Public profiles are now editable by all Pro users.

Fay - I think your first paragraph is correct - provided that "protective web" is qualified to mean "default privacy status on data entry".

As for your second paragraph, I do not know if it is a bug or feature. Just because you and I disagree with something, it doesn't mean it is a bug.

Personally I know there are actually MANY cases where profiles way inside a 4th cousin tree default to public, when they're being added. I can't seem to find any rhyme or reason to it, but many of my collaborators who have entered in over a thousand closer relatives each, on average 30% of their profiles default to "public", but being novice users, (the flash "add person" menu doesn't even have a "public or private" setting) they don't realize what public means, or that "public" and "private" even exist.

I've manually entered my 11,000 person family tree in the last 7 months. My sister entered her husband's 6,000 person family tree in the last 4 months. We both had a random 30% of our trees default to public before we even knew what the "public/private" designation was.

Even recently, a distant relative my sister invited to the site, added her own child. The child defaulted to public, and trust me, she has no idea what public or private is, and if she did, she would never mark her child's data as "public". This literally happened three days ago. Her child is the only profile she's added to the site. My sister made the correction and asked me why Geni would default to public when she saw it.

I have an automated method of marking hundreds of profiles private at once. I'm content to just mark "living" relatives as private. Those that default to public who are dead, I have no good method of "filtering them out" and marking them private (as some level I prefer to have them be public, say, my Great-great-grandparents and further back.

Anyways, the simple solution is this. Geni could add a setting that each user has access to for his or her own profiles.

1.) A one click button to set all living relatives to private. (this combined with my suggestions on how to deal with zombies, for the entire tree, in an automated way would not cause a problem)

2.) In addition to setting living people to private, I would hope that Geni has some plans for automated tools regarding setting other relatives as private. Personally, for me and my family, I think setting all of my great-great-grandparents and their siblings and spouses and all their ancestors to public is appropriate. I also mark anyone who died before 1950 as public. I figured 60 years is plenty. I do this manually with "lists" combined with a macros program that can automate the "mark this profile public" buttons 20 in less than a second. BUT I hope that a tool becomes available for this soon.

Also, personally, I think it would be wise for Geni to not even HAVE a public setting for minors. Anyone born after 1993 should be set to private, 100% of the time. Mistakes are made, and I ask any of you to tell me why any minor would ever be appropriate to mark as public, ever???? seriously... ever? Can anyone think of even one appropriate example? I recognize that many minors don't have birth dates, but for those that do, I think they should automatically be set to private, with no option to go public. Just a thought.

Stephen said: "I ask any of you to tell me why any minor would ever be appropriate to mark as public, ever???? seriously... ever? Can anyone think of even one appropriate example?"

Maybe a member of a royal family - or similar - where all their details are already very much in the public domain?

Private User When you say that many people enter profiles for minors without being aware of the distinctions between public or private - please forgive me, but why in the world would anyone enter info about a minor anywhere on the web without checking to see if it will remain private? When I don't know if I can keep my son's information safe, I simply don't enter it. It's a basic rule of internet safety, and it's my job as a parent. I wouldn't put information about him on a supermarket bulletin board, much less on an internet website, without thinking about it very carefully first...

With all that being said, I totally agree that it seems more appropriate for all profiles of minors to be automatically set to private.

Back when there was the Forum, I explicitly complained about minors being Public and was told (think either by Mike or Noah) that that was how it was supposed to be. Thrilled others are finally upset about it.

Private User Lois I was around in the Forum days and I have never seen any such statement from either Noah or Mike about minors being Public, I am sure they have always emphasized that minors will always remain private, anyway let Noah Tutak and Mike Stangel answer for themselves.

For what it's worth, I checked Geni's privacy statement(s) and found strong policies protecting minors, especially those under 13...

Private User, that has always been my understanding as well. The problem is people often don't enter the birth dates of minors believing the are protecting their privacy but are actually doing quite the opposite.

Jennifer, you're so right about internet safety - but many people are not so aware of how easily the data becomes searchable on net, so I agree - it's up to Geni to alert them.

Private User Oh! That makes sense! So if we could work on educating new users on this issue, we might be able to alleviate the problem. Very astute observation, Victar! ;)

Beyond safety - many minors are kept unaware of the identity of their biological parents:

Especially on a genealogy programme minors' identities in relation to their biological fathers can be very sensitive. There are many cases of children considered too young by their families to know that "Daddy" isn't actually the biological father. While the family may be waiting for the right age to tell the child this, his or her name could be put up on Geni by the biological father as his child (quite innocently).

An internet search is not the way you want a 10 yr old to find out he's 'adopted'.

Just how much info is being input into living profiles??

I personally see no need to make ANY living person PUBLIC, whether minor or not....if minor, only if deceased and no more than would be found in standard obit....any other info would be inappropriate (in my opinion) unless entered by an immediate family member; and even then, I would urge descretion.

