Approving flawed matches

good question at the end Judith. i don't see the advantage. what's more, the more 'matches' the slower a profile will load.
and really, does information become more valid if there are matches from 6 different trees? what's the point?

I have 67 MH tree matches on a (fairly close in) great grandfather; obviously he spawned genealogists. :)

No, I don't reject if there's a minor error, no one is perfect; if the Geni profile warrants a Master Profile (in this case, for having 67 genealogist descendants) I field lock the Geni profile fact fields so the error doesn't creep in.

No, I don't contact my cousin, better s/he come to Geni for the "best possible," and MH users see Geni profiles.

No, I don't confirm all 67 trees, the Geni profile would collapse of arboreal overload.

Why confirm a match at all? What does confirming do, apart from cluttering up the profile with meaningless information?

Is there a future purpose for the confirmed matches?

I wish I could stop members confirming matches - it makes a mess of otherwise well-presented profiles.

i'm with Elaine...

Actually I have found the matches useful in tree repair. In the high traffic areas I'm in it's good to have a "snapshot" as it were.

And in the more obscure areas that are my direct lines, there have been very high quality trees indeed.

Thanks all, for very useful responses. My plan is to basically ignore "smart matches" but (and) to utilize new information if I think it is valid. Life is too short!

It seem the technique is only of interest for curatores repairing important treeparts, for they can lock some or all fields for overdosis of mis-information...