over 10% of Collaboration Pool members are not accepting requests

I didn't get any requests.

I'm not sure creating a list of users in a public forum is going to help anything. The collaboration pools have been going on for years and years. So it's not unexpected that people are taking a break or haven't logged in for an extended period. Others sometimes check to see how distant you are, since your activity shows in their news feed, there may be no reason to collaborate with you at this point. There are also Collaboration Pool threads, that pre-date the Project, so you can also go there for additional collaborators. https://www.geni.com/discussions/search?q=Collaboration+Pool The pool was created at a time where Geni permissions were more restrictive in the global tree and personally, I'm not sure it's even relevant anymore. I'd just send requests to users that manage profiles within your public ancestry or other profile areas you're working in.

What kind of applications are talking about?Please take me up to speed, and I know what it is about.I have not previously been exposed to this thing.Sincerely Russian prince maternally L.Semsugov.

I actually for the first time yesterday recieved a request marked "Collaberation Pool" never seen it before.

If nearly 90% of Pool members are accepting requests, that's a fairly high success rate to my mind!

Humans *always* sign up and don't follow through.

Note that the project is at least 3 years old - just on demographics, we should expect that around 5% of the members have died since the project was formed, and there are many other reasons why people are passive.

I died 3 years ago and am so passive that i haven't stopped using Geni yet :)

I died 90 years before I was born. People are not responding to requests to collaborate.

From a statistical point, this is not a bad number ;)

Maybe it's because the "Collaboration Pool" members realize it's a losing battle from the get-go!

In theory, collaboration is good - an exchange of information. However, I am finding the opposite is true in several other genealogical groups I belong to. It appears that many "collaborators" are not exchanging information at all. They are simply taking information I give them and do not give back credible information in return.

Example #1: y-DNA shows that my family has gone under the surnames Calvert, Colvard, Colbert, etc. There are literally hundreds of family trees that indicate my family is related to 1st Lord Baltimore George Calvert of Maryland. However, y-DNA proves otherwise as well as FTDNA Family Finders. When I inform these "collaborators" that my family is not a member of Lord Baltimore's tree they refuse to accept my evidence and continue to keep my family as a member of Lord Baltimore.
In essence, they prefer to believe in the "lie" than in the "truth."

A prime example is families related to the Colbert's of Pittsylvania Co, VA. FTDNA Family Finders shows that I am a distant cousin to eleven families in Pittsylvania Co. Yet everyone of those people I have contacted swear they are related to Lord Baltimore. (None of these families are direct members of the CALVERT or COLBERT family, but they are related by marriage to the COLBERT family that moved there in the 1790's). Nothing will sway them. Not even the land deeds showing that families I am related to in Accomack Co, VA moved to Pittsylvania Co at the same time that the Colbert family did -- Stockley, Donelson, Purnil/Pernell, and Bibby (Bybee). [John Donelson married Rachel Stockley in Accomack Co and moved to Pittsylvania with other family members. Descendant of John and Rachel Stockley Donelson was Rachel Donelson who married President Andrew Jackson].

Example #2: While I am not related to Lord Baltimore, I do have the same DNA as the Chickasaw Colbert's and literally hundreds of "Colbert's" say they are also related to this family, even though they have never taken a y-DNA test and refuse to, and they have no Primary Source Material to prove they are related to the Chickasaw Colbert's.

It reminds me of the old saying: "You can take a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink it."

Correction to the above posting. The families of Accomack Co began moving to Pittsylvania Co. in the 1760's and ended during the 1790's.

If I get a request, I accept it, but I don't get a request often from the pool. I usually send out more request then I get, but if I run into someone who is active on geni I send them a request to collaborate. This way they can edit the public profiles I have without asking. Since I have quite a few profiles, it helps them and myself.

Richard, on Geni accepting someone as a collaborator has a technical meaning that has to do with editing rights. When it comes to exchanging information, Geni is one big, collaborative environment that doesn't have much to do with whether you're actually "collaborating" with someone.

We could have a whole discussion about why people prefer romantic fantasy over actual fact, but I think we just have to accept that some people need more time to adjust.

In any case the Calverts (Lords Baltimore) started as jumped-up members of the middle class who became rich and powerful and useful enough to the Crown to get a big fat "attaboy" title. James I and his successors handed out plenty of "baronial" titles in places like Ireland and Nova Scotia, which conveyed prestige without responsibilities.

"Lord Baltimore" was a title in the Irish peerage, which didn't count in Great Britain proper (holders could, and did, sit in the British House of Commons, which British barons could not do).