Reasons for Keeping a Record of Data Elided by Data Conflict Resolutions after Merges.

Nope, read the Welcome Ducument

Bjorn, I know you don't realise when you're bullying people - even your friends - and sometimes I think you do it just because you're bored :-), so I'm going to do the smiling and waving thing here, and choose to assume that you're really too fond of me (as one of the few people who stands up to you and still likes you for it :-) to actually mean to be ruining my evening. And it being nearly midnight in SA, and there being no South African wine around, I'm going to run away to bed, if only so we can spar another day.

:-)

There has to be a better way other than completely monopolizing the public messages. There are so many from you Sharon that it is rather intrusive.

Sjoe. Ok you people have mdae my head spinning so early in the week/morning.
Personally I have been alerted to the fact that Geni or someone removed a source document from one of my profiles. I take and or pay for all my for my own sources. When I asked about this the answer from Geni was just _ "We are sorry but the document was reported as wrong".
Well that did at 1st get the red lights flicking, but I just deceided I will not put so many sources there before I have put it iin my own Pesonal file.
After saying that, I strongly feel the urgency of discussing a profile BUT jsut merely to say this profile has incorrect - IN MY EYES - sources, and that I have contacted a, b or c - the managers or person who 1st added that document - and asked them about it.
Mostly they have just taken it off from a website, like wikipedia - and have never even seen the inside of an Archives to do any research. If they at least paid for it, yes indeed, then it can be discussed.
So all in all, I do think Sharon has a point here, but would also suggest that the manager/s should be privately contacted and given a period to answer.
BUT the curators/Geni should be aware of this, so that all parties get alerted to this misunderstanding or what ever it is called.
I know I am going to be misunderstood somewhere, because again I can't speak in my mother tongue, but do see this as no point of arguing.
You guys are all doing a great job, but we all know that especially new comers to the field, tend to get carried away and we should rather steer them in the correct direction, instead of them doing it all wrong?
Or is it only me who see a Genealogy site as a way to teach what I have learned and share my knowledge with others?
.HAve a lovely weak.

Dankie vir die lang inval in Engels, Juds. Ek is altyd so beïndruk deur mense wat meer as een taal kan praat. Dit is 'n indrukwekkende vaardigheid. Ek stem saam dat die punt van Geni is om die kennis te deel.

A collaborative Genealogy site is definitely "a way to teach what I have learned and share my knowledge with others"

Beth Marie Beeman - the solution to that is simply for other people to actually put the time in to resolve their own data conflicts when they do the merges.

You too can do this. It's routine Geni maintenance work on the data, that people who do the merges leave others to clean up.

You are only seeing these Discussions if you follow or manage the profile in question. If the data maintenance on that profile doesn't interest you, you can unfollow the profiles.

However, I Do get the irritant value. I've written to the Geni staff to ask if there is an easy solution. Watch this space....

Sharon. I do put time into resolving data conflicts. And, I am seeing discussions posted here on profiles that I have nothing to do with. Hopefully Geni will come up with a solution.

(and I totally don't think folks should be allowed have profiles with one letter. What's up with Y.?)

A big problem here is that people do not resolve issues after making merges - and maybe this discussion serves to draw attention to that. I know that the issues that I find in my issues box are usually those left by people for others to mop up - it is easy enough to go one step further after completing a merge on the tree - after assigning parents and closing the box go to the profile pages of those that you have merged duplicates of (and if you can't remember who they were write it down on a scrap of paper as you do them - I do!) - check under the Actions menu on the profiles page to see if their are issues to be resolved and DO IT!! If you can't do it your selection will be forwarded to those who can.

I do think that where the information differs and cannot be resolved and backed up by sources either on the profile or in our personal armoury, then it does need to be queried. Maybe the solution is to contact the manager who added the conflicting information directly - making a note in the about me that there has been a query made. Where there is a bank of conflicting data - ie a roll of multiple unresolved merge issue, the method I would prefer is a message rather than a discussion. Does the discussion not show up in the lists of all your collaborators as well as followers of the profile involved?

