MP swap unmanageable

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: yes, I agree that there are far too many subprojects. A once-good system is broken due to too much fracturing and not enough communication.

Jeroen, would you be willing to 1) stop making more subprojects for now, and 2) delete the ones with no traffic? https://www.geni.com/projects/Curator-Profile-Exchange-Ghana/49762 for example has literally never had a single profile in it. With https://www.geni.com/projects/Curator-Profile-Exchange-Central-Amer... you added and immediately removed one profile. Etc.

https://www.geni.com/projects/Curator-Profile-Exchange-America-US/5... only has two U.S. curators in it, and it has overlap with two other preexisting projects. Why are we adding profiles to that project *and* the ones for Colonial and living Americans? If the intention is for it to cover the 19th and 20th C., then let's state that unambiguously in the title. But more importantly, let's get U.S. curator buy-in before we put more energy into it.

Private User , we previously had one African exchange project, since we don't have enough MPs from outside southern Africa to justify individual country projects. A South African curator said that South Africa needed its own project, which does seem to have gotten regional curator buy-in. But now we have two South Africa projects, and I can't tell what the difference is. (Is one really a Namibian project?) I'll leave it up to our South African team to figure it out.

With virtually all of its profiles being moved to the South African projects, we should probably get retire https://www.geni.com/projects/Curator-Profile-Exchange-Africa/48607 at this point.

https://www.geni.com/projects/Curator-Profile-Exchange-French-Noble... has only one of our French curators as a member. We see this in multiple exchange projects -- no one invites the stakeholders. I'll send out more invitations for that one, but most of our exchanges have this same problem.

If we could stop building more projects and instead focusing on fixing the problems with the current ones, that would be a huge first step.

+1

For the record, I just removed the only four remaining profiles from the Africa exchange -- because they're Tongan. The names seemed obviously Pacific Islander to me, so I'm glad I checked their trees...

We have a Hawai'ian exchange; I'd be happy to make that a more general Pacific Islanders exchange if that would be more effective. (Jason Scott Wills, any thoughts?)

The only problem with fully deleting the Africa exchange is that (I think?) we'd lose the discussion thread. Maybe we could repurpose it?

If the project was actively used in the past I would not delete it as itprobably had curator buy-in.

It never really was. The thread was about whether to use it. ;)

Why should there only be 30 to 100 profiles in a project? Where does this number come from? How will this assist with the issue?

Please tell us how you see merely moving profiles from one project to another will solve the problem of finding a curator to take over the profiles.

Please tell us how you see creating empty projects with zero buyin from the curators working in the locations will solve the problem of finding a curator who works in the locations to take over the profiles. Please tell us how creating an Australian project will assist with this issue when there is no Australian profiles within the 1000+ profiles.

Would it be not be better to
1) promote more curators applications in areas that need it
2) mentor potential new curators in areas that need it
3) get the curators who work in the areas that have the issue discuss ways to improve it - ie get their buy-in

The Tongan profiles have not been fixed - they have just been moved.

At the moment there around 50 profiles then you can scan it without filtering.

At the moment the number is higher it is lost in the list.

Some profiles do not has locations in it so. If you are only interested in non-USA profiles, then you need to scan 100's of profiles before you will see one.

And if you move back the British MP profiles back into the master project then they can not be found back.

See the tongan profiles, they did not have a country connected to them so, you need to do a lot of work and open the familytree to see that they are Tongan. And because they are moved back in the Master project they will be again in the long long long list.

The most work is not in creating the subprojects, but in the finding which profile has what location.

The most Curators adopt profiles based on location and language.

We can try to find first Curators for the locations and that Curator needs to set up projects and other things. But then we get two or three projects for the same thing.
And those projects will be hard to find.

Some area's like Australia have active Curators that are willing to adopt them, but other area's like France or Belgium it is very hard to find them.

I must say that I did find some australians, so that also one reason to keep the number of profiles in one project down.

Private User, please provide links to the Australian profiles because I regularly review the projects and sort it by Birth Location and then baptism location and then death location and then burial location and then current location and have not been able to locate any for quite a while. Except one that you took from Ofir and then decided to put into the project the other day which is when I discovered you had decided that the Aussie curators wanted a seperate project for 1 profile without even the courtesy of asking us.

A curator looking for the Tongan profiles would never have located them because they were incorrectly put into the South African project.

Without other curator buy in moving these profiles from this project into another will do nothing to fix the problem. It just redistributes the problem.

If they don't have locations in them then yes Curators will have to go through each and review them to see if they are interested. And most of us won't bother - as it is a complete waste of our time.

The other way curators find them is by coming across them when researching - I always check to see if the profiles I am working on are in the project and take them on if they are.

The problem is that you Private User have unilaterately decided that the fix to the problem is to create hundreds of projects and then you expect all of the other curators to work the way you think works best.
And even after we tell you that it is not helping, that we don't want it - you still insist that we work the way you want us to work.
That is NOT collaborative.

All we are asking is that you work with the relevant curators to work out a solution that has a hope of working rather than dictate how you believe we should work.

