Customisable Names for GMOL numbers

Found more of the GMOL being put in the suffix that are public:
Katharina Klassen
Henry Klassen
https://www.geni.com/profile/edit_basics/6000000210120194835

Re Katharina Klassen and siblings and mother
These looks more like a birth year than a GMOL number

Geni won't be able to tell the difference for these (as many users put the birth year into the suffix field)
They will need to be manually updated.

Darn, I though I found some. I shall keep looking!
Thank you for letting me know.

Re profiles with GM and GMOL ie Maria Peters

Private User entered the label GM on 4 March

Geni identified it as a GMOL number based on the number being in the forename field - so created the GMOL label and moved it to there on 8 April

I have asked Geni to remove the GM label and replace it with GMOL label - but this may take a few weeks.

Have all the people who enter GMOL numbers been told how to enter them?
Otherwise we are chasing our tails in a never ending circle.

They should

• create the custom label GMOL
• add the number with a # if verified and without a # if unverified
• Add the profile to the project
• Add GMOL to their append name preferences

To make it easier for me to see them I have added [GMOL to the front of my append name and ] to the back of my append name.

I did send emails to the profile managers whenever I came across the numbers being put into different places than what was agreed to. I would direct them to this project.

I directed Private User to this project on December 18, 2024.

I remove the GM when i see it and replace it with GMOL.
Also update the location of the numbers when i come across them.
As far as i know, there is nothing to prevent users from updating a project profile without actually viewing the project recommendations regarding use of # sign etc.
I still like Leanne's suggestion of a check mark (because to me the # sign is simply identifying the profile # in gmol) for verified, but would be great if the checkmark sign was readily available for such use. Is that possible Leanne? Though maybe it doesn't really matter, since anyone can update profiles even after we consider them "verified", without our knowledge. In fact, we ourselves might update even after they are considered "verified ", if new information becomes available.

We do want to make it as user friendly as possible, hoping more folks will agree to have their ancestors profiles in the project.

We also need to remember that our Mennonite ancestors at some point descended from non-Mennonite folks. Just because our Mennonite ancestor does not have parents and siblings identified on GMOL, does not mean they didn't have any parents or siblings!
We cannot just disconnect parents and siblings from our project profiles who show no parents or siblings in GMOL. Mennonites did not exist prior to the 1500's. But our ancestors did exist prior to the 1500's. GMOL specifically purposes to Identity "low german" Mennonites and their "low german" Mennonite ancestors. It attempts to trace the "low german" Mennonite ancestors historically to the point where said ancestors joined the Mennonites, but does Not attempt to trace our ancestors prior to their joining the Mennonite groups. Although many folks joined the Mennonites in the 1500's, many others did not join until the 1600's, the 1700's, the 1800's, and even the 1900's.

Re Checkmark readily available

I don’t think it is something that Geni would put as a priority.
I have mine saved so I can just copy it.

Alternatively you could add the word verified after the GMOL number. Although it would be more useful if it was verified Apr 2025.

If the GMOL is likely to change having a date is a good idea. The older the date the more likely it needs to be rechecked.

These ones will be hard for Geni to identify as there is nothing that says the number is a GMOL number (other users add other numbers into profiles too)

Anna Friesen

The word verified with a date of verification makes sense to me.

Re GMOL #'s. Good point, Wendy.
GMOL used to recirculate numbers that were no longer needed when a merge occurred.
So i do like to verify that i am using the most up to date numbers.
My understanding is that GMOL no longer recirculates numbers.
Merges bring us all together...
GMOL is always a work in progress, and is updated when new Information becomes available (and volunteer availability).
I have also noted in the last couple of years, an effort to add sources wherever possible

I fixed the Anna Friesen profiles, and others in similar situation near it.

I think i can only add profiles i am directly involved with, others i have to invite.
Profile managers choice i guess.
Is that correct Leanne?

If we are to use the verified designation, it would be useful to have it in the same place, for consistency. Easier to find and identify for other users. I like Leanne's idea of GMOL, then the number, then verified, and date. I.e. GMOL 12345 verified Apr 13, 2025, for example. Where and how would like to see it Wendy?

Wendy, i took care of fixing the Daniel Wilcks profile. The 3 notes previously there were mine. At the same time i had sent a message to GMOL. It looks like they cleared up the issues regarding the 3 Daniel's in 2021. I just was not aware of their updates until now.

Re adding to the project.

If you (or their collaborator) manage the profile you can add it into the project, otherwise it will send an invite to the profile manager.

It might make it easier if all those who work on GMOL should be collaborators of the others working on GMOL or regular users who are creating GMOL related profiles.

NOTE: you can't add private profiles to the project.

Re verified date

I would personally add it to the GMOL label

• label = GMOL
• description = 12345 verified date

With date I would definitely use the month name rather than the numbers (ie May instead of 5). Some users would interpret 5/4/2025 as 5 April 2025 and others as 4 May 2025

Reasons
1. it is searchable
2. it is visible everywhere - including ancestor and descendants reports
3. it is consistent
4. it is easy to tell if the profile was checked recently or it might be time to review GMOL
5. it is easy to understand

Over time (say in 5 years) you could do a search on GMOL verified 2025 and pick up all those that were verified in 2025 - and then check GMOL for updates and update the verified date

I agree with Leanne. Simple and clear. Could we post that explanation on the project site itself?

How do we define the designation "verified"?
Does it mean, verbatim, just exactly as shown on GMOL? Or is there some wiggle room?

For example, GMOL says a couple married in RM Rhineland, but i know from family records that they married in the village of Reinland, which originally was in the West Reserve, then was part of RM of Douglas, which due to a name change became RM of Rhineland, then with RM Boundary changes village Reinland became part of RM Stanley. GMOL says they married in RM Rhineland. I know they married in village Reinland, as i will state on geni. Then someone comes along and changes it to RM Rhineland as per GMOL and designates profile as "verified ".

What i am suggesting is that we do not need gmol "police". We went through a nighmare a couple of years ago where several self-designated mennonite profile "police" made some folks lives miserable, to the point that a number of them quit posting on geni. I, for one, pulled back to a degree from my geni participation because i did not have time or energy for the harassment.

We don't want folks to pull out of the project. We want folks to participate. We want to make the process user friendly. We want to bring the community together. We want to collaborate. We want to expand, explore new information, make new discoveries which hopefully we can then share with GMOL (they are always seeking more information as well) and incorporate into our project.

That's my vision at any rate... What are your thoughts?

GRanDMA is information from verified sources.

Almost weekly, people come in to the Mennonite Historical Society of BC (MHSBC) to get their profiles corrected because of what some other people thought was correct. If you find that GRanDMA isn't correct, please send in an update to correct it via the profile. The database relies on people correcting it.

It has taken me over a year to get my direct families information updated. I am constantly getting new information. People are born, get married, have children, etc.

First hand information is the best, like what Rosella Dyck said above and that is enough of a source for GRanDMA to get it fixed. I encourage everyone to correct known mistakes in GRanDMA not only for ourselves but also for future generations.

For me, when I created a profile or make updates, I use the #, as it is the best way to copy and past from the actual profile which includes the # instead of just typing it. I know that I have made mistakes with just typing. When you see the #, you will realize that if it is one of the profiles that I manage, that is where I got the information from. If it is incorrect, I encourage people to update GRanDMA as well.

Rosella

GMOL is a tertiary source - ie it is information gathered from other sources
If you have differing information from primary sources (birth records, marriage records) they should take precedence

If you are worried that someone will alter the data incorrectly - you could

• add the primary record as a source
• add a note in the overview
• add a discussion

If the profile becomes an issue - ie with data being edited back and forth - you can ask for the profile to be a master profile and the field locked - but you will probably need to have the source on the profile.

Thanks Leanne. I agree. Grandma is a Tertiary source, not a primary or even secondary source. I'm afraid we'll be seeing ancestors cut off from their parents and siblings, just because they are not on GMOL. This happened recently to one of my lines on geni. According to GMOL, they have not as yet found irrefutable proof of the connection, and because the child was named after the father (instead of what they might have expected the fathers name to be, based on the name of the eldest son of the child), GMOL removed the connection, but has no connection to replace it. I, and quite a few other researchers, disagree with this conclusion. Just because an ancestor does not show as connected on gmol, does not mean that the connection is inherently incorrect. And now, this connection is gone for all 20 managers... I would like to know if all of those 20 managers were contacted prior to the disconnection of the ancestors (who have been on geni for many years now). I personally have quite a few ancestors who do not meet the expected naming tradition norms. Shall I disconnect all of those ancestors too??? There needs to be a better way. We cannot just disconnect ancestors others have relied on for years, simply because they are not connected on gmol!! Your thoughts please? Leanne?

Did you discuss this with GRanDMA? They are approachable! Yes, they do rely on sources. Having said that, if you have first hand information then please provide this as the reason why and they will change things in GRanDMA. When I see things here that are not in GRanDMA and I can find a source for them, I send it to GRanDMA. So far, this month I have sent in 69 updates to GRanDMA thanks to what I have seen here in GENI, mostly it is Find a Grave, but it is a change.

There is one fellow in my family that was raised by neighbours and GRanDMA have him as their son and not the other way. I am trying to find one more piece of evidence to prove it and then share what I found with them to have him back with his parents and siblings.

On another note, I found one profile with the GMOL in the suffix: Sara Epp

I will let the manager know more about this project.

I found a couple more of where the GMOL is in the suffix:
Elisabeth Hooge
Gerhard Hooge

I have sent an email to Peter Franz about the upcoming changes to GMOL and directed him to the project as well.

They have been merged so I can’t tell if the second profile was private before 5he merge.

This one is still private - Sara Epp - so needs to be manually changed