MyHeritage -- Snaps Up Geni.com

As far as I understand the Lifetimers have the same, exactally the same, rights and acess as the non-PROs. So as I'm not a Lifetimer it's good to me to hear the Lifetimers thinks this is okej. I have not checked the mail and information to the Lifetimers, but if theu get their money back and 5 years for free it sounds good.

Agneta, there are actually a few differences. A free user cannot do everything that PRO user can - removing relations that will split the tree, starting merges, using magnifying glasses to view the match, contacting profile manager. At least i believe it´s so, someone could correct me or add to it.

Jaak - I believe you are correct, except for "starting merges" -- I believe now that if both profiles are within the free user's Max Extended Family - I think now they are allowed to do those merges (start and finish, if both unclaimed!). But I don't think they can start any other merges.

If Non-Pro - you can do a Geni-search, but you get Ad for Pro if try to click on the Profile (even if it is Public) or try to Contact Manager of Send Message.

Bruce R. Gibson the commodity Geni is selling is not out of stock. I have added 2 300 public profiles, and all the rest is also added by the users. Theya are there! This is the commodity, plus what is basically a very,very good idea, the possibility to collaborate and build one tree together.

But the good idea which Geni is based on can only function as a commodity if there is trust. So that part, the basic idea of Geni of a collaborative family tree, could very well run out of stock.

Ella use a very important word and that's 'trust'. A lot of this discussion is, IMO, a question of mistrust. That's common when big changes are introduced and implemented as everyone becomes more uncertain of the future.

There was problems in the "old Geni" and I thought many of them should be treated at first when Geni was bought by MyH.

* Would people/profiles older than 125 years of age automatically be registered as dead? Many zoombies would immediately disapear as would "dataconflicts".

*Would users, probarbly non-Pros, with several accounts disappear? As Lois says if non-Pros keeps within their maximum level of profiles they can of course merge. But with the remarcable invitation om free access to non-Pros it was only a question of register new accounts with diffenrent identities and get 100 max-profiles. Maybe it would be okey IF (trust?) we knew that MyH checked these accounts and stated they are serious, trustable, collaborative and whatever Geni-users do like. But there seems to have been any quality control. And no changes of old problems int no problems at all. Instead I have during the last month met the opposite! How could MyH then become trustable and sell this commodites Ella is mentioning?

*I'm not completally understanding what non-Pros and Pros can do. The thing is I ought not to be aware of that, since it's a question for MyH to differ between payning and non-paying guests.

*Will there be a change in the WorldTree of public and private profiles. That's a huge problem. Geni sold 65 million profiles wothout telling 80% was kept "private". (That's a trust problem.)

Agneta - by "Max Extended Family" I meant out to 4th cousin, back to 3rd Great-Grandparent. Definitely was not referring to that limit of 100 profiles that Geni for a while was imposing on Basic Users (IMO that was a horrible idea which I am glad they have done away with). [It was not possible for Basic Users to merge profiles within their family, within their 100 profiles added, or etc. Nor, until a very recent "temporary" exception could they even accept merge requests -- and this limitation on Basic Users very much hurt many Pros)

Did everybody see this? http://www.geni.com/discussions/115429?msg=847731 includes "from the Curator side, MH has asked us all to sign a Non-Disclosure agreement before giving us the big vision of where they see Geni going. We are now waiting for all Curators to have signed." - Not sure I like that at all. The opposite of transparency. And separates the Curators from the rest of us.

Standard business practice. Why turn it into drama?

Am aware of businesses where standard business practice has employees sign such. Thought Curators were not employees, but just regular Users who had been noted for excellence and given a few extra privileges to allow them to help out. Not aware of it being standard practice to separate a companies users, telling some and not others.

Many times when Geni sprang changes, there were repeated suggestions in the Help Platform and the Public Discussions that it would have been better to let users know and comment first; even suggestions Geni set up a poll before making some of its changes -- this sounds like MH definitely wants no part of that idea, is going in an opposite direction.

Totally separate from above - have folks seen: http://www.geni.com/discussions/119495 - and has anyone else also seen indications that everything they have "entered into GENi, including photos, has been sucked into MyHeritage and appended to other people's trees .... the data just seems to have been auto-sucked into MyHeritage without review, and relationships are incorrectly displayed, married names have been appended for non-married partners ..."

