MyHeritage -- Snaps Up Geni.com

Ben, for most of the larger family tree branches, the exact or correct number would be very cumbersome to determine, and also frequently changing. To me "appropriate" means reasonable, with the trend in the right direction.

@Vello Suigussaar: Eventhough it is off topic. If the database was properly designed, it would be fairly easy to get this number.

@David Kaleita: Yes, they should just keep the old number, until the have a new better one. The "calculating..." option or message, would most likely just result in people refreshing the page to get the "correct" number. Another thing is: I don't see why it is limited for basic users (eventhough I'm a pro), for as Bjørn P. Brox correctly states you will never go through all the profiles (or if you do - you'll only do it once ;)). So why does Geni not just calculate the number for all profiles and users? Given the most likely database design, it would also be a lot easier to implement (and most likely a lot faster to calculate, and thereby reduce the required CPU power)

Bent, - your theory about a simple calculation might be OK if Geni should only count direct ancestors, but "the big tree" is much more complex.
You should also remember that this calculation have to be repeated for each of the over 7 million Geni users.

@Bjørn P. Brox: I do remember this ;) to be frank I don't know how Geni has designed it's database. But with a proper design it would be no problem, even if it was 70 million users or more, after all this merely corresponds to a small to medium size database. But this would most likely require a new database design, which I think is not very likely to happen soon.

Now I'm only guessing about the current database design, and my guess is that this feature was not accounted for in the original design. But I would estimate that if Geni calculated this for all profiles (and not only users), it would be less CPU intensive in the long run, even when one consider profiles with common ancestors. Another feature is that it does not need to be calculated in real time (or almost real time).

They have been working with a new database design for a while now..

First cut at ancestors is simple; just add the # of ancestors of the mother and the # of ancestors of the father.
Then you find that you have to account for all the ancestors of the mother who are *also* ancestors of the father, and the whole thing turns into a set manipulation exercise, with the set size being the number of ancestors.
Intersecting two sets of > 5000 from a database of 70 million is not completly trivial.

Bent Jakobsen,
every time that someone does a merge (or removes a connection), the ancestor-count for MANY thousands, potentially millions of profiles has to be calculated ALL over again. At one point in time about 100,000 merges were being done every DAY. So, no. Not a database design issue at all.

You can see the world family tree tick away here:

http://www.geni.com/worldfamilytree

@Harald Alvestrand: Well I think it is trivial - The number might be big, but the process is fairly simpel and straight forward. From a computing point of view, even if two different brances (like a husband and wife) share ancestors.

Shmuel-Aharon Kam: First I hope I spell your name correct, otherwise do please accept my apology.
There is only about 2-3000 merges a day now - however the impacted number profiles is bigger now than back then. But then a lot of them is now in the same tree, which I suspect as time goes by, will become more and more static. And therefore this number will become more and more static. At least if the data input process to a certain degree limit the options for starting way back in time. So that either one start with "present time" (read within the last about 200 years), or improve on the existing world family tree.
But as long as there is not a public database design (which I never belive will happen, and why should it? After all it is part of the "secret"), I would state that I think that the reason for Geni not to release the real number to all profiles (and not only users, but as a start perhaps only users) is a non-optimal database design in relation to this. I might be wrong - but I dont think so in this case.

Hey Powers that be - a few places need updating since the change in Privacy Policy vis a vis Living Profiles, such as:
http://www.geni.com/account_settings/managed_profiles

http://help.geni.com/entries/20041642-How-To-Alter-Privacy-Settings...

http://help.geni.com/entries/514033-What-are-public-profiles-

I see the Privacy Policy http://www.geni.com/company/privacy now states that both Geni Employees and Geni Curators can both View and Edit Private Profiles.

Curators are still making comments such as "That is a Private Profile, so I cannot view it" or Edit it, etc. Can Curators both view and edit all our Private Profiles??

Privacy Policy now includes "By default, only your relatives, Geni Curators and Geni Employees can see your full profile." - So it is not just the unclaimed Private Profiles they can see. Anybody know how long it has said this?

Private User Since yesterday. We are not supposed to change them.

Lo. Thanks for the heads-up.

I've just advised all relatives to remove their remaining personal details from the site. We sort of knew this was coming, but didn't realise it would be this quick.

We'd already removed most photos and documents, but now the rest must go.

'Geni Employees have full access to all data on Geni'

As this presumably includes all Geni messages, we're deleting them also.

"Your use of the Website indicates your acceptance of this Privacy Policy and any then-current revisions." -- So -

1) If I do not want to accept having all curators able to view my Profile and all the Private Profiles I manage - what can I do? By having posted here, after the change went into effect, have I indicated my acceptance. For others, does simply logging in count as "use of the Website" and indicate their acceptance? Is there any way to indicate non-acceptance? Any options at all?

2) All those folks who do not log on -- doe that mean they have NOT accepted the policy, and what does that imply??

LO - those are questions you should ask customer service.

Ken - curators do not have access to messages (I take it you mean Geni mail?). I would presume Geni mail was always available to IT employees on the server end.

Lo curators are not allowed to merge or view private profiles unless asked to by a relative

Thanks, Jason. I see in Help: http://help.geni.com/entries/23231182-What-permissions-do-Curators-... it says:

"Curators have the following permissions in your tree:

Full view and edit permissions for your profiles, so they can assist you at your request
Approve pending merges as long as the merge does not bring your tree into the World Family Tree if it was not there before
Approve merges only for trees that have been merged before

Curators were awarded these permissions because of the great track record they had with their previous permissions and the significant impact they have had on the on the quality of the data on Geni. They will be using this permissions to assist users when you need hands on assistance to fix errors, clean up your tree and to better assist you with your genealogical research.

Curators only use these permissions when they receive a specific request for help from a user."

BUT then it is Closed for Comment - so no place to ask -- What can someone do if they feel a Curator is overstepping their authority or behaving inappropriately there or etc? Most Curators are great, but I would like to know there was some sort of protection in place, way to complain/protest, etc.

'Each time you add a profile to your tree, it is automatically assigned to one of the groups. Private profiles are intended for living relatives and minors. Public profiles are intended for deceased relatives and public figures.'

With this new rule, the concept of a Family Group vanishes completely. The FG should now be removed from Geni as it is now a confusing anachronism.

family group is still there if you want to change a public profile within your family group to private you can still do so

Jason. If a member asks a curator to make private profiles public, what happens?

As I understand this new system, the curator should make the profiles public as it fits in with the new rules if it is a deceased profile. The old 'not accessed for 9 months' rule no longer applies (I can't see it anywhere), and entire branches of the tree will be made public.

To me, it is rather pointless making any profiles private in the first place, as this can (and will) be overridden at will. It seems to be the whole point of the new rules.

I suspect that the major activity of every curator for the next few months will be making private profiles public - the family group is irrelevant.

Ken

Curators do not have the ability to make public private profiles. Nor an interest. As Jason said, the Family Group permissions apply.

The rights are meant to 1) with zombies (set to living in error) 2) assist users in building their trees.

That's it. No one is that nosy, Ken. We have other things to do.

yes ken we cannot make private profiles within family groups public

Thanks, That wasn't clear, as it stated that curators have full edit rights.

So, for all those abandoned profiles, we report them as before (and don't hold breath).

Ken

If those abandoned profiles are already connected to the big tree, and there is a match, let's say in your private FG, that scenario a curator may be able to assist with. And because you're the mgr you control the privacy; all the curator will do is execute the match you've no doubt already requested. So ... That could help you. On request in the "curators assist" or for more privacy, my inbox is open to you, as I'm sure is Jason's in NZ.

Ken, I'm here to help also.

I have started a separate discussion for the change in Privacy Policy (and Curator Powers), since it is not clear it is part of / due to MyHeritage snapping up Geni. Also in the hopes perhaps more folks will notice it.
http://www.geni.com/discussions/120727

And I have started another focusing specifically on the change in Curators ability to merge Private Profiles, since I think that is worthy of specific attention.
http://www.geni.com/discussions/120729