Groot plesier Sharon. Dankie vir die kompliment. My dear friend June, you are speaking over my head again. But the easiest way is for sure to finish a merge on profile pages. That is is so simple - even this not so computer litare woman can do that.
Mooi dag julle.

Just a thought. Can we use the events tab - using the date of query add the various alternative data for review? Does a new event get publicised to managers of a profile?

Michelle Elena Kempner has responded that "The ideal solution would be to have revisions be able to present data in the way that you are looking for." Holding thumbs.....

Beth Marie Beeman these Discussions will all appear if your choice is to see "All Public" Discussions. They shouldn't if you change that choice to "Discussions I follow"

These discussions come up in my "discussions I follow" which is the setting I have as my normal view - periodically picking up others from the home page or by exploring the other groups - as did the http://www.geni.com/discussions/112830?msg=833752 - I am not following that profile nor am I a manager on it, so the only reason it would come up on my followed list is because I am one of Sharon's collaborators. I do not follow any of the projects linked to that discussion either.

Hmm, so the solution is to unfollow me?

Not an option - just observing! :-)

Nah, when you start a discussion on a profile that is tagged to a project all project members get a notification too.
Please reconsider your method on solving data conflicts. You create too much unnecessary noise.

I love the goal Sharon Doubell but I agree with Bjorn that there might be a less distracting way to document these discrepancies.

Private User this doesn't explain why I had notification of that discussion.

I am not a manager of nor a follower of Matilda of Scotland although she is a 23rd great grandmother

I'm not a collaborator or a follower of the 4 projects connected to that discussion. I have not been tagged in that discussion. The only link is my collaboration with Sharon. It popped into my list of discussions I follow.

Jansi, Sometimes the names are spelled correctly as that's how they spelled them at the time the person was names. Look at all the made up names we have no adays! Ya think it was any direcent back years ago. know of some one who was named Welcome and that was his bname. He was the last of a long line of children and he was just as welcome as the first.So just be one of us thinks the name is spelled wrong doesn't mean it is.

Judith Susanna = I am glad to see I am not the only one who feels people are speaking way over my head and long winded too. Can't they make there point in more down to earth way and shorter.

I'm with Bjorn and Hatte. I don't want to limit my viewing of discussions just to those I follow, what's the point of that? I understand how it works and seeing all these gazillion posts in a row makes me want to stop reading other posts - just too cumbersome to wade through things. I think there has to be a better way.

I agree we sould be allowed to view all discusions. I beleive we are allowed to if we just go to public discusions.

Beth I think people sometimes don't want to put there names out there. For awhile I just used initals . Now I added Judy to the mix. I've seen people use some really strange handles.I am sure they have there reasons.

My apologies if this is obvious to everyone else, but I'm still relatively new to the system and I'm not sure I understand what discussions you are all talking about that go out to the managers of profiles whose data has changed.

I don't think I've come across such a situation, although I've certainly gone round and round with a couple of people who continually make a mess, and in some cases, repeatedly changing corrected infromation back to the inaccurate, and obviously encounter plenty of data conflicts. I try to resolve those when I do merges, but sometimes there are just too many and I can't always get to them all, at least not in a timely fashion. With some, there's no way I'm going to try to guess, say, which of two birthdates shown by different managers is correct - if either - when I myself know nothing about the person in question.

When I have a solid reason for making a particular change, I generally note it in the "About Me" section, and sign and date it in case anyone wants to dispute it. Am I to understand there is some way to do this that will automatically notify the other managers of that profile that I am making a change, and generate a discussion about it?

If you mean that a discussion such as the one we are presently engaged in should be started to track these changes, sorry, but I have no idea how that could be either useful or findable with respect to any specific profiles.

[Sharon DoubellSharon Doubell] may I say I LOVE your effort and I applaud it highly - - I do this in my own personal PAf/Legacy files - so I guess I am wrong also for my efforts To me this should be done -

[(No Name)Heather Ann McLean Olson] yep and can't belief you said that publicly

Bjorn why are you almost always so nasty mean to people. The woman is trying to get a sensivable discussion going