We live in different worlds, Lois. As corporate counsel I routinely recommend non-disclosure agreements as part of an overall business plan for protecting company information. Not just for employees. If I had been Geni's attorney, I would have recommended that curators to sign NDAs from the beginning. The fact MH is doing it now increases my confidence.

The existance of NDAs suggests that MH has something to hide.
The fact that MH won't share their "big vision" without NDAs implies on of two things to me:
1) MH fear the new vision will be unpopular with Geni users and are wanting to use the Curators as a sample group; or
2) the "big vision" is such a wonderful improvement that MH is scared the Curators will sell the concept to a competitor and the competitor may develop the software and launch it faster than MH can

Of these two options (1) seems a lot more likely to me than (2), but i must have overlooked at least another scenario?

PS: They'll probably trot out the "it's just our standard policy" defense.
PPS: "We are now waiting for all Curators to have signed." - I wonder if there are hold outs, or resignations? What if one of the curators is inactive from Geni, plenty of valid merges are delayed because of absent stake holders.

With respect, Alex, I see it very differently.

There are potentially thousands of things MH could say that they wouldn't want made public immediately. Most of those things wouldn't be either bad or good, just routine business data.

I've signed hundreds of NDAs in my life, as well as having many years of information that is protected by attorney-client privilege. In every case, the people who are protected think their secrets are something that might give someone else an advantage, but I can pretty much guarantee you that 95% of it is stuff that wouldn't interest anyone. If I started spilling my guts, you'd tune me out in less 30 seconds.

One thing I've discovered, though, is that people who work in a world of NDAs shrug and sign. NDAs are too routine to give a second thought. But, people who don't live in that world always imagine there's something cloak-and-dagger going on.

One other thing I've learned -- some people feed on drama. We see a lot of that here. If someone decides to write a book, I promise to carry it in my store. I'll put it in the Conspiracy section, along with the Reptilians, the Grassy Knoll, and Obama's birth certificate.

... 27, 28, 29, 30 :)

I find it very hard to understand why the owner wants to sing a Non disclosure contract with the Curators. Does it mean that the owner has trust in the written word? Does it mean the Curators have trust in the written word? Does it mean that the owner have trust in that the Curators have trust in the written word. Does it mean that the Curators have trust in that the owner has trust in the written word?
There is apparently some kind of trust between the Curators and Geni, but I don´t understand on what basis the Curators believe they in the long run are privileged in another way than the lifetime members.

I would like to add that I am now in a very confused correspondance with Geni "Help" were they insist on paying back the money I have paid even though I have never asked for or aggreed to a ruefund and promptly and quickly always reply that I don´t want a refund.

What makes you curators think you will keep your access?

@Ella, as you say - when it comes to losing all our data to MH/ Geni, we curators are as much at risk as all the users on the tree. There we’re the same.
But curators also work quite widely across the big tree's profiles, doing the routine maintenance that keeps the tree from turning into a giant 'smudge' :-)
- this is more work and requires more access than other users get, and there we are different, @Lois, to other users.

Indications are that MH recognised even more clearly than Geni, the innovative business value of these unpaid volunteer employees;

and – I imagine, once they had followed the Curator Discussions threads -
(wherein we spend a lot of time jumping up and down demanding that new and fancier gadgets be added to the tree on behalf of the users,.. & then we get disgruntled at them for not doing it.. and moan about not being told why our suggestions aren't implemented right away, because it's obvious to us that the users need the tool RIGHT NOW... etc etc :-) ) -

-then it would have been possible for MH to see that the Curators were very well placed to pinpoint what tools/gadgets etc the users were finding they needed to improve the product as they worked on the tree.

But Geni/ MH couldn’t very well be saying to us “We’re not moving forward on your request for x tool, because we have an even bigger picture, involving a y tool that will do that and more” – just in case we told their competition before they could implement it.
But, on the other hand, in keeping silent about their projected plans, they risked demoralising their volunteer workgroup, and risked them not putting forward any more insights and suggestions on behalf of the users.

Solution: Get your volunteer workforce to sign an NDA so that you can bounce your projected plans off them, and get their responses on how useful these ideas would be to their fellow users, without worrying that your innovations will be leaked and ruin your competitive edge.

