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

Judith A. Loubris Mc Carthy - Thank you. This is so above my head I don't even remember what the original point were. LOL.
Judi

Ok, what have i done now. You can't see my post and i don't remember what i said. well, I think I remember.

Funny how over the years on geni I have been run over with a steam roller ( not literally) like I was road kill. yet I make a legitimate comment and question and i get censored. oh well, that's life I guess.

Shew that was 3 Judis in a row :-)

Thanks Judith "Judi" Elaine (McKee) Burns, for the appreciation - it helps to know when people do think what I'm doing adds value :-)

Private User - I didn't see what you said. Maybe someone reported it because they accidentally pushed the wrong button.

Sharon Doubell - I think that we should ask Geni staff to set aside a separate discussion group around data conflicts. Your data conflict posts took up my first three pages of public discussions this morning. Imagine that everyone used the same approach as you, we would have no public discussions anymore!

What do you think about this solution?

Hatte Rubenstein Blejer, I've already approached them about exactly that (see above).
I think I resolved at the most 4 data conflicts this morning, the rest are follow-up discussions with users who are interested in the data changes.

Imo they shouldn't be appearing in your public discussions at all - unless you have an interest (follow/manage/curate) the profile. If you are not interested, the solution is to unfollow the profiles or unfollow me.

Frankly I'm feeling less and less bothered about doing this work at all, if it is not valued.

An alternative would be to post every morning the list of Data Conflicts left unresolved (mostly by Curators) after merges, so that the people who felt they knew the profile well enough to endorse the merge, might feel they have to commit to tying up the loose ends and letting the other managers know what has been done, when info conflicts.

The logical solution would be for the people who already felt confident enough about the info to do the merges in the first place, to resolve the resultant Data Conflicts immediately.

I've started up a Curator Discussion to try and push a solution through faster using Curator Clout. Will report back here.

Sharon Doubell Who is this "Curator Clout" ? This is the first time I have seen the name. Mike Stangel has always been able to expedite requests .... ☺..... ttfn

Re-posting here as another thread was for Curators only:
Yes - Data Conflicts are very Buggy, as:
A) Until now they are ignoring date localization and users shall understand that the format is MM/DD/YYYY or M/D/YYYY,
B) The conflicts in wedding/divorce dates and/or places are just ignored (1/2 data is lost).
C) It is still not compliant with before/after/between - if one is such and other is exact then result can be whatever (i.e between dd.mm,yyyy and nothing)

Thanks Lauri Kreen.

Private User - Curator Clout is the combined nag factor of 80 curators, going on and on and on about an issue until the geni team want to shoot us or themselves :-)

Sharon Doubell ... If you need a "Nag Factor" to get results from the Geni Team .... Please let me put you in touch with my First Wife ...... I have'nt spoken to her in two weeks but I would be more than happy to interrupt her for you ...... I could really use a break☺...ttfn

Well. ,Lauri I think it needs to change concerning =birth and death and marriage to also include about . I have noticed for many years that often in data it's referred to as about as well as before or after and some say by a certain date, By is difinately diferent than bef and after and between. Also just because some one was baptised doesn't mean that was the year that they were born. Many families baptised many children at once, for whatever reason. maybe the circuit riding minister hadn't been to town in awhile .

Amen, Sharon! I'll drink to tghat! And I don't drink the hard stuff!

AMEN Private User "Also just because some one was baptised doesn't mean that was the year that they were born. Many families baptised many children at once, for whatever reason. maybe the circuit riding minister hadn't been to town in awhile "

In my case it is the early England lines every one of the hardisty/Hardesty baptism dates have been turned into birth dates a baptism/christening date IS NOT the brith date unless the record/abstracttion contains born on and chrsitened on the same date I know pickey pickey but way I was taught - way all my data on this line is entered in and was handed down to me by many of
others researching the line

Ok but why. Did i say something profound!!!!!!!!

Judith "Judi" Eline (McKee) Burns

GACK! What did I say publicly that was inappropriate?
Can you please shed some light on this so that I can "stand corrected"? ...... if need be.

@ Judith (Judy) A. Loubris

Yes, exactly like road kill. Now, that was profound!
Can someone please tell explain this?

kahpho?