ATTENTION Curators, please assist

Susan Mary Rayner (Green) ( Ryan) Check your merge issues now.

thanks shall do

Eldon, That's great ..Also there is a lot of merge request also around there that need to be dealt with anyway I could get them done as well.
SueG

All those that I looked at are in another tree but the manager is active so give them a try.

thanks

Sam Jones This is a place to post for curator help with Geni problems. The curators have nothing to do with MH policy's or pricing.

@Sam Jones, Geni lets you download the whole Gedcom file, which MyHeritage lets you upload it all, so you don't have to do it one by one. Wish we could do it viceversa too.

Private User I took curator-ship of the profile. Would you contact me privately about this family please

Thanks Eldon.

I have been looking into Revision on my profile wall today.
And I must say that I wonder why Geni has made this profile a primary manager of old profiles.
Private User

An example of one of the old profiles:
Anders Andersen Kjærulf

And please Curator, have a look at the new primary manager's statistics.

I wonder - and I understand these members in here, who have tried to draw the attention to such conditions for several years now.

How can it happen?

And what's just as strange is the fact, that the new primary manager has no connection to me. But the profile Geni made him the primary manager of is my 13th great grandfather.

When Geni assign a new manager of someones profiles because the account is abandoned they chose the nearest _active_ family member of the USER to inherit the profiles. Fair enough if you ask me.

Earlier the system just released the public profiles and the first one who found these manager-less profiles could grab them all.
Unfortunately this rule resulted in a lot of profile-hunters doing nothing else than hunting for such profiles.
For some large accounts Geni did transfer the profiles to a curator instead just to ensure that other users get access to them, since some of the profile hunters did not collaborate with so many.

You should also remember that you as a user cannot see all the activities of a user, like a simple thing as last login, so using the activities you see as an argument is wrong.

Anyhow: Why such a focus on who is the primary manager of a public profile?
Isn't it better to spend time on making the tree better?

We have enough problems with users cheating to become a manager, preferable as the primary manager instead of working with genealogy.

Claiming exclusive rights to a 13th great grandfather reminds me of a situation I had as a child where a first cousin of me was angry at me because our common grandmother showed me some attention, - because it was HER grandmother!

Do some maths: Theoretically you have 32768 13th great grandparents, and that is just a generation count in power of two (two parents where you are a descendant of _one_ of their children)

Turn it upside down, - the number of descendants are much higher.
It is enough that a couple for example got three children instead of two to exponentially get more descendants, and if this is in an early generation the difference would be huge.

Even if your 13th great grandfather only have 32 768 living descendants of today it is very likely that many of them are Geni users, - and that your 13th great grandfather have as many as 36 managers it tells me that the number is probably much higher.

These managers have probably invited other family members and many did not have to add so many generations when building their tree before they got connected to already existing profiles added by others.

Brox - You are totally misunderstanding my post. And I wonder why ;-)
I'm claiming NO rights to these old profiles. Absolutely none.
I was just wondering why a profile was made a primary manager when it looks as if he has absolutely no connections to the old profile.
Which I found out by trying to find my relations to this new primary manager.

I do hope that another curator will have a look at my example above. And please with a positive mind. If something is wrong I think you all want to get it fixed.

I explained the Geni rules on profile inheritance as it is today and how it was before.

To repeat: Inheriting profiles is not a question about being related to a specific profile, but being related to the user who lost management, either because of inactivity or simply because that user closed is/hers account.

The person who inherit the profiles get them without having to approve it, i.e log on etc etc, in the same way that you inherit your parents when they dies, even if you have not talked to or visited them for 30 years, simply because that is the default rule.
On Geni today that user will get an email that he/she have inherited profiles.

It would be very weird to go all the way op to 13th grandfather and down again to find another user, and besides the user who get the profiles can be close connected to the other user through marriage or simply because the original manager had that profile on his/hers spouses side.

I guess everyone build a tree for their spouse even if they are not related to those profiles?

The profile made a new primary manager a few days ago has not been active in here for two years. And has added less than 100 profiles, but has been added as a manager of more than 2,000 profiles.

Still hoping for a positive respons from another curator with a postive mind to my example.

Henny,- what is missing in that Revision marking is WHO was the previous manager and what was the reason why primary management shifted.

It is the relationship to that person that matters to inherit this person's profiles.

After all we know it could be his wife that was the primary manager, because I can see that her account is inactive, but he is, and he is normally not related to her family.

You feel that it is unfair that he inherited for example his wife's profiles and not you since you are the 13th great granddaughter of one of them?
At least that is how it looks to me.

For me it is quite fair that the user who is closest related to another user inherits the profiles if something happens. Please explain why you protest on that, because that is probably the reason here.

You should also remember that today most users don't have to add more than 10-20 profiles them self before their tree is connected to the world tree and for them probably get a complete tree.

Do you really mean that such users should be excluded from inheriting profiles?

The revision ON MY WALL, Brox. I'm not talking of the revision on the old profile, as you will see in the very first sentence of mine in this example.

Quote: I have been looking into Revision on my profile wall today. Unquote.

I was NOT trying to find anything strange in old profiles on my tree. I had it just there in the Revision on MY WALL.
And I saw it yesterday and found it very odd.

End off. Have a nice holiday today.

You say: "has not been active in here for two years. And has added less than 100 profiles, but has been added as a manager of more than 2,000 profiles."

First of all that person have been active lately, but probably not active in adding or editing PUBLIC profiles which is the latest activity you can see. I told you that in the first message. Please also tell me why you dislike that people who have added less than 100 profiles inherits profiles, because that is how it sounds like since you focus on his numbers.

And again: I have explained several times that it is NOT the activity of the user who inherits the profiles, but the fact that a close relative who was the manager probably have closed his/hers account and he inherited those, probably even without not yet knowing it.

End off.

My seriously meant example seems to end up in a wordfight. I regret that I publiced the problem in here.

Then please explain me what the problem is?

You have already got an explanation why, for you an inactive user, inherited profiles. It is not his activity that matters, but the activity of the user who was the manager.

Eldon Lester Clark,

Could you please check this out as you are the curator?
http://www.geni.com/merge/compare/6000000020611762887?return=match%... They are the same person. Not sure how he lost his parents on the one where I am a manager, but you'll note all the documentation provided. I think this involves that person using a historic claimed profile, but not sure how. Also, his "new" profile contains all of the data in "about me" that I added.
Thanks,
Jessie German

Jessica Marie German I am only the curator because of a request to make him a MP. I have no expertise in this area. There are two other are two other curators working on the problems with this profile. They may take it down, so let's just leave it alone for a few days.

Thanks, Eldon Lester Clark

Michael Patrick Powers
I need help finding the people working on my ancestors trees. Right now i have two ancestors that i found out other people are working on; Michael Patrick Powers and John Powers his son.

Hi Jessica Marie German
I was trying to fix the problem that was created by Reverend Wise being a claimed historic profile.

I will send you a request to make you the manager again. Any help you can to make sure that the new profile matches the old one would be appreciated.

Customer Service
See above discussion with Jessica German.

Ahhh... Private User -- the reason there was a notice on YOUR "Wall" (newsfeed) about Anders Andersen Kjærulf is because you are one of the active managers on that profile -- and, as Bjørn was pointing out, that profile showed up in your 'newsfeed' because it had a "management change".

Now, you may not have noticed such an activity on your 'newsfeed' ("wall") before; it may also be that this 'action' on that profile showed up because of another relatively recent change on such notifications --- it used to be that only the "primary" (first-listed) manager got such notifications. Now, however, the first 20 ACTIVE managers get such notification.

So, for these profiles with more than 20 managers, in particular, where you are one of them, you may haven't gotten such a notice before because you didn't happen to be in the "first 20 active" ... but on this particular profile, it seem you must have fallen within that "first 20 active" group.

Does that make sense? It is flagged (noted) as an event caused by the "system user GENI" because it was not something initiated by the action of any other Geni member.