Keep the Top 10 statistics current

Where are revisions?

That is the count of revisions which I could not find on my profile :)

Just remember that numbers you see on your family awards page are private information only available for you as a trusted family group member of those listed there.

Not sure if it changed, but viewing revisions is a curator tool under actions. Perhaps they removed the ability to get the count on revisions because I am not finding it there. Would be a good stat to keep an eye on as it would reveal the use of scripts (which I presume is how the leaders got their high numbers).

Bjorn thinks anything someone else doesn't know is "private," meaning it cannot be disclosed without express permission. Sort of like when kids play "I've got a secret." I disagree with him. Strongly. Privacy is not a tool to inhibit free speech.

Publishing the revisions only curators have access to is even worse.

Randy - my revisions are fluctuating or simply time out . Mike mentioned in one of his posts that for some of us with high number of revisions system cannot handle it.

So I cant get an update any longer.

Yes, the first thing I did was go view my revisions under Actions, but there was no count associated with the list that I could see. I know that they have redone how revisions are viewed and it's no longer by page / count I think.

Bjorn, I go back and forth on your point. In the final analysis it is up to Geni. They could easily stop it if they agree that it's a violation.

Maybe the revisions aren't available to all just because it's so resource intensive that the system would have stability problems, and not a privacy issue?

Justin, they have probably taken an action by hiding the number.
Randy need to learn something about free speech, - if I for example published my company secrets I doubt an argument about free speech would be accepted.

The question is, how are the number of revisions at all threatening either to a user or to Geni's business success? That's a far stretch.

Bjorn needs to learn about law. I could publish what I know, without prior restraint. There might be a civil action against me if I had a a binding agreement not to disclose certain information, if that information meets the definition of a trade secret (which of course geni info does not). And there is no such agreement between me and another member of geni.

It's a little more complicated than that, Randy, but I think that's a fair summary of US law. For all we know, Norwegian law could be different, and even if US law applies, any differences could drive the perceptions of non-American users.

I don't see the harm to anyone in compiling and publishing something so trivial, but it's important (and polite) to listen to and understand any objections. Personally, I always give Bjørn's opinions great weight, even when I disagree with him.

Bjorn has excellent points a large percentage of the time I agree, but there are some areas that he has blind spots.

I can see that a large number of revisions might upset users either against Geni or a user, but I don't see that it something intrinsically to be kept hidden nor something about a user that would be included in what Geni has promised to keep hidden.

But if Geni thinks that the number revisions should be kept hidden, I don't think it's a big deal. I just agree with Randy that it's not intrinsically part of the "private" information about a user and furthermore it's interesting in that we can see that the script ran in the name of curators in the past which is why some have such large numbers. I believe I was even around when the script ran and for awhile allowed it to run in my name until I saw some bad merges.

It is not always about what is published and if it of any use for others, - it's more that information you have access to as a part of your position or job that is not public information get published.

By that argument we should not the last online date request. Yes, curators "see" more than pro's and that information is meant to be used to enhance the Geni experience for everyone, and that is why we have the right. It's not a trade secret, it's not a privacy violation or disturbance, and if it's not showing now, Lasse has the right of it - it's too resource intensive for the computers. I would simply - and do with any use of a living Geni user's name - honor requests for anonymity. Thats the courtesy.

Just to break the monotony of names followed by "C" in this discussion, I am adding my name, ha, ha, ha.

Good one Daniel.

Also another point about revisions. They started as raw data from the server logs. Gradually Geni has been enhancing the message revealed to more meaningful language. There still are plenty of events where I scratch my head and think - I have no idea what this means. I probably have no idea what a simple count of events means either.)

Erica, I don't really like the last online date requests either. Again, it's trivial and I don't see any harm, although it seems to be pushing a bit on user privacy.

This debate might come down to different personal and professional experiences with how to handle information. In my world, information is presumed to be confidential. If I know something, even something trivial, I'm not going to share it with everyone who asks. In fact, I'm probably not going to share it unless I believe I have permission -- even if I don't see how sharing could hurt anyone..

Justin, I am fine listening to Bjorn's opinions, but when he goes ad hominem (as in, "Randy need to learn something about free speech"), he better be ready to take it, as well as dish it out. He's still just frustrated because I am beating him (badly) in the top 10 decathlon. :-)
PS. Do you know that Bjorn has a way to remove me as a follower? I haven't figure out how he does that, not that I would ever bother to remove a follower. I suppose if I decided to spend as much time on the tech aspects as he does, I could catch up and pass him there also, but I'd rather waste my time on genealogy. :-)

I suppose we should delete the Revisions from the top 10 lists, now that Geni has hidden that stat, for whatever (unexplained) reason. Anyone think we should keep the Revisions category? I thought it was interesting and useful. Would be nice to have it generated automatically, and to track the top 10 in the past week/month/year, so we could see who is really working hard on the tree.

Thank you for admitting that this is a number game for you ;-)
If you look at my suggestions you will definitely see that it is my goal since I want to remove all factors making people act like this. Remove managed by and curated by as some examples.

Act like what? Which part of my stats do you think results from inappropriate geni behavior? Please, I am dying to know . . .

NO LAUNDERING YOUR DIRTY CLOTH ON THE DISCUSSION FORUM!

Revisions is pretty useless anyway. Those numbers are grossly inflated by the automated merging that went on a few years ago.

If this is so then these figures are not comparable at all and can not be put into one pot with them who have not been able to use scripts.

I'm currently working on some interesting migration paths around the Azores. Actually, MIGHTY interesting. Some curators/users have done fantastic work in that space. It would be great to see more curators/users taking an active part in developing these fascinating historical twists that have such a tremendous impact on our family histories. Not just the Azores, of course - there are SO MANY interesting things to work on :-)

I am not crazy about the Top-10, but if it is to stay:

1) it should be accurate
2) fair competition rules & capabilities - between curators & users (Olympics=no doping)
3) no Gedcom import numbers to be included OR should be separate from Manual entries
4) no script or other automated processes -OR should be separate from Manual entries
5) invites don't count - only accepted new users
5) Curators should be identified
6) I am sure I missed few other things - for the Top-10 to be useful to Geni users & Geni staff :)