"Managed By" List has changed how it works - Or ???

Lois can you post (or send me a private Inbox message) the web address / "http" URL of a profile where you're listed as the primary manager, but that does not show up in your list of managed profiles?

Mike -
Wolf (Velvel) Lifschitz = one of the Public Profiles I inherited - I am Primary Manager - but if I go to lists (under Family), leave myself as Focus Person, use filters to only pull up Public - it does not come up. Just checked all 56 pages of Managed By for myself, not restricting to Public - it is not there, either. Off-hand, I don't think I saw any of the 92 it lists as managed by this deceased relative (whose profiles I inherited) on my list of Managed By.

Mike Stangel, an easier test I just did on Lois is to filter her list of 1109 managed profiles and when you filter on public profiles the reslt is zero, and she clearly is the primary manager of the above profile.
Lois, - the primary manager is not necessary listed first, but I checked form a neighbor profile's immediate family list.

The problem might be related to the fact that an unclaimed profile still are listed as a co-manager of profiles. This is a general problem I hope Geni takes the time to clean up some time, especially when a well known historical profile is listed as manager, and when you open that profile you find out that it is not a user, but even flagged as a Master Profile.

You remember the situation where some hardcore British royalists attacked both Geni and me as the manager of the profile, and accused us for falsification because Queen Elizabeth II was listed as manager?

In the case of velvel lifshitz, the problem is an internal inconsistency between the database table that stores the profile information, and the table that aggregates that and other data for indexing by by our search servers and list views. It's easy to correct one case, but I'm going to see what I can do to find all such inconsistencies, and fix them all.

Thanks, Mike. The more general fix is definitely the more desired. As I mentioned, I think there are probably 92 (including this, 4 other Public ones, then the rest Private) for me alone - and no reason to believe I am unique in this.

Bjorn - I had realized that the Primary Manager was not necessarily listed first (do you know why they choose to not always list it first??) -- but didn't know if it was in any way connected to the problem. Actually - thought perhaps some Programmer, not realizing Primary Manager was not always listed first, might have decided to use first position instead of whatever really did show them who was Primary Manager. In any case, was trying to mention everything I was aware of that might have been a factor.

Actually, think there is a plus to leaving the Profile of the deceased listed as Manager - means if someone purposely or accidentally reports someone as deceased who is not, the person has a chance (better chance?) of re-claiming, or at least still being able to edit, the profiles he had been managing. And thus the Geni-Team does not need to rigorously proof the reports of death to the degree that might be advisable otherwise.

Personally I prefer that the managers are listed in random order and I have actually asked several times that they do that.

We have had way to many quarrels and fights in Geni on management and some spend a lot of energy on getting listed first on the profile.
I wish people could spend more of their energy on contributing to the profiles, - correcting errors, adding sources and facts and fill in a story about the person in the About Me.

In anyone should be listed on the front of a profile it should be those who contributes to it, - independent if they are a manager or not.

The law of unintended consequences guarantees that if you list first those who contribute most, then the pathological users will add fictitious data.
If you list managers alphabetically, someone will change their user name to A A Abaab, or such.
Random order seems a better way to stymie the midirected.

What about listing the managers after nearest relative? I guess there will always be quarrels about the management. But how is the primary manager decided? And what is the real difference between primary and other managers?

When you click on "Contact Manager", the request goes to the Primary Manager - therefore who is Primary Manager is important.

Also, for Private Profiles, it is the settings the Primary Manager chooses for Managed Profiles that determine what is shown, so again, Primary Manager is important.

And the list for Profiles Managed By XXX supposedly only pulls up Profiles for which XXX is the Primary Manager (it used to actually work that way, until their indexes got a bug / internal inconsistency).

As long as who is the Primary Manager (not who is listed first) continues to have important consequences such as these, what is the advantage of trying to disquise who the Primary Manager is??

Lois I found about 600,000 profiles with the manager problem ("internal inconsistency") you described, which seems like a lot but it's less than 1% of all our profiles. I'm running a script now, to correct those.

Thanks, Mike!

The ones for mine seem fixed - Lists (under Family) no longer pulls up any profiles when I ask for those managed by my deceased relative, the Five Public ones I mentioned before are now coming up when I ask for Public managed by myself.