Why do we have a "Big Tree"? What is the purpose of it?

Kathleen Lo PINTO VIGNOLINI

You probably need assistance from help@geni.com Have you opened a case with them? They have tools us mortal users do not have.

hmmm...... IMHO Geni`s main principe is not MY tree but OUR tree... :)
and... Your data is still somewhere in Geni, Your work is not lost and...sad but true.... is no author rights to data in Geni......

Kathleen,
when looking at the list of profiles in your Family-Group, I STILL see 222 profiles, so ALL of the data is still there. You can see this for yourself, if you look at your own profile, in the Family Members list under Statistics.

Did you actually ADD ALL of these profiles yourself, or were they also added by the 25 family members that are active in your tree? The lists say you added all of 120 of these profiles. Even when merging profiles, you should still retain co-management of the combined profile. The ONLY profiles you will ever loose management of, are for those people who have been invited to join the tree. They become the only manager of THEIR own profile.

As family members, these invited folks, can modify data of family members. It would be silly to do otherwise, as the whole point is to get more information entered.

People have to understand that the moment they invite someone to join the tree that they entered, it is no longer solely their tree, but that of all people invited. It becomes a collective tree for the entire family. Is the data about your brother more "yours" than his own daughter??

Also to address concerns you made elsewhere:

1) there is NO preference for "newest data".
2) Changing a profile photo should NOT have any effect on ANY other profile that uses the same photo. I have never seen this happen. Perhaps your name was accidentally removed from the list of people in the photo?

Shmuel-Aharon Kam,
Geni Curator

Yes - we all know we did not add all the profiles to the 'Big tree" she is just wanting tobe retain her "ORIGINAL PROFILES" of a person she herself like I did when I started and tried to do by REFUSING to merge the profiles only to have MY PROFILE replaced in MY VIEW of MY VERSION of the tree on MY COMUPUTER SCREEN which Geni reps claims does not happen but did whether it does now I do not know - beinf able to which which is totaly impossible to do after merging it with another - - the only way that I can see that this could ever happen is that each persons "OWN PERSONAL TREE" be overlayed onto the "BIG TREE" and yet we can be" SEPERATE" yet a part of the 'BIG TREE' until that person feels comfortable enough to join the "Big Tree" or never join "Big tree" and yet others can see our info maybe - but I do not know if this can be done - but anything but I feel it can be done with computer applications and I do feel this CAN BE DONE since in theory its is already being done as all the exisiting profiles are there in essence are just overlayed anyway - yet remain seperate as I found out when Geni reps told me to lock out my one and only family group/colloborator back in late Nov. 2009 and that to get my profiles back i would have to follow every blue dot, yellow triangle, green dot with X's and break out of the merges made on MY TREE as I seen it on MY COMPUTER but let me tell you that causes a person to be ridiculed, condoned etc. by the Geni community alot of HATERED towards the person doing it even tho they followed the advice of the geni reps on how to regain back their "ORGINAL TREE and PROFILES they themselves entered and if lucky enough were allowed to gedcom in which i was not allowed to do, since I am not pro MY ORGINIAL PROFILES were there - and still must be as I am listed under "Managed by" I was with in one family of regaining MY ORIGINAL TREE back with the help of two Geni pro members and we worked for four months doing it and I worked almost 24/7 on it trying to get it done with less than 2-4 hours of sleep each day before I could complete that one family of only 5 members & spouses i was coerced - was it worth it maybe yes, but yet in reality no beacause as the result of HATERED by other Geni members towards the person trying to RECLAIM THEIR ORGINIAL profiles as geni reps instructed them to do and how to do it break up the merges to THEIR OWN PERSONAL TREE that they see - they do not warn you of the HATRED that results when you do, do it - - - BUT it was a great learning experience - as you can see all the BAD merges made by a USER who wants to be a part of the 'BIG TREE' cousins being merge together, scross generations just because they bear the same names; females being merged with females ; sons, brothers, grandsons, grandfathers barrying each other spouses; every John Smith, Mary Smith being merged together for the sake of merging even if the crossed, generations, or into families they did not beling to thats where some of those over 2x+ green balls came in and with those green balls you were very often bounced miles off of YOUR ORGINIAL TREE and had to push "TREE" and starrt back at the bottom again as you never were able to return to the section you were working on but only went around and around and around... when breaking up the "BLue, GREEN BALLS" and "YELLOW traingles" whe breaking up a merge pre Geni preps instructions like I said all the times the "HATED" person and recieving sinde remarks from other Geni users that you were destroying "THEIR TREE" etc. Whether this "OVERLAY" is feasiable or if it will or can ever become a part of Geni is unknown - but it is the only way I have been told by some other Geni users that we can retain OUR ORIGINAL PROFILES and until that time if we choose accept to be a "COLABORATOR", join a "FAMILY GROUP" then our 'ORGINIAL PROFILE" becomes a portion of the CHOOSEN PROFILE yet is underneath it all still just as we entered it back when OR if possible like some you can hopefully remain fully unattached from the "BIG TREE" accepting no merges ect. and yet Geni users merge these profiles into the big tree and they hang there being the THORN in the "BIG TREE" Maybe this makes no sens at all - but this is what I have come to the best explanation of what happens, does not happen ...results of the 'BIG TREE" basically keep your own personal work/tree as a seperate file in PAF, Family Tree, if you want it on line there is a program TNG (The Next Generation) it also allows interaction with others that you can allow others to enter and gedcom into but it is just another version of GENI and when one merges in it you do loose any and all profiles there is no system of stacking profiles as in Geni.

