Potential new features

I just did a quick check of my 14 generation, as an example:

57 of the 87 profiles of that generation are MP's ... so now I have this urge to go find out if the other 30 or so are in good enough shape to also be MP's -- and that's where it would be nice to be able to list the profiles that are NOT MP'd (in this case, there are fewer of them).

Maybe have the option to count MP's without showing the detailed list, and only show the details (one or the other) when explicitly requested.

... and my generation 13 has 40 MP's out of 62, so only 22 to look at there ...
... while generation 10 only has 13 MP's out of 35 -- still 22 to look at ...

See how it inspired you to get more detailing into your ancestors? What a great app.

I'll try to work on the feature requests, to include Erica's, this weekend. :)

Added: Problem Profiles option will now identify if there is a parent conflict on direct ancestors.
Fixed: Tree Completion graph will no longer calculate more than 2 parents for any ancestor when there is a parent conflict so the graph can not exceed maximum values.

Oh snap! Works like a charm (unfortunately)

I ran 10 gens, problem profiles only, and have 5 parent conflicts (sob)

Brinsley Barnes‎ is your 7th great grandfather
Edward Osborne, III‎ is your 8th great grandfather
Tabitha Osborne (Platt)‎ is your 8th great grandmother
Anthony Pottrie Rowe‎ is your 8th great grandfather
John Lewis, II, of Westerly‎ is your 8th great grandfather

Pushed another quick fix that addressed a problem when you had multiple options selected, it wouldn't display all the hits.

Sorry Private User - you kicked off a search just as I hit the update button. So I'm sure it killed your session. oops.

Dan Cornett
* Added: Option to list Non-Master Public Profiles
* Added: Option to exclude Siblings (listing only direct ancestor - parents, excluding aunts, uncles, etc.)

* Added: MP completeness per generation to the chart

Cool additions! A few refinements come to mind:

1) In the graphs: Could the "titles" be placed over each graph? A first I though the "Direct Ancestors" was the title of the "MP percentage" graph.

2) I think it would be more useful for the MP % graph to use the Actual number (from the "Per Generation" graph) as the MP "max" value (e.g.; in my case, my 7th great's would have 22 out of 46 as MP, not 22 out of 512).

3) When including Projects, a nice "summary by project" is included. It would be real nice to include "Number of MP's" and "Number of problem profiles" into that "project summary" (even if one selects the option not to show the project profiles). Note: If you track different types of "problem profiles" (e.g.: no-access vs. parent conflict), that summary perhaps out to show the totals for each kind of problem. Why? Because I might not be able to ever change the 'no-access", but I might be able to get the parent-conflicts resolved.

Just some more thoughts! <grin>

Thinking about my (2) a bit more ... the "maximum potential MP value" should, I think, be among all the profiles examined. What that value is depends on the option to exclude siblings or not, but it should just be the total of those examined, not the theoretical calculated maximum (as it is for the other two graphs).

Dan, thanks for the suggestions. I'll work on that. :)

* Added: Option to Include Pending Merges in Search Results

Thanks ... it's getting more useful all the time!

On (2), I like the idea of using the available profiles for the count instead of the possible, but the tree completeness only looks at parents and excludes siblings. So I think the MP graph could be done either per generation or per total. So in your first example for (2), that would be per generation. Per total would combine each generation (both MP and the Available). Preference?

Oh, I think your second post suggested the preference for Per Total. The only difference is I'm talking about only parents - not the total profiles examined including siblings.

Ok, I pushed out #1 & #2. Let me know how that looks. I'll try to work on #3 later.

re: #2 ... you used the total for all generations on the MP ... I personally would prefer the total for just that specific generation. Why? Because then my "goal" might be to get all (but most recent, perhaps) generations at 100% of those known ... and it would be easier to see which generation(s) were missing some.

#1 looks much clearer- thanks!

re: #2 again ... if you make that change, title might be "MP per Gen Total"

Ok, updated #2 and added #3.

re: MP graph ... I like that. It's sort of what I expect (historical tree, beyond 12th or 13th, has a higher percentage of MP's than some earlier ones).

There seems to be some inconsistencies in the summary. I selected only "problem profiles" & tree completeness for 20 Gen. It found three Parent conflicts. Here is the text:
======================
Researched: 19th great grandparent's family (5009 Profiles Compared – 3 Matches)
AncestorsProblems
Mariot Campbell‎ is your 16th great grandmother Parent Conflict
Janet Scott of Buccleuch‎ is your 16th great grandmother Parent Conflict
Rhys ap Ifor‎ is your 18th great grandfather Parent Conflict

Summary
Total Profiles (3944) Total Matches (3) Master Profiles (1089)
Pending Merges (20) Parent Conflicts (0) Access Problems (0)
=======================
Total Match of 3 is fine, because I didn't ask for Pending Merges details (although it is nice to have that count done anyway!), and as a Curator I didn't expect any access problems. But the Parent Conflicts should be 3, not zero.

Thanks - will look into that. Didn't test that as I added the others. Oops.
Also tweaking it so the summary is visible prior to any hits.

Should be fixed now... I had counted it correctly, but was just displaying the wrong thing. I had displayed Access Problems value in both fields.
Also moved the Summary to above the Tree Completeness, so that it comes up right away without needing a match.

Looks good -- and data seem consistently reported now! Now to work on what is found!! (I've already cleaned up several parent conflicts!)

Here's my total for this one, of course the tree completeness drops dramatically while the % MP goes way up:

7th g grand 28 307 9.12%
8th g grand 91 483 18.84%
9th g grand 226 719 31.43%
10th g grand 415 1122 36.99%
11th g grand 602 1612 37.34%
12th g grand 640 2019 31.70%
13th g grand 721 2471 29.18%
14th g grand 869 3000 28.97%
15th g grand 1299 4140 31.38%
16th g grand 2346 6117 38.35%
17th g grand 3977 10728 37.07%
18th g grand 8840 21095 41.91%
19th g grand 18454 44854 41.14%

That's currently pretty common, no matter where you 'start', as long as the focus-profile has any connection into European royalty!

As I stated in the first post, ideally all historical profiles become MP's!

One other thing I noticed about this application, just for curiosity, it shows me at 268,384 total ancestors at 19th great (generation 21), while the total number of ancestors on my profile is 76829. I suspect this is probably because of a heavy amount of incest or tree overlap at the earlier generations.

Hmmm, I don't think I count duplicates. Can't recall

Working on a new big feature for the HistoryLink site - Stay Tuned :)

Matthew: The HistoryLink counting is for the number it finds for the number of generations selected. The Geni 'ancestors' is for a fixed number of generations.

I think I might be ready to start beta testing a new graph application for the site in a few days. Let me know if you're interested in testing.