Which is why, @Alex, the pretty innocuous NDA doc makes sense to sign, even for the most cynical amongst us.

As to Curators being singled out with the NDA - I'm not sure why you think this is strange, Lois

Private User, you say "Bruce R. Gibson the commodity Geni is selling is not out of stock." (Incidentally, get my name right!) I was not saying that the information was out of stock. What is out of stock is the "lifetime membership" deal. The new Geni has no such thing -- it was probably deemed a financial risk too big to maintain.

For the life of me, I cannot imagine any reason that anyone has to object to what Geni did. People like myself, who choose only to use the free privileges, got back some of the rights we lost a couple of years ago. People who pasy didn' lose anything except that others can now do some of the extra things they used to be able to. And people who paid for a "lifetime" membership got their money back, plus a free 5-year membership with all the privileges of a paid member. Nobody has lost anything.

Sharon, I am not talking about "loosing data", I am talking about loosing access entirely. What makes you believe you will be able to stay on and not suddenly be thrown out or suddenly be demanded an very expensive rate for having access to your own work. I am talking about what your curator colleagues above has called "standard business practices" or saying that "lifelong" members are to blame ourselves because we were studpid enough to believe in what we bought from some greedy guys who sold something they could not deliver for because they liked the money they could earn on it (se above).
If you think this is correct behaviour, why do you think you are protected? Mind you it is MyHeritage who does not stick to things the way they were negoitiated, not old Geni.

Bruce it is perfectly allright that Geni does not sell lifelong membership anymore, but they have sold it to me when it existed, and the things I bought access to for life are still there.

Private User they sold you a lifetime membership, but lifetime memberships do not exist any more. So they gave you back your money. I don't know how you can expect more than your money back.

If I went to a store and bought a permanent subscription to some service, got the use of that service for a few years, then was told "We cannot afford to sell permanent subscriptions any more" I might ask for my money back, but I could hardly demand any more. You got your money back AND 5 more years -- a better deal than anyone has a right to expect. Why are you complaining?

Bruce, you miss the point of Ella here.

Bruce R. GiLson,
I think Ella's point (and many other peoples) is that Geni sold her a Lifetime membership.
Ella is still alive and Geni is still alive so by what definition has the Lifetime agreement that she made been fulfilled?
Several people have stated "that's just how the internet buusinesses operate" and i'm sure if Geni had closed down then Ella would have been upset but she would accept that the original agreement was observed by both parties.

MH wants their cake and wants to eat it too, they want all the assests of Geni but only want to pick and choose their liabilities.

I would like to buy the Bank of America, i will pay market price but i will only take possession of their savings accounts not their home loans - doesn't sound fair to me.
What did the agreement that the Lifetimes bought into actually say? I don't know i was never a Lifer and even if i was probably never would have read the fine print.

Sharon Doubell are the NDAs innocuous or are they vital to MHs future business plans?
Why can I as a PRO member not sign the same NDA as the Curators in order to learn what is happening? Am I more likely to breach the NDA in MH's opinion? Who would i tell, the closest people i know to the computer industry are Curators here on Geni!
I'm also curious how much value a NDA has on people outside the jurisdiction of the US, are the Chinese Curators being allowed to sign on and learn all these secret plans?

Did the old Geni management ever bounce ideas off the Curators? Were NDAs required?

Do we even if what you suggest is the case, your post suggests this explanation for NDAs but are these the facts or your opinions? Have MH straight out said "We have a bunch of business ideas but we are worried that Ancestry.com will steal them so sign here before we tell you any details".
I'm not trying to be difficult, i genuinely am curious.

On the lifetime membership issue - I can't really comment without thinking a bit more. At face value @Bruce's reply seems logical to me, but I was one of the Curators who shouted loudly and long about Geni's changing the game and removing access to past free members. I still think that was a bad move, and by comparison, this looks less unethical to me.
I shall now be shot from above and below, for saying that :-) :-)

@Alex, most of those questions should be directed to MH, so all you're getting here is my personal opinion.

No, nothing about the NDAs suggests to me that they are vital to MH's future business plans at all. All they suggest to me is that MH recognises the business potential on the internet of using the goodwill work input of a loosely coordinated group of people who stand halfway between the users and themselves - the 'owners'.