One last thought - The 'Big Tree' is just like our own personal PAF, family Tree etc. or pencil and paper - do any of us have what we orgiginally started out with as a group sheet/profile? NO we don't - we have take a profile with just a name, maybe a few dates, place - compiled it into full of dates, places and documentation - that has been sent to use by others, that we have found in books, court records etc. etc. and on line - - with Geni it is the same thing except with hundred of people in one place and thousands and thousands of profiles - being merged into one "MASTER PROFILE' just what we ourselves were doing but on ly as a single person - - we took from county histories, genealogies done by others; published indexes, databases etc. etc. done by others; letters we have recieved from others givign us data, sources etc.; family bible records sent by others - - - so even our profiles/group sheets are not truly our own they are a compilation of other peoples work before us, with us and for the future; and yes even hired professional work either by us or others and if done by others they have been willing to share it and not claim "SOLE OWNERSHIP" --- our genealogy is based on what others have done before us is it was not for them we would have NOTHING to work with, we have gladly accepted and combined our work into our and then some want to claim full ownership rights???? - - AM I WRONG -

Dear Brendan,

I'm one of the affected by wrong merges and if have my family tree and profiles as public and not as private, it's simply because in that way I can let other obtain some information that might be useful for them. If I mark them private, they can't have access not to the information in it neither to me so I might help them or see if we're really relatives or not.
What's more, I've experienced that when I want to end with a double profile, some of them, 'cause marked private, are locked and I must leave an uncorrect data eg. a man who never was that person's father or mother or it's stated as being father and son at the same time. That of course, affect my own tree. Geni's reply was to unlink the whole set of profiles but, ¡you can't even unlink the wrong one marked private!

Sincerely,

Sylvia.

Dear Kathleen,
I experienced exactly what Tim did and share your worry about the future of our work. I'm afraid that I've already started to loss creadibility in Geni's way of handling what we've already gathered with great effort, making a great spaghetti salad which wasn't my asset or responsability at all.

Regards,

Sylvia.

P.S. I also lost pictures, documents and others plus profiles management.

Sylvia,

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with the way geni is developing and addressing these issues.

The curatorial program has made a huge difference in straightening out the tree.

The Project program is bringing together a much better tool of collaborators.

Full revert capabalities such as in Wikipedia are in development and due out the gate within a couple of months. Meanwhile "revisions" now show on the "activity" tab and it's much more transparent to track down a history of changes.

I've in fact looked into it recently and been able to reconstruct a pretty good trail of changes. And what I can see the Help desk can see even better. Don't be afraid to use their services (help@geni.com)

Shmuel-Aharon Kam says: The list of profiles in your Family-Group, I STILL see 222 profiles, so ALL of the data is still there.
* ANS But they are gone from my Tree, though they once were there, I added them to my Tree - but now that shows 52 people - 2 of whom I just added last night! And all those Dates - gone too!

Did you actually ADD ALL of these profiles yourself, or were they also added by the 25 family members that are active in your tree? The lists say you added all of 120 of these profiles.
* ANS But, think of it, I add 120, but only 52 show on my Tree. Problem, my niece somehow was "awarded" management for ALL MY add ons, that were not my own family. She even had management power over My parents & Grandparents, etc! Yes, another of family group has added theirs, but they didn't have many of the pre-1950 names, dates, & photo's.

Even when merging profiles, you should still retain co-management of the combined profile. The ONLY profiles you will ever loose management of, are for those people who have been invited to join the tree. They become the only manager of THEIR own profile.
* ANS HOW do you "co-manage"? I don't see anywhere that can be done. I've already asked for management rights for both families, but some would like to "co-manage" others.

As family members, these invited folks, can modify data of family members. It would be silly to do otherwise, as the whole point is to get more information entered.
* ANS OK - but what if they delete dates, change photos, or put "mis-information" in there? 's happened before

People have to understand that the moment they invite someone to join the tree that they entered, it is no longer solely their tree, but that of all people invited. It becomes a collective tree for the entire family. Is the data about your brother more "yours" than his own daughter??
ANS, You mean, when I have worked for months to PUT in the DATA, & have more data than they even knows of? And when they misrepresent relationships that they have no knowledge of, and misspells names and deletes middle names, or puts first and middle names in the first name box, and removes or deletes or has none of the dates, places for those people, etc., etc. etc. All of which I have to go in to correct? And when your own TREE is decimated to 55 from 222 names while the "other" has all data that you've spent months to put in (& spent YEARS of doing my OWN PERSONAL RESEARCH?
... You bet cha!

