is. It seemed to me before that we had good flow one way. Now I'm not so sure and would appreciate the opportunity to gain insight with the response from users as requested. I agree many users also go with the flow, so if we don't use married names for instance in South Africa or do for that matter, we have a good chance of that being accepted and adopted by our community. The acceptance and wide "non-use" of married names and our strange use of suffix of our genealogical numbering is what informs me for this perception.
==Angus, I may be wrong, but those guidelines then do seem to back me up not to use a married name on a profile where such did/may not exist?==
So Mau you are saying that 'YOU' (yes I am pointing my finger at you) will know when someone who has created their branch of the Tree has added married names that did or may not have existed and YOU have the right to go in their branch of the Tree and remove them.
== "In cases where a married woman kept her maiden name, that should be her last name as well." ==
We all agree to that..
==In cases where she legally changed her name to a different last name, that should be used in the last name field. ==
Mau above is the part that we all want agreement on...If she got married and uses her husband's last name as hers, that has to be entered in the last name 'field' (as it stands now) and until there are changes in the future.
Anyway Happy Easter everyone..
LOS ASSEBLIEF MY STAMBOOM SE GETROUDE VANNE SOOS DIT STAAN
Ek het nie hierdie gesprek in detail gevolg nie en weet dus nie waar kom "the agreed approach" vandaan nie, en wie gevra is om waarmee in te stem nie.
In my tradisie neem 'n vrou by die huwelik haar man se van aan, en daarmee basta ! As 'n bruid in moderne tye dit nie wil doen nie sal ek dit respekteer, maar ek sien geen sin daarin om my Ouma wat tot met haar dood op 93 as Daisy Vermaak bekendgestaan het nou as Daisy Mentz te identifiseer wat sy self vir meer as 60 jaar nie gebruik het nie.
Ons twee het 'n paar e-pos wisselings gehad, en jy het onderneem om nie aan die profiele wat ek opgelaai het te torring nie. Ek hoop jy bly daarby.
Ek versoek ook die ander "Skoonmakers" wat jou voorbeeld wil volg om die profiele wat deur myself en ander in my boom opgelaai is met rus te los.
Ek het min genoeg tyd om aan genealogie te spandeer om dit nie op sulke dinge, of selfs op 'n debat daaroor te spandeer nie.
Hiermee gaan ek probeer om hierdie gespreksgroep te verlaat.