I imagine this is new ground for them too, and they're investigating how this kind of unpaid group could be used to cross over the perplexing divide of the 'information should be free' highway vs the need to generate money to pay for higher levels of complexity in managing and coordinating that information to keep such huge amounts as we've put into this tree from devolving into inaccessible chaos.

I'm guessing that's why they bought Geni out without subsuming it into MH. They wanted to stop it failing due to lack of funds; but realised that it offers a way of operating that is closer to the future of information archiving on the net than the old-style genealogy programmes. So, I'm wondering if they don't want to experiment with how to make that viable.

And to do that they would need to figure out how to use the Curators as semi-employees. New ground, and the NDA makes them feel safer while exploring it - for the reasons I gave before. They probably do not have any employees who haven't signed it - so this is what they know. I doubt very much that they want to tell us business secrets. I'm guessing they want to use us as a 'control group' to explore the possibilities in practice.

Using the entire user base as a control group would be unmanageable - (as I assume you know already, @Alex, given that I know how bright you are from past exchanges :-)
If everybody signed the NDA there'd be little hope of any significance; but - to my mind - more importantly, it would change the fundamental premise of Geni as freely shared information - rendering the experiment useless before it begins.

Which is all my own personal opinion - freely given - but carrying no weight of knowledge about MH, despite having signed the NDA already. Which awkward position keeps me on your side, and is exactly what makes the experiment in global information sharing as interesting as it is.

I suggest that you all go back to the official announcement, and especially read the details of Things to Know.

    ● http://help.geni.com/entries/22543122-november-28-geni-joins-the-my...
    ● http://help.geni.com/forums/21545466-things-to-know
    ● http://www.geni.com/blog/geni-is-joining-the-myheritage-family-3784...
    ● http://www.geni.com/discussions/115406

You will soon understand that the small differences between the features available for basic and Pro members just are temporary.

Stay tuned...

I'm not a Lifetimer on Geni. I know my access to my data-input will get lost if I not agree with MyH- statues. Is it "a big drama"? Is it at all "standards"?

Well to me in oerson it does not necessary become even a "drama" but only a change. I have looked a little on MyH and try to follow if the changes will fit my wishes. All my data is kind of moved to MyH but I don't like the way it works. Especially I, of course, dislike that MyH wants to charge me fo access to my Geni-data on MyH. (Thanks God I have all my data on other media too. I don't need Geni or MyH. But I thought it was fun and creative. As long as it worked.) So my conclusion is that maybe in the future somone will pay MyH and somehow get connected to my tree and have use for the data and profiles I put into the WorldTree.

I'm not able to follow all the discussion and links to further discussion that give me new links to something else told in some other discussions. I'm mostly concerned about the different projects I have worked with as they are more in my focus than my family.

I do understand the curators are in a state of bigger changes than I am in person, Probarbly there will be more like an employment-status and a combination of curator+helper. That might be a good solution when all other users for sure knows if it's Geni/MyH-Help they are talking with or "some other user".

I have not checked MyH attitude to non-Pros but I belive it's only on Geni they are welcomed as I'm welcomed to MyH as "You have this many profiles and that's to much if you not pay" and see that on Geni non-pros can register as many accounts as they like. That's why I worry about "my" pojects. And as far as I can see nothiing has happened to Zoombie-Users born 250 years ago and still going strong.

There was problems at Geni before the "SnapUp" and I have a feeling they are now worse.

Agneta, you are just speculating and making conclusions you have absolutely no source for. Read the facts I linked to above.

Absolutely none of your data will be transferred to MyHeritage, and of course you will absolutely not loose your access to the data you have added on Geni, independent of your Pro status or not.

Thanks for the information, Bjørn.

So far I have had no information about what will happen to my Geni-data (both within my Family and within the projects I focus).

As far as I have had possibility to check on MyH I cannot say it's "speculation" when I tell that I can find my family on MyH and on the very frontpage of mine there is a note from MyH that "You have 66 634 profiles ....".

"Dina 2 släktträd innehåller 66 634 personer redan. Det överskrider det högsta tillåtna i ditt Bas abonnemang. Uppgradera abonnemanget"

So please, don't say I'm "just speculating and making conclusions you have absolutely no source for."

By the way: It's not fair to push the Geni-users around to different links ("read this and read that") as it's only confusing. As in all human and social affairs it's what's done and not what's said that counts.