Also to address concerns you made elsewhere:
1) there is NO preference for "newest data".
* Not how it was written on other forums - maybe Geni needs to clarify that. The first time I joined - "invited" - I had such problems I had to quit with lots of data & re-join again & put all back in. So that one
"Older" Geni family "collaborator" didn't usurped much of mine, and at least didn't change my profile data or wind up with My Tree ... while with this newest one, all my TREE is GONE ... to Hers (minus my dates, etc.)!
I like the "sharing" just not the "taking" of my hard work. It's how Genealogists work & gain data, they share, not take.
2) Changing a profile photo should NOT have any effect on ANY other profile that uses the same photo. I have never seen this happen. Perhaps your name was accidentally removed from the list of people in the photo?
* AH, but it DID on mine! I was NOT in the photo, it was of 1 (one) person, & changed ... I put the old one on

PS - I found, somehow, somewhere, a listing of all revisions since I joined, & as of 13 Oct 2010 - when my niece joined ... is where my Tree data including the DOB & DOD's, schools, jobs, photos etc. were lost!!!

& Judi is SO RIGHT: "she is just wanting tobe retain her "ORIGINAL PROFILES" of a person she herself like I did..." well said & thanks Judi
& "he only way that I can see that this could ever happen is that each persons "OWN PERSONAL TREE" be overlayed onto the "BIG TREE" and yet we can be" SEPERATE" yet a part of the 'BIG TREE' ... this CAN BE DONE ... (etc.)" How TRUE Judi! as other "FREE" sites I belong to, merge families, but EACH retains & manages & controls what EACH put in to it!

(help@geni.com) says: "Meanwhile "revisions" now show on the "activity" tab and it's much more transparent to track down a history of changes."
* SO, you say you're working on these problems, when will it be up & ready? Finding the "history of changes" was NOT easy! HELP NOW!

Kathleen,
lets number these, to keep it orderly.

1) regarding "gone from my Tree" - I can think of two situations that profiles "disappear" from the VIEW:

a) the easy one - at the bottom of your tree, you'll see a tab marked "Preferences", please click that, and check under "Generations to display", are both set to All? If not, does increasing these numbers add more profiles to the tree view? You'll have to wait a few seconds for the tree view to refresh.

b) When you look at your tree, do you see, in the bottom-left corners of any of the boxes an orange triangle with an exclamation mark in it? /!\ These indicate "merge-conflicts" in your tree. If during a merge process, a profile is left with duplicate sets of [identical] parents, that were NOT merged, this leave such a conflict, and can temporarily hide the profiles attached to one set of the parents. An easy way to find such "conflicts" is to look in your Merge Center - http://www.geni.com/list/merge_issues and check under Tree-Conflicts. As soon as these issues are fixed, your complete tree should be shown again.

2) "I add 120, but only 52 show on my Tree. Problem, my niece somehow was "awarded" management for ALL MY add ons"..

As explained in #1, there are reasons these might be hidden. I now see that you've been busy. You now have added 160 profiles. You also manage... 160 profiles. So not knowing who our cousin is, I have no idea which profiles she now manages.

3) co-management of the profiles - if, for example, you look at the profile of Biblical Adam of Eden (my personal favorite), you will see that it is managed by "Desiree Rogers and 149 others". If you click on the "others", you will see the full list of managers. ALL of these managers have equal access to this profile. That is "co-management".

4) "but what if they delete dates, change photos, or put "mis-information" in there?" - then you have to work this out with them. This is working together is all about. Not everybody is comfortable with this personal information being "on display", and it is theirs too.

- Shmuel-Aharon Kam says:
a) "the easy one - at the bottom of your tree, you'll see a tab marked "Preferences", please click that, and check under "Generations to display", are both set to All?" ...
- ANS I had the "Ancestors" set to 12, but the Tree only showed my parent' & Grandparents - i.e. 2, not 12 ancestors!