As to protection for families in jeopardy...if movie stars etc can use 'stage names' then why don't you change your moniker and designate children as unnamed son/daughter.....or give them the name as 'private'.......the birth father/mother could also be listed as such...but THAT could also be cause for questions.....sorry, but I know of 1 young man who overheard his 'parents' talking and learned he was adopted....another found out at school....the disclosure is not always within the control of the parents....and what about parental controls on the computer..

Not trying to be cruel...just realistic...children can be very nosy and confidantes very talkative to the wrong people. I know of too few people who can keep their mouths shut to trust that ANY secret will stay that way...

Unfortunately, the "public" vs. Private" settings are used in the Geni software for more than one purpose. Besides making the info visible to other Geni users and searchable on Google, this is also the setting that makes it possible to correct errors in the tree like duplicates and incorrect connections. Everyone's comments above make a pretty good case for Geni to find a way to split these two purposes into two separate settings.

The concerns about protecting real living people (especially children) from predators, identity thieves, and other evil-doers are certainly valid. But in my mind, there needs to be a solution that gives that protection without hindering the ability of active (albeit appropriately-authorized) Geni users to fix duplicates and connection errors in the tree- even if those errors involve the profiles of living children and other living people.

Let's put our thinking caps on for awhile and see if we can imagine a combination of a technical and a policy solution that could solve both problems.

Fay, you said "I personally see no need to make ANY living person PUBLIC, whether minor or not". Well I would agree with that IF we had a good way of telling the difference betwen a profile that represents a real living person versus one that is a zombie or completely fictitious. Automatically locking every profile that someone forgot to check the deceased box on, or which was entered and marked as living as a joke, would paralyze progress in cleaning up the Big Tree. Unfortunately, I see no simple solution using the current capabilities of the Geni software and policy.

Lots of comments here, I'll just touch on a few high points:

1. It's not impossible for a minor to be public, as David points out this may be appropriate for famous families where no personal information is being documented. We do make certain exemptions for minors in our code in order to protect their privacy, for example listing them as "minor child" in public trees and the immediate family of publicly searchable profiles (for example log out and view my profile page: Mike Stangel)

2. Stephen I'd like to look into what happened with your distant relative's child -- can you send me the details in an Inbox message? Adding your own child should never result in a public profile. We did have a bug that was causing profiles to be marked public from the "add family" form in the tree, however that was corrected a couple months ago.

3. Stephen and others, you can view a list of public profiles in your family range and mark them private if you wish, using our lists: http://www.geni.com/list?group=family&shared_status=public

4. David I understand what you're saying but the result would essentially mean that every Geni curator or other authorized users would be able to view other users' private profiles without those users' knowledge or explicit permission. I suspect a lot of our users would be uncomfortable with that.

I mispoke myself...since I previously said that PUBLIC people, living, was understandable...and I agree David that we need to put our thinking caps on....I don't now why Geni allowed fantasy people to be entered in the first place...I remember when cartoon characters were sometimes encountered.....

I would still caution people on WHAT is entered on living profiles..just as I hope that no 'family feuds' are put into public profiles....this is a genealogical quest, after all...

I think that looking at a fellow Geni is NOT quite the same as the family of that member (whether Pro or not)...it goes with the territory...I don't think ,Mike, that looking at a Geni MEMBER was what everyone was concerned about.

It is difficult to know what is seen by others when you yourself can see your own family....

Mike, you said "...but the result would essentially mean that every Geni curator or other authorized users would be able to view other users' private profiles without those users' knowledge or explicit permission".

How would splitting the current public/private setting into two separate "searchabe/viewable" and "editable/mergeable" settings necessessarily cause that? I think it would depend on how it is actually implemented.

Seeing Names & information on a Single Tree Geni - is very important. I have no problem with people making living profiles PRIVATE - as long as the Ancestor TREE is Visible (Public) - from his/her (manager) Profile. Seeing the Tree is the only thing I am interested in - to add info., reduce adding duplicate names or create merges. Yes, many people are not aware of their Private-Public options. Often have I asked people to make profiles PUBLIC - of people who have Died and many have complied. If you adopt the practice of Living = Private and your Parents (grandparents) are Living - how will others see your Tree? Not seeing Trees - Frustrates New Users (can't see relations, etc.) - and they give up asking for Permissions after entering several Names, thus creating Zombies. My profile, Dad (died) ancestors, Mother (living) ancestors are Public - while my Living Siblings, Cousins (some uncles, aunts) and their children are Private.

Re: some of the points Mike Stangel made:

re: 1] The listing on the Public Trees as "minor child" is for those under 13 -- the one I had linked to is now age 15. [aside - according to Recently Viewed - Noah Tutak viewed it in Aug. 2010 - and per Revisions, its privacy status was not revised since then, so apparently this being Public was seen as acceptable]

re: 3] This search only finds those within your "Max Family" -- not the folks you added outside your Max Family. I believe folks often add profiles outside their Max Family group without realizing it - and this is often where the major problem arises.