I have just reviewed the ones that you have put into the Australia.

Sorry but New Zealand is NOT in Australia - it is a country in its own right and does not belong in a project labelled Australia.

>>> "I am planning to start subprojects for the Asia, but then it will be Great Russia, Great China and Great India. And arab middle east."

It concerns me that we're either not communicating our concerns clearly enough, or that you are choosing to ignore them. I'm not sure how we can proceed as a team like this.

No one has deleted anything, to my knowledge. What has been deleted?

But you're right -- there's a lot of disagreement about how to proceed, which is why we're suggesting that rather than going ahead and making new projects, let's pause that part of the process and figure it out first. And maybe let's hear from some other voices instead of just the same handful of us over and over.

How can we get more input from others? Should we ask in the "fellow curators" thread? A new thread? The Facebook group?

I have sent invitations to regional sub-projects to curators who actually work in those areas, and they're turning the requests down. What can we learn from that?

I haven't deleted anything but I also won't be using these projects

It is not appropriate to put New Zealand in to a project called Australia or even continent of Australia whatever that means.

New Zealand is not within Australia - both are seperate islands quite a distance apart. It takes a couple of hours and an international passport to fly from Australia to New Zealand.

>I was not planining to make subprojects for every country in and around the Continent Australia

Australia is the world's largest island.
Australia is a continent.
Australia is a country.

There are no other countries on the continent of Australia. If you want to really stretch things Australia and New Zealand (and Papua New Guinea?) are on the same tectonic plate but I'm not sure what/if the plate has a name.

The region of the world in which Leanne and I, and other curators, live is referred to as Australasia or Oceania but these are broad "political" definitions not related to continents in any way.

I agree that the current MP project is to big for most curators to wade thru, but i also agree that without but in from other curators moving MPs to sub projects will just hide the problem.

Here's a solution, Geni allocates the MPs in this project randomly to active curators who then can ought me them of there's no issues or hunt up another curator of there's an issue they cannot resolve.

OR

Remove "Curated By" from MPs, make management requests for a MP from a Curator as utomatic approve and have PMs from the profile weighed to preference active curators

FYI - just because a profile is in this project does not mean that it is curator abandoned. I personally have added profiles to the project that I would be very happy for another curator to take over but in the meantime I still look after it.

____
Totally irrelevant to genealogy unless we are talking gondwana but interesting non the less.
* Australia sits on the Indo-Australian Plate
* New Zealand sits partially on the Indo-Australian Plate and partially on the Pacific Plate
* Papua New Guinea, I think is on the Indo-Australian Plate with maybe a little on the Pacific Plate

Private User
Hoewel in het Engels hetzelfde (continent), wordt in het Nederlands soms onderscheid gemaakt tussen werelddeel en continent. Het begrip continent heeft dan een puur geologische betekenis, in tegenstelling tot het begrip werelddeel.

In English "continent" very specifically _only_ means the geological definition. We did not understand what you were saying because you were using a word which is very familiar to us but which has a different meaning for us than what you think it does.

In English "Oceania (UK: /ˌoʊsiˈɑːniə, ˌoʊʃi-, -ˈeɪn-/, US: /ˌoʊʃiˈæniə/, /-ˈɑːn-/)[4] is a geographic region"
By convention, "continents are understood to be large, continuous, discrete masses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water."[3]

This does not alter the fact that Tonga is not in Africa.

PS there is a recent argument that New Zealand is a completely separate continent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealandia

Re "That is the reason I ignored the native English speakers comments on creating new subprojects."

If you are going to ignore the native English speakers then I suggest that you should not create projects for english speaking countries.

I think you are missing the point.

I am asking you not to create projects and expect other curators to work them without having a discussion with those curators first.

In some cases a sub-project would help and others it won't.

As a curator working in a team particularly if you are going to create projects covering areas that
1) where there are current active curators specialising in those areas and
2) when you are not a specialist or knowledgeable about those areas,
then you need to make a suggestion and take the informed input from the curators working in those areas.

In the case of this project sub-projects may very well assist with the issue and Ashley even though she is a US specialist has created a discussion at https://www.geni.com/discussions/209385 to get buy-in and input from the other curators who work with the US profiles. That way together collaboratively they can come up with a solution that has the backing of those who would be working on the profiles and get the descriptions of the profiles correct. Ashley probably has the right solution but she is not enforcing her will on the other curators but is taking the time and effort to work with them as a team. Her approach has a much better probability of working because the other curators feel a sense of ownership of the solution rather than having a solution thrust upon them.

In the case of the Australian project if you had started a discussion, then we could have
1) understood that you meant Oceania or Continent Australia rather than Australia
2) investigated which profiles this was expected to cover - which was 3 New Zealand profiles out of 2500 in the current project
3) determine which curators are impacted and ensured they knew of the discussion and could add any input
4) if the decision was to create a project ensure that the name and description accurately reflected the profiles expected in it
5) educated you that we don't actually use Oceania or Continent Australia to describe a group of countries and a curator specialising in Australia would not necessarily be a specialist in New Zealand or vise versa.