b) Shmuel-Aharon Kam: "When you look at your tree, do you see, in the bottom-left corners of any of the boxes an orange triangle with an exclamation mark in it?"
ANS -I've got "merge conflicts" on the tree, but there are NO triangles on these? How come? That was never the problem. The problem was there were FEWER (52), not MORE (222) names on the tree! & It took me MONTHS to do this!
... On an email, of a tree (niece) merged with mine it shows "Your family_tree on Geni is growing! You now have 258 relatives in your family tree." ... YET, on my Tree, it shows "Kathleen Lo PINTO's Tree Showing 166 People.? ... AND on my Relatives page "222 People," Why the different numbers? on the Same "family" tree? Now on my "home page" I'm connected to 249 people, & my husband to 250 people" ? (But, natch, unless I pay more, I don't get to see these; )
3) "co-management of the profiles" ...
- ANS: What if I do not want to "Co-manage" my family ... as I've been the one who did all this work, research, & putting the data in, and as in the many cases I've had to deal with "on line" databases, many times the data "others" have put in or changed is NOT correct, according to the documents I have. I actually had to "join" a group to correct someone who grabbed My Father's family, "because the name 'looked' close enough" to hers!
- & since my niece changed spellings, did not have the correct dates (that I put in), & changed photos - on Her tree - which DID affect - My Tree !!!
I do not want others to have "Equal Access" of all of my researched data! There is already someone who "took" my names into theirs, how I do not know. But I did NOT have a say in this! I have ONLY allowed 2 persons, a known cousin & my niece to have access ... yet this person, on my nieces tree, has MY data on theirs! (though they are not related to me!)
- IN ALL the other FREE databases that I belong to, Only the "creator" has complete control of their data. Others may copy whatever data to theirs, but both are kept as separate trees. For example, I have others in the VIGNOLINI side to put up ... However, these are NOT related to the GRASSI's, the Lo PINTO's or any others ... ONLY MY husband is related to them! But under Geni's method, ALL "co-managers" would have "Equal Access" to this whole Tree? That is not Genealogically sound!
4) This is working together is all about. Not everybody is comfortable with this personal information being "on display", and it is theirs too.
ANS. When someone else does all the work, i.e. my known cousin, they should be able to manage their own data, while I should be able to manage the data I put in. We can share data, but each should be able to retain management of the data they put in. As I said above, some put in data that is incorrect, or incomplete ... & some data the "creator" may not want to have listed.
None of the above addressed the fact, that until my niece "joined" my tree on 13 Oct, I had over 160 names ... But when she "merged" or whatever, her Tree showed all my names, while mine showed only 50 names! THAT IS the problem. I have since requested my cousin & niece to give management to me ... on most of the names & "My Tree" is back up.

That is the problem Geni must address ... & allowing only the "creator" to have access, unless "the other" makes a request to "the creator" to add or change data. IF I have created & put data up, obviously I want that info out there. As the researcher & "creator" it's my choice. IF trees are kept separate & unable to be changed by "the other" - than "the other" doesn't have to show it! Each researcher is looking for different data & connections. One should not be able to "undo" what another is looking for.

2) The different numbers are most likely because these names you are NOT seeing in the actual tree, are related through marriage. For example, you added your husband. Did you also add his parents, siblings and family? When looking at the tree with you as focus, you will not see them. What you will see is a small green-tree on top of your husband's box to indicate these additional profiles being there. If you click on this, or focus the tree on him, you will see that tree, but with your immediate family hidden. You should see these green-trees pretty much wherever you've added family of the partners of your relatives.

You have added 167 profiles to Geni, yes? And of the 177 blood-relatives you have listed, you only manage about 90. This seems to match the numbers you are seeing. About HALF of your profiles are in-laws or relatives of in-laws!

3) If you don't want co-management, then you should not have agreed to Collaborate with anyone. Additionally you should not even have invited anyone to join your tree, ever! So what would the whole point be?

As to people "duplicating" your work, are you certain that they did not do the same work you did, accessing the same free sources that you used? Genealogical data can't be "created". It's a matter of public record for the most part. As such it can't even be copyrighted.

If you look at your niece's profile, you will see that her profile is marked, by a peach-colored band above her name, indicating, as the text says, that her duplicate profile is in a pending merge! Looking at these two profiles we see that she was added to Geni by HER partner (who actually started his Geni tree before you), AND yourself. She too added dozens of profiles to her tree, before contacting you.

Obviously, if your cousin had these profiles in her tree, and then, with your permission, merged them with your copy, she has just as much right to them as you do. Or perhaps, she should just have deleted them, because you want her to?

Looking at YOUR profile again, I see that it has been merged at least three times, and that in fact, you were added to the tree by a Roberta. Perhaps SHE should be the boos of your profile? Reaping the benefits of other people's work, and then insisting it's unfair to share your own...?

Geni HAS addressed this very issues by it's own existence. As mentioned before, the whole point of this site is to work together with your family, near and far, to create a collaborative tree trough collective effort. What you are asking for is like someone going to a public pool and saying "you can't swim over here". That's what PRIVATE pools are for. But they tend to be so much quieter, less fun, a wasted effort and... empty.

Shmuel- "The different numbers are most likely because these names you are NOT seeing in the actual tree, are related through marriage. For example, you added your husband. Did you also add his parents, siblings and family?"

ANS_Please, do not "assume" you know all things. especially about what I have / have not done. The problem is not me, but GENI & how it's set up, as a "social network ... under the guise of Genealogy. I have been at this for about 20 years, before it became "big business" & I've taught "how to" Genealogy courses!
2 a) these are NOT "related through marriage" - they are my Parents, Grandparents & their siblings & children - ie my DIRECT COUSINS!
2 b) I have yet to add my husband's family ... who by the by ... ARE DIRECT Relations ... in TRUE Genealogical terms!