1)Lois, down at the bottom of every Geni screen is a line of blue links, one of which is 'Privacy'. http://www.geni.com/company/privacy There you can find all sorts of information about Geni's privacy policy, including that the automatic protections for minors are for those under 13. In accordance with the law, the under-13 group needs and gets the most privacy protection. After 13, it's acknowledged that, while they still need some protection they don't need as much as little kids, and they are learning age-appropriate ways to protect themselves. This is standard thinking on the issue throughout the online, educational, and child psychology communities...
3) Lois, you can get a list of everyone in your tree, even if they're outside your Family Group by changing the settings in the list function... I do it all the time as I'm actively working at asking managers of profiles in my tree to change their profiles from private to public.

Fay, to see your profiles/tree as other see them, just log out of Geni. That makes you "anonymous" as far as Geni's concerned.

Jennifer -

Re: 1] - Yes, I understand that the protections are for under-13 year-olds (I actually checked the Privacy policy before posting, because I always forget if it is 13 & under, or under 13 [it is the latter, as I then said]) and am somewhat aware of why -- but since the message with the link was deleted and the re-posting and commenting were referring to this person as a minor, not specifying age - thought it important to clarify that he fell into the area of minor over age 13. It sounded like some folks, at least, were upset at any minors having Public Profiles, as am I.

re: 3) The point of my comment was to clarify Mike's as well as point out what I considered to be a deficiency in his suggestion. Not to say there weren't other possibilities.
Personally, I think folks added or folks managed by you, who are Public and who are living is possibly the better filter to find what I thought we were talking about. (Everybody in my Tree would be everybody on the Big Tree - yes? Way too many to look thru!!)

Re: your suggestion to Fay -- that does not let you see how they appear to other Geni-users (when they are logged in). Profiles definitely look different to folks not logged in and those that are.

Reading other discussions, noticed in this one: http://www.geni.com/discussions/97627 - where they apparently quite happily changed a Public Profile from Deceased to Living (but still Public). If you click on the profile listed under "Profiles Mentioned", then on "View Tree" - browse to left and you will see many, many Public Profiles of Living folks. Looks like many are quite comfortable with it.

I have seen mention that Geni plans to eliminate Managers for Historical Profiles. Is this really for Historical Profiles, or is it planned for all Public Profiles? And - Is there any way to get folks to stop conflating the two terms?

Randy Stebbing, Private User , Sharon Doubell (and others) -

trying to follow-up on matches to my tree, I came across two children, born 2005 and 2008, apparently added by their father and set to Public by him.

The Private Profiles for minors just say "(child)" - but these say their full names in tree view when logged in to Geni. (and when clicked on, one can see profile info).

When logged out, do not show as Public Profile, read “(child)”, cannot be clicked on. A search for one by name brought him up as 'recent', but when instead of clicking on it, clicked for search for all by that name, he was not included in the list. So clearly some protections for minors are working. But is this sufficient?

Mike Stangel - Is this working according to your understanding of how it should be working?

Will put link to tree in separate message below, so if deleted, this info stays.

Hi Lois, got the tree link. Because those children are public, I don't necessarily think it's a privacy breach that they're viewable in the tree. If the logged out view says "(child)" then there is some inconsistency there, but I'm not seeing that -- do you see "(child)" for the Aaron profile in the tree link that you posted?

Mike Stangel -
1) When I paste in that tree link from not logged in, then for both children I see "(child)". 2) When I paste in that link when logged in to Geni, I see the names of both the children - i.e. "Aaron ..." etc., not "(child)". Tried it from baby tree I maintain for testing as well as this one -- same deal.

Moreover:
When not logged in, everybody else showing in the tree except for these children is first initial, last name, gray box/private profile - the rest of their generation and 3 generations above (which is as far as this tree is shown when not logged in to Geni).

When logged in to Geni, the rest of their generation and three generations above are all private profies, then get again to more Public Profiles - in this case folks born in 1880's, who are deceased.

I cannot decide if I should message the Father (who entered and set these children to Public) or not. And if so, say what? Anyone -- Suggestions, comments, or ??

Mike Stangel - In the tree when not logged in to Geni, not only does it show as "child)" but one cannot click on it and go to profile info. When logged in to Geni, one can. [Not sure if this was clear before or not]

For others, seeing as above shows on new page - this is about two children born 2005 and 2008, set as Public Profiles.

I see now what you mean... it looks like the logged-out tree is applying the "minors" protections before checking whether a profile is public. I'll make a ticket to investigate.

I'll contact the father to make sure this is what he intended (likely not).

Privacy when it somes to children is difficult, the same with ex-spouses. For who should you hide such a connection and who should be able to see it?

I have had several questions for help on removing an ex-husband (never an ex-wife, but that is not a discussion on why I want to go into), and my general advice is always to keep him and his family connected if there are children involved, - in respect of them.. The main problem seem to be getting notifications on the other side's activities, birthdays and such and the fear they they get hers...

I had another instance where a family member in respect of his "secret" son added him in respect of him. This user turned on every privacy option, but his family discovered that he was listed with a child and hell broke loose.... In my opinion minor children should not be listed at all in the public profile.

Mike Stangel Now that we can edit pubic profiles I am wondering why when we try to resolve conflicting data a message is sent to a manager for approval.on profiles that we can edit.

Good question. It might be caused that not all fields are open for edit by all yet..