Creatring copies of profiles

Because the search function doesn't always reveal what you are looking for... This occurs for many reasons - often because the middle name on the profile has been changed to a descriptor, etc.

Well, A M, I get the same messages about your added profiles. Please try to collaborate withe others to avoid such situations.

This is not the case here. The copies are always add directly to the tree and the branch, next to the one who is allready there. I see this all the time.
After a big "clean up" you don´t see that this was the way it started. Later you will not see the extra "Frederik II", when some one has been there to "clean up". My be people love to clean and have plenty of time?

Do you have an answer to my question Bjørn Brox?

http://www.geni.com/family-tree/index/6000000012166490358#600000001...

AM -

Most of the time, they are created by newer users who don't know how to connect to or navigate around the "Big Tree."

It takes a few days for newly added profiles to be search-able or show a possible match signaling them to *stop* adding further up.

Some users aren't aware that they can suggest changes to profiles even if they aren't managers.

For those who feel they must be a manager, many don't know they can simply request to be added.

Some are control or ego driven and they create duplicates intentionally, expecting others to merge them in, thus gaining management.

There are a multitude of reasons.

We all agree that it can be inconvenient, and sometimes, outright aggravating!

So...

We're brainstorming solutions to diminish duplication.

We're working at identifying new or confused users and guiding them along.

We're working on notifying persistent duplicators that it's not okay.

right now as it stand you can't ask to be manager, add anything to a project, or solve duplicates, or conflicts from profiles there are only 2 dron down menues that i am seeing at present -
View tree
edit profile -

the more options button has went south and took a vacation

A M, remember that curators and Geni staff have access to see all activities of a user on public profiles, including deleting and disconnecting profiles. The reaction on such actions if it looks like vandalizing the big tree immediately results in a suspension. The decision on becoming permanently suspended is made by Geni staff.

When it comes to duplicates it is not a curator, but a personal problem between the involved parties which simply can be solved by collaboration, but if it creates too much problems temporary suspension is one of the reactions until there is an understanding of the "one world tree" with only one profile per person is understood.

Judith "Judi" Elaine (McKee) Burns, - take a look on the item on the [*options] button at the top right of a profile.

Sometimes, it's necessary to create duplicates in order to get a match. For instance, you have a dead-end on a tree. You do some research and start adding profiles, suddenly 5 ancestors up, you see a match. You merge the duplicates, and then you notice you spelled a surname with an E at the end, and they dropped the E (like the surnames Warren/Warrenne or Wells/Welles). So now you have to merge the duplicates.

this is also related to this issue
http://www.geni.com/discussions/92762

:-)

there is none in my screen view - only the view tree buttoon an the edit button is to the right this is occuring in IE and Foxfire both for me - there is ABSOLUTELY NO OPTIONS Button on my screen and has been that way since april 1st

Judi,
the Options button is ABOVE the View and Edit links, almost at the top of the page.

So!- now the copy profile has disapeared into the original. Like it allways happens. It most be an endless work. The problem is now, like allways, the origainal profile has changed. Have a look at the name now!

You want another one? Have a look at Anton Gunther von Oldenburg,

http://www.geni.com/family-tree/index/6000000008538306614

Every day new copy profiles! We are not taking about new users

Few days ago I started the same crazyness yes. Hope it will open some eyes.
87 copy profiles made since yesterday:

Private User

Here's kind of a backwards question about this topic -- if I remove a match from a profile because there isn't enough information to say it's a match (just a common name like John Smith, no DOB or other details) and the person who manages the profile later updates it with new information (which now makes it an obvious match for the profile in my tree) will it show back up again as a possible match or does removing a match mean that is permanent even if both profiles were updated and matched later?

I'm not sure I worded that very concisely, but I hope you get the idea!

@Pamela, no it won't show back up as a match, unfortunately.

I asked the same question here 3 weeks ago.

http://www.geni.com/discussions/91943?msg=687296&page=1

At that time I did not create copy, dublicate profiles my self. Because I find that the dublicates create only a lot of mess, with, could be wrong names, when the merge is made by some one who don`t know the profile, and endless work.
People did not seem to understand the question or see the problem. So I gave up and made some profiles for allready excisting profiles myself. ( however with sources, you don`t find in these copies I talk about). I don´t find this all right, as I have tried to explain. But Geni finds it all right?

I talk about, when a single dublicate profile is created next to an excisting profil. Some make lots of those every day. Why?. They are quickly merged , like the profile I used as an axcample in the beginning of this thread.
(Some few even ONLY create dublicate profiles.)

It would be sad to see either of you leave. Especially feeling upset.