2 c) "You have added 167 profiles to Geni, yes? And of the 177 blood-relatives you have listed, you only manage about 90.
ANS_Once more ... & this time, please read carefully ... I DID NOT GIVE UP MY Management of these ... BUT - when other's "joined" MY tree ... GENI GAVE Management OVER TO THEM - most of MY inputs!!
When you do a job, shouldn't YOU get credit for the work? IF the work is a collaborative effort, than ALL should get the credit. ALL I am asking, is that when 1 (one) person puts in data, than OTHERS who did NOT contribute that data (even if they put in Some small part of it) the ORIGINAL person SHOULD a) retain PRIMARY management of those persons they put in! GENI gave MY management to others... Not ME, Not Those who have management now ... Again ... of those persons I alone DID the research & input!!

3 a) "If you don't want co-management, then you should not have agreed to Collaborate with anyone. Additionally you should not even have invited anyone to join your tree, ever! So what would the whole point be?"
ANS _THIS IS NOT what genealogy is all about! Genealogy is about those who have NEW data, sharing that data, not those who know nothing, taking charge of that data!
3 b) "As to people "duplicating" your work, are you certain that they did not do the same work you did, accessing the same free sources that you used?"
ANS _ABSOLUTELY! I and another cousin, now deceased, researched all the data of those I put up here. My cousin Roberta Hodora had some, of her immediate family, some names ... but NO DATES! My cousin went to Italy, for some data ... (some not put up here & may not ever be), while I spoke to family members, went to NYC Archives, & searched on line data. SO, again, "he who does the work, gets control" - or should.
3 c) "Genealogical data can't be "created". It's a matter of public record for the most part. As such it can't even be copyrighted."
ANS _ True enough ... however, on EVERY site I have put up data, I retain control, management, etc, no matter: who else joins - merges - etc., what data they put in, and that tree. MY TREE is NOT the same as other's trees! Though we are "related by blood" My cousins would not "claim themselves as the source" (something other sites allow ... i.e. KELPV as " the source" along with "documentation" or archives, film records, etc. - but Geni ignores.)
3 d) "Looking at these two profiles we (My niece) see that she was added to Geni by HER partner (who actually started his Geni tree before you), AND yourself. She too added dozens of profiles to her tree, before contacting you."
ANS _ Her Partner has NO right to join My Tree ... he is not "blood" nor by marriage ... as most professional Genealogists would tell you - unless they are joined by "common law marriage" -which they are not, as they have only been together for a year. Also - I do NOT want him on MY tree, nor to have access to my data ... able to change what he wants, though neither he nor she have any clue to our family history! He wants access to: "a request for you to join the people that you have created with copies of the same people that were created with other people of YOUR family. It's just to eliminate duplicates, that's all, both copies are maintained by you or your family members." - no way hose! She has acknowledged that I have more knowledge of the data & has now given over all "management" to me. & I have denied him access - explaining this.
3 e) "Obviously, if your cousin had these profiles in her tree, and then, with your permission, merged them with your copy, she has just as much right to them as you do. Or perhaps, she should just have deleted them, because you want her to?"
ANS _ Had I known that all my years of research, and my months of inputting data would result in me Loosing - my data to another
... I never would have joined this group! Nor would I have put in as much as I have! In fact, I'm now going to "delete" much of my data (as I have it in other places) & look for another site, that won't allow others to take over the data I worked so hard to put in! Again, Genealogy data should be "shared" not "usurped" by anyone who is part of that tree! (my cousin Roberta has also given me "management" for those whom I put in... and we will add whatever we find i.e. Photos, dates, names, etc. ... but again, I will NOT ask to "manage" her family inputs, nor will she "TAKE OVER" management of those I put in.
3 f) "Looking at YOUR profile again, I see that it has been merged at least three times, and that in fact, you were added to the tree by a Roberta. Perhaps SHE should be the boos of your profile? Reaping the benefits of other people's work, and then insisting it's unfair to share your own...?"
ANS _ Look more closely. She invited me, I had differences with her data, & couldn't "manage" even my own parents OR children! SO I QUIT! & Joined on my own. And again, you just don't get Genealogy is to be SHARED - NOT TAKEN OVER by those who didn't do the research! As to who's the "boos" (AKA boss) of My profile ... copyright or not ... would you give all your personal data to another to "control" - I doubt it - especially since we "just met" via this site. Each knew the other "existed" but that was it. AND since Roberta doesn't mind giving me "management" of those I PUT IN, & I don't mind her KEEPING the data SHE put in ... what is Your Problem with it?
3 g) Geni HAS addressed this very issues by it's own existence. As mentioned before, the whole point of this site is to work together with your family, near and far, to create a collaborative tree trough collective effort. What you are asking for is like someone going to a public pool and saying "you can't swim over here". That's what PRIVATE pools are for. But they tend to be so much quieter, less fun, a wasted effort and... empty."
ANS _ Obviously, from the other's who've posted here & elsewhere (check all similar "forums" - you have NOT addressed the problems with Geni.
- Yes, it is about families "working together" not deleting or changing data another has put in, nor usurping data to their page, while the "researcher" looses data. ONCE MORE: I had 166 plus names in my "Relatives" list & on my "TREE" ... when my niece "joined" or "merged" with mine
... it was GENI - that TOOK MY TREE - gave ALL to her - & brought MY tree down to 50 persons! Not 1 (one) of MY ancestors were on my tree, all were "switched" to her - (& again, she had no clue who these people were, till I put it up) ... And back to my very First Question asked :
... WHY? HOW? Why did this happen, when it was not made clear to the original data inputer that this would be done? & How did it happen, when I did not "agree" by any stretch of the imagination, to "give over" management to another, only allowed, as far as I knew, others to "see & share" data each of us has.
- I don't know about you, but when I do a lot of work on a project, but my work is "usurped" by another ... that is NOT FUN ... in my book!
Please, instead of assuming what I did or did not do, start looking into how your "program" needs to be altered, to protect those persons who have actually done the research, input, & are trying to find others with info. And stop "making excuses for a poor program" & start listening to those many others who are having difficulties keeping their data straight, because others can "change it at will".

