Family group members

You'd think with a large, sprawling family like mine, I should make the list. But no, that would be just half-siblings and step-siblings ;)

I have the system set on '2nd cousins and closer' and those of my Beloved Husband on 'immediate family' and 'immediate inlaws' and i must say, I am very proud to have a sav/fety-rate of my lif/ve-data of .......

TWENTY-ONE (21)

and the amount of 'Removed lovers, oh sorry Relatives' is only ONE !

So I realy expect me not to come in one of your lists, or do you plan to add also an amount of geni-users who have a score of ZERO (0) for a particular distinction?

lievergroetjMu.

Zero family group members might seem like an ideal number in some families, but it would be pretty odd for a genealogy site ;)

It's a little bit special with this genealogy site, as the parade goal for it is "The World Tree". There are two extremes ZERO (0) group members versus almost every one back to Lucy in Africa and everyone active on Geni has to chose some level of who to collaborate or be "relative" to.

For the projects one has to be very open and some, referring to the "ruels" or Geni-promises years ago, does not like that as if a profile 100-150 years ago with 12 children is only a "relative of mine".

There are problems, of course, with all the younger and living persons/profiles and in the case of some new projects I've seen I must say I'm a bit surprised. E.g. is the Geni-project about 2012 Olympic games in London. It's absoloutely only young and living people active there. But how to treat them as "realtives" or "family"? How to treat a Goldmedal winner 2012 on Geni?? Shall all the profiles be private? Are they in that case of any geneaological interest? It might be if it's a son or a daughter of a manager, but it would like odd if profiles who died 100 years ago are closed due to the "5-generation promise" from Geni and maybe 1 open profile for a living person without no connections backwards. Or just private profiles.

I have 84 people in my family group.
Rina Talmore

Agneta Åhrberg : as long as only direct family-members are managers of the profiles of living FAMOUS and they decide to make an URL on a project-page to their personal websites, I can see no harm in making projects for National Medal-winners. So I try to invite only people of the Countries involved and who I know by good collaboration or personaly to help me documentating the contributions of that particular Olympic-team or nation to the 2012-summer games:
http://www.geni.com/projects/Olympic-Movement-%E2%80%A7-since-1850-...

you like to help with that challenge? would be great if I can set-up an project-paragraph for SWEDEN.

groetUnujMu =jeannette from holland, europe.

I have 186 people in my Family Group. It is set to the maximum.

Jeanette: As you say, the direct family members must decide about the living profiles. Whether famous or not, I belive. The link to the project "since 1850" shows a project with participants that the profile owners must be kind of proud of and it is of course a bigger willingness to keep the profiles open to others but close relatives.

I looked at your project (the linked) and I must confess: I'm an absouloutely nobody in sports and sportmen off all kind. I know one name and that's Carl Lewis. I just loved to see him run. I have no sources, no books about sports and I only sometimes read the sportnews. I am totally convinced I cannot contribute to any sport-project geneaological. Sorry : )

I believe that public persons living or dead should have public profiles on Geni. This would include politicians, sports figures military and basically anyone who is even a little bit famous. I made a profile for A J Foyt and his family. they are all well known and have their own websites so there is no need for them to be private

I agree with you Eldon. "Famous" or people living on kind of being public, having websites and so on ougth to be public on Geni. I don't know how much is under "copyright" from a specific website and if not anything told about the geneaolgocal matters it might be because they don't want thos to be a part of their "public life". Sometimes I do recognice today "famous" names but don't know if the living persons wants to be connected to their ancestors. (E.g. I found an evil murderer in a wellknown swedish family and noone of them says anything but "O yes, I have heard of him. Lucky it's not on our branch of the family." But as far as I can see there is no different branches! They've just erazed the person/murderer from the family. The sibblings are here on Geni. He is erazed from the official sources and it's only 80 years, about two generations away. He will not become a "Family group member" for more than 80 years more I think.

260 for me.

Ok Hatte and Eldon I added you. I have lots of "family group" members, as Geni defines them, because I always invite other users to join my family group so I can see their tree and help them build it and merge their profiles. So far, there is no other way to do this. But Geni has a 1,000 limit on invited family group members, so I have hit that wall and have to cull people in order to add new ones. The ones above 1,000 are users who are automatically in my max family group (4 generations up and down, I think).

I have 108 (real) + 103 (forced) = 211

I have 199

As ridiculous as this might sound to Americans, most of my near relatives don't have Internet access. So my tally is quite low! Only 24. Once again, I strike out with the numbers. :)

346

334

I have 387 people in my Family Group and 1783 people in my Family tree

Only 121 for me

98

421

Tree = 1260
blood = 287
group = 101

I have 342, do I make the list?

Wow, I'm up to 55 now. I'm surprised by that.

1201 persons here...

Jaanus Luuse - how about you?

I decided to throw all out. 5 people in my familygroup and they are also not permanent.

142 for me.

I have 138

712