It seems like both of you are passionate about genealogy and have invested a lot of time in it.

The concept of "Collaborating" was hard for me to accept at first. I, too. felt like others were taking over "my" tree. I have found it to be wonderful. I've met new people, learned new things, helped others, and been helped.

Sometimes I can be a bit too idealistic. But, I think the two of you would benefit from collaborating with each other. It's worth a try!

Dear Jette Rosborg, I have not add anthing to "your" tree. I have done, what you have done for long and all the time, created dublicate profiles. I did this so you can see, what you and Knud Jensen are doing many times a day.

I have not made a profile for Maren Madsdatter Rosborg, as you show here but for some few before her from the 1700. Is that "your tree"? And I have add sources that was not to find in the original. So I don´t understand why they are not merged? This is very interesting! Or why my add profiles should be deleted?
Think about why you get so upset by seeing by seeing new profiles. And think about, this is what you and Knud Jensen have done for long. At least those profiles I have add have sources. Those you 2 add as dublicates every day mostly only have a name. If you don´t see what I am saying, then go to your "activity" and see yourself that even most of the add profiles were quickly merged they allready excisted at Geni.
A M Kjær

A M: Adding profile that falls within the family-group within another user should be avoided, especially if these profiles already exists because you will violate the privacy of that user if/when the profiles get merged.

I would recommend that you delete your duplicates, but in any case I recommend you to start collaborating because I am tired of all the childish trouble in the danish lines.

Hm,, Bjørn Brox,, when have profiles from the 1700 been part of a "family-group"? What is a "family-group"?
YOU are "tired of all the childish trouble in the danish lines", oh, Bjørn Brox, you allways make me laugh.

but Jette Rosborg, I am not at all interested in "having your family". I created some profiles from the 1700.
The question for this debat is, if it is all right constantly to make dubliates of other profiles.
What about all these dublicate you create, they have family too. Or Frederick II von Hessen-Homborg like we started with. He has family too.
So what about the big world trre contra private family trees. When is a profile no longer private?

I think the thread has gone far out, so back to the beginning of this thread.
Why create dublicate profiles? Single profiles with only a name and few dates next to the original proftl. Like Anton Gunter Oldenburg. Just as an excample.

http://www.geni.com/family-tree/index/6000000008538306614

This is the way you do it, Jette Rosborg, so you must be able to tell me, what I don´t understand.

Some months ago I have started the discussion called: QUO VADIS GENI ? (required or uncontrolled development of Geni). There were only several responses on my questions and doubts.

Reviewing the present discussion I may only say: “nothing has changed”.

Over 6 years ago (Feb. 2005) I was invited to join the Geni system. I was in the first group of active genealogist (on internet) to whom isuch invitation was sent. We got a proposal to use this site to generate OWN family tree. An idea of BIG WORLD TREE came much later.

Mr. AM Kjær asks: “...the big world tree CONTRA private family tree..” . Yes, exact – this is primary question! For me (as well as for many, many users” – the primary aim is to build OWN family tree and we do not think so much about size and extent of the global tree. Of course, we benefit from being a part of the global tree but we would like to have control over OUR part of this tree. But this is not – every day we missed more and more control over our tree, over profiles added by us, and every day we find new undesired editions to our tree. Our profiles have been changed, some profiles deleted, incorrect ancestors appear etc. etc. The range of “privite” area has been limited to 5 generations of direct ancestors – and the rest is like others including curators want.

Can anybody (from geni staff or curators) tell us: what is a aim of Geni? What is primary and the most important purpose: our private tree or this huge global tree.

I hoped that the geni system will be like a huge library where any user can select “profiles” like Lego-elements to built own tree. But unfortunately we are very far from such idea.

At the end of the 2009 year many of users experienced that the geni system is going to be uncontrolled with enormous number of multiplied profiles. Shortly after the new rules and the new system has been introduced (with curators and master profiles (MP)). In the beginning it looked that it might be improvement but unfortunately today I may only conclude that situation is not better but worse.

1. Curators.
I think that the most of users do not know how curators have been selected and what kind of experiences and occupational qualification they represent. Are they professional historians / genealogists or just active users of geni?
This question is crucial since curators have significant power including establishing of MP.

2. Master profiles
I guess that this idea came from the geni staff (mostly system engineers) and not from genealogists. What we are dealing this is NOT mathematics or physics where all (well –almost all) is “equal to” or “unique”. This is HISTORY where there are TOO MANY unknowns. Operating in the time period behind e.g. the 1500 year – many family trees have to be re-constructed based on very limited facts and dates. In general, there are more theories and hypothesis than documented connections. For many hundred years historians are not agreed about many family trees – so how a curator could decide what is accepted and what is not accepted?

Just two examples (from “our” area):
a/ Almost 100 years ago the Danish Nobility Annual (DAA) published the Løvenbalk-Krognos family tree which shown connection from Krognos to Regiza Løvenbalk and next to Christopher II, king of Denmark. Such line/connection is very popular on Geni. But about 10 years ago a new theory has been published which say that such connection did not exist. DAA has approved this new theory. So – which solution will be selected as a MP?
If the first one will be fixed as MP, and I will add profiles according to the second one – will I be punished for adding duplicated profiles?

b/ more drastic example
Bjørn (as curator) fixed the MP for Sigrid Storrada, daughter of Skoglar Toste and “NN unknown”.
O.K. – as I know this is based on the Norwegian Saga (from 12th centuries). But most of the European historians (at least German and Polish) referred this person as Swietoslawa daughter of the Polish price Mieszko I. And this is based on the Thietmar’s chronicle (who lived in the same time as Swietoslawa/Sigrid i.e. break of 10th-11th century).

Two existing hypothesis. How the curator can select one to be better than other? On which basis?

Could I select the other hypothesis or I will be punished for duplication of MP????

And at the end again about: NN, unknown, ??, ukjent etc, etc.

Every time I review MY family tree (i.e. tree of MY DIRECT ancestors) – I find more and more such additions (NN, ??, wife of X, etc).

I am dealing with genealogy for over 25 years. I can honestly say that in ANY professional family tree (old or new) such “additions” are not listed. Empty box/place means exactly the same: no information of this person is available. It is all – any other comment is not necessary.

It is typical that we know the maximum 5% of our ancestors in 20-25 first generations. If we would like to notice that remaining 95% is “unknown” in a way as Bjørn suggested (....unknown is genealogical fact and it should be noticed...) – so we should put millions of “unknown” in every empty box. I would like to ask Bjørn: do you also specified “unknown” on the end of each line i.e. for parents, grandparents etc. for every first ancestor in every family? Since “he” is the first in specified line – so his parents are of course unknown – and it is of course fact (not historical because everybody has parents).
Yes – it is difficult to fight against this garbage if curators self are responsible for adding so many “??”, ukjent, NN.

I my discussion with some users it came that many have added such unnecessary “NN” or ?? because they believe that this is required (!!).

Again – the geni system is misleading: when somebody would like to add parents to X-person, in the drawn two boxes appears: add father, add mother. When the first person (mother or father) is listed then in the second box appears an order: “ADD THIS PERSON” . And many believe that they HAVE to add the second person, too. In a case of lack of data they just list “??” or something similar. It has to be changed! (e.g. “add this person only if you know some facts”)

Wojciech Eugeniusz Kauczynski, these are valid points you are raising but as a curator I think you are being unfair to us. Like you we realise that there are discrepancies in historical theory on a lot of historical trees. Geni is limited in how we can present these but I believe we have hit the middle ground. We will in general correct a tree to the current historical thought where it is backed up but will also state if there are contradicting schools of thought and what these are. Where there are documents to support a fact then there is the ability to cite this on Geni. Remembering that this is still a work in progress I think that inroads have been made in recent months. Surely it is easier to look at a tree with just one of each profile and then on that profile for it to say 'actually he may have been the son of A or B but such and such documents support him being the son of A whereas the only evidence for B is ....'

Wojciech Eugeniusz Kauczynski, - We have tried to summarize some of the history of the big tree in the following project where you also find links to press releases and other information from the company:

http://www.geni.com/projects/Launching-Geni-s-Big-Tree-A-Retrospective

The first profile in Geni, Amos Eagle Elliston, was by th way added in December 23, 2006, so of you have some history about Geni before that date please add it to the project.

When it comes to unknown's, - we have multiple discussions on that. For me having an unknown profile in some problematic lines is a great help in the merge process because you use much less time resolving conflicts. Secondly you put up a warning flag for those who are in the process of making bad merges with a profile with a known parent or think they have found it, and third: unknown is a genealogical fact and not just a tree under construction which missing profiles might indicate. In the long run they should probably go away.

When it comes to Storrada and other "conflicts", - those are usually compromises until someone comes up with solid proofs, but of course I will put more trust on local than foreign sources.

Mr. Terry Jackson,
I am sorry that you considered my words as unfair for curators.
I just summarize the present status of geni (from MY point of view as än user).

But anyway - you did NOT answer my question:

How curators have been selected? You should know it because you are one of them.

Are they selected on a professional basis or they are just amatours / hobby genealogists?