PS - this is the end of my discussion with you. You obviously haven't a clue about the difference between "sharing" and "seizing" data.

The Geni rule on who get the primary management of a profile is quite fair. The profile with most details, - i.e. where someone have done the best job, becomes the primary manager, and if a profile is a result of a collaborative work by having gone trough several merges will still be the main profile.

In any case: the only difference between being the primary manager or a co-manager of a profile is who get Contact Profile Manager messages.

When it comes to who get listed as Added By on a profile it is also fair: The one who added the profile first.

"ANS _ Look more closely. She invited me, I had differences with her data, & couldn't "manage" even my own parents OR children! SO I QUIT! & Joined on my own. And again, you just don't get Genealogy is to be SHARED - NOT TAKEN OVER by those who didn't do the research! As to who's the "boos" (AKA boss) of My profile ... copyright or not ... would you give all your personal data to another to "control" - I doubt it - especially since we "just met" via this site. Each knew the other "existed" but that was it. AND since Roberta doesn't mind giving me "management" of those I PUT IN, & I don't mind her KEEPING the data SHE put in ... what is Your Problem with it? "

I am disappointed that what was previously a civil, albeit heated, discussion has now provoked a mean-spirited emphasis on a typo. This tells me quite a bit about the personality of the one to make this remark.

I am overjoyed at the positive collaborative experience I have found so far at Geni and am incredibly happy to be able to share "my" data with all to enrich the end result!

This looks to me like another case of a user not clearly understanding what they're in for when joining Geni, and also not having an understanding of the tremendous benefits of participating.

I wish we could hit the reset button and start this whole discussion over again. But alas, hindsight is always 20/20. Thanks for trying, S-A K.

My main concern at this point is Kathleen's apparent intent to delete her work. I hope she first does what Shmuel suggested and look to see if there are other managers besides herself listed on any of those profiles. If so, she will be deleteing THEIR work as well as her own- a very unfair thing to do indeed.

Master Profiles have turned out to be a big joke - many of the lines are spurious; there's no proof and some of my own profiles have been deleted because they don't fit someone else's idea of what ancestor we should connect to. And most probably by someone who isn't related. This site is a joke.

Janice

Do you have profiles you can link to to support your argument?

Most of the profiles I curate are in my direct line of ancestry and I take great pains to source as best I can as I go.

name a spurious line and it will be fixed. you CAN tell people about inaccurate data, we are all working hard to varify faulty lines

Isabel Potter

It started on 6 March when "Kathy" merged (my) Isabel Anthony (which now reads "No Name" with Isabel Potter (Tripp, 1610-1643) and continued when the curator merged the other Isabel/Isabella Anthony profiles into the "Tripp" profile. Who's TRIPP??? And why is Isabel Anthony now showing up as "No Name". I stand by my comment. This site is a joke.

And, just as quickly, it's now showing again as Isabel Anthony. My info came from a History of RI - don't have the title at hand, and don't have the link, since it was eaten up by another merge.

And yes, I changed the display name back to Isabel Anthony so I could find her again. Nothing was known of her ancestry, only possible parents: John Anthony and Susannah Unknown.

Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk

And that brings this line into question, since it includes the above named and several ancestors, no sources, or something gleaned from websites - I could make up an entire genealogy that way. The line here:

Elizabeth Potter
her mother
→
Elizabeth Marshall
her mother
→
Mary Cotton
her mother
→
Henry Cotton
her father
→
Constance Leventhorpe
his mother

is incorrect, since it follows that same line - when Elizabeth Marshall isn't the mother of Elizabeth Potter.

I'm not going into other profiles; I have better things to do with my time - over the months I've found many of them, asked for sources, received no reply in some cases, and have seen people shuffle names around in others, but still with no correct line info or sources given.

Hi Janice

I'll work on Isabel Potter, including sourcing as best I can and adding that info to the profile. Any source data you can locate and add will be helpful, too.

Obviously you saw some merge activity in progress - the tree can be like that. The no names are all resolved I believe.

When done with what results from this round of merging duplicates, I'm going to ask a fellow curator who knows the Potter line and has it in his tree to review that family on Geni.

I'm the one trying to develop some familiarity with the Anthony family, so I'll continue the sourcing I started on that a few weeks back.

Again, any value you (and any other profile manager) can add with source data is really appreciated. There are some 80 curators, some 56 million profiles. Obviously there's going to be some work in progress.

The good news is that in six months or so, we've consolidated profiles down to one "decent" one, and been able to put in a lot more detail from the collective geni than ever existed before.

Now we're at the slower and more exacting sourcing phase. All hands on board for that one if you all would be so kind.

Judy, thanks. I, too, have lost any confidence I might have had in this system. It's a playground for amateurs who just want to "consolidate profiles down to one decent one". What a laugh! If it isn't accurate, what's the point of consolidating?? Hope you're well Judy! Janice

"The good news is that in six months or so, we've consolidated profiles down to one "decent" one, and been able to put in a lot more detail from the collective geni than ever existed before."

Erica, what's the point of consolidating if what you've consolidated isn't accurate?? Merging two different people into one is asinine. As Judy said, I've lost all confidence in this system.

Well, I see where the "Tripp" as father of Isabel Anthony was found - on ancestry.com in a personal tree. What the heck kind of source is that?? Who named a child "Tripp" other than the Palins??! Ancestry.com is no more accurate than any other website with no source information. And why would "Tripp" have no surname, since his father is given as Someone Anthony, M.D.?

These aren't my original notes, but close to them. I got mine from the same sources as those noted here; unfortunately, my hard copies and I are in two different places at the moment.

FROM:
http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/vicky_winfield/AnthonyFamily/GenAnthon...
From Diane Cukro's notes. (Diane Cukro and I also exchanged notes on several different lines, most notably the Wansors of Long Island, some years ago before rootsweb was bought out by Ancestry.)
1. According to Austin's General Dictionary of Rhode Island, p. 156, Richard Harcurt m. 1st, Elizabeth Potter, daughter of Robert Potter and Isabel Anthony (as shown by induction) dau. of John and Susannah Anthony of Portsmouth, Rhode Island, Inn Keeper, etc.
2. Robert Potter in 1638, being under criticism in the Church moved to Portsmouth & Warwick, Rhode Island;
3. where in 1643 he with sundry others including Samuel Gorton were notified to appear before the General court at Boston, as "they held blasphemous errors, which they must repent of" or go to Boston for Trial; and they were soon carried thither. At the time of the capture of the Warwick men, their wives and children were forced to betake themselves to the woods and suffered hardships that resulted in the death of three women at least, one of these being the wife of Robert Potter.
4. 25 May 1655 he was appointed by the Court of Commissioners to keep a house of entertainment, but died before expiration of the year."

FROM:
http://www.antonymaitland.com/hptext/hp0306.txt
Note:
The following is a section of a family history compiled by Herbert
Armstrong Poole between 1905 & 1960, transcribed by AAA Maitland 1998.
Subject numbers are HAP's originals.
HAP's page divisions are shown: after subject page numbers are complete
document page numbers in brackets and issue dates.
The original text had generations indented in turn: here, generation
numbers are added to each individual: the children of the title subject
are "1/--".

Subject 306, P1 (289) 22/4/1953

RICHARD HARCOURT.

The following is from Savage's Dictionary, Vol 3, p 353: from
"The Cox, Cocks, Cock Family in America", by George William Cocks, New
York, 1912: and from the New York Genealogical & Biographical Record,
Vol 66, page 91.
Richard Harcourt's birth date is supposed to be 1623, and died
at Oyster Bay, L.I. after April 25/1696, the date of his will.
His parents' names are not known, but it is suggested that his
mother was a sister of Francis Westcott and Margaret his wife, (The Cox
genealogy gives this name as Weston). Francis Westcott was of Salem,
Mass., Providence, and Warwick, R.I.: he was a recalcitrant Puritan and
one of the twelve members of the Baptist Church at Providence. This
suggestion is given force from the fact that in 1652, Richard was
mentioned as heir or assignee of Francis Westcott. Another deed calls
Richard a cousin or nephew of Francis Westcott, from whom he inherited
land.
His name first appears in the History of Rhode Island, as one of
the signers of the Fundamental Agreement of the inhabitants of Warwick
on January 23/1648-9. In February of that year, with Henry Townsend,
Robert Potter and Ezekiel Holliman, he was appointed to lay out meadow
and uplands in "the neck". He was Constable, then the highest office in
the town government. In 1652 he was licensed to keep a victualling
house and to sell spirituous liquers. In 1655 he was appointed a tavern
keeper with Stukely Westcott. Th 1657 he moved to Jamaica, L.I,, with
the three Townsend brothers, subsequently neighbors at Oyster Bay. On
February 16/1661, he was on the list of Quakers at Jamaica, where he
held the offices of Overseer, Constable and Surveyor, and was on
several commissions to lay out land in the town. He moved to Oyster
Bay, where he was Surveyor and a Justice of the Peace.
He married, 1st, in 1651-2, Elizabeth Potter born 1635-6, died
about 1674-5, daughter of Robert and Isabel (Anthony) Potter. Robert
Potter in 1638, being under criticism in the Church, removed to Warwick
and Portsmouth, R.I,. In 1643, he, with Samuel Gorton and others, were
notified to appear before the General Court in Boston for trial, on the
grounds that "they held blasphemous errors which they must repent, and
they were carried thither". At the time of their capture, their wives
and children were forced to betake themselves to the woods, and
suffered hardships that resulted in the death of three of the women,
one of them being Elizabeth, the wife of Robert Potter. On May 25/1655,
Robert Potter was appointed by the Court of Commissioners to keep a
house of entertainment, but died before the end of the year.
He married, 2nd, between 1676 and 1683, Miriam Hoyt, daughter of
Simon and Susannah (Smith) Hoyt, and widow of Samuel Forman. Miriam was
born in 1650, and had married, 1st, Samuel Forman, born in England, in
1637, died about 1682, of Flushing, L.I., by whom she had four
children, see subject 600, page 2. He had no children by Miriam.
Issue:- (by his first wife Elizabeth Potter)
1/1. Susanna Harcourt, Born 1652, died before April 1/1682. She
married, 1st, in 1670, Joseph Halstead, born 1642, died 1670, son of
Jonas Halstead, and had five children. She married, 2nd, on March
4/1680, Peter Stringham.
1/2. Elizabeth Harcourt. Born 1654. She married, as his second wife,
Thomas Youngs, son of Joseph Youngs, who had married, 1st, Rebecca
Mapes. Thomas was the grandson of Joseph and Margaret (Warren) Youngs
1/3. Mercy Harcourt, Born 1656. She married in 1673, Edward Ketchem,
son of John and Bethia (Richardson) Ketcham of Ipswich, Mass,

Subject 306. P2 (290) 2.

1/4. Daniel Harcourt. Born 1658. He married in 1680, Sarah Forman,
daughter of Samuel and Miriam (Hoyt) Forman, see subject 600, page 3.
In other words Daniel and Sarah were step brother and sister. They
removed to New Jersey.
1/5. Benjamin Harcourt. Born 1659. He married in 1680, Mercy Dickenson,
daughter of Captain James and Elizabeth (Howland) Dickenson, see
subject 1380, page 2.
1/6. Isabel Harcourt. Born about 1662. She married in 1679, as his
second wife, Thomas Weekes, baptized 1651, died 1716, son of Francis
Weekes, see subject 304, page 6. See subject 152 for issue and
further particulars.
1/7. Sarah Harcourt. Born 1654. She married, 1st, as his third wife, in
1695, Nathaniel Coles, born 1640, died 1707, son of Robert and Mary
(Hawkhurst) Coles, see subject 618, page 2. She married, 2nd, in
1707, John Rogers, son of James Rogers.
1/8. Meribah Harcourt, Born 1667. She married George Townsend, born
1656, died 17O5, son of John Townsend, who I cannot place. That she
married a Townsend is proved by her sister Dororthy's will which
named her Meribah Townsend. FROM THE NYG&B RECORD: MERIBAH MARRIED SECOND ABRAHAM ALLING, JR. THEIR DAUGHTER MARTHA ALLING MARRIED 1729 in BUCKRAM, QUEENS, LI NY, SAMUEL COCK. THIS IS MY LINE.
1/9. Dorothy Harcourt. Born 1670, died between January 31/1738-9 and
December 17/1739, the dates of her will and its probate. She married
in 1697, as his second wife, John Cock, born at Oyster Bay November
22/1666, died 1716, son of James and Sarah Cock. John died intestate
and letters of administration were granted to his sons Daniel and
James on January 10/1734. John Cock had some bacon carried off by
Benjamin Carpenter, as John would not train with the Militia.
Issue:-
2/1. John Cock, born March 25/1698, died unmarried before 1734. He
was a cordwainer and a shoe maker.
2/2. Daniel Cock, born October 5/1699, died 1771. He owned and
operated a ferry between Fox Island beach and Rye, N.Y. He
married, 1st, Levine Kissam, daughter of David and Elizabeth
(Coombes) Kissam, and widow of John Carman, son of Joshua and
either Grace "Rock" (Smith) or Martha (Ellison) Carman, see
subject 536, page 4. There is something wrong about this marriage
as the Carman Genealogy by Henry Allison Treadwell, says John
Carman who married 1st, Levina Kissam, born 1710, daughter of
Daniel and Elizabeth (Coombes) Kissam, did not die until January
29/1771, and married, 2nd, on February 8/1739-40, Mary Smith.
Levine Kissam bore John Carman two children, born 1732 and 1734.
Perhaps John and Levine (Kissam) Carman were divorced. The Cox
genealogy says Daniel Cock had no children by Levine Kissam.
Daniel Cock married, 2nd, on April 27/1748, Sarah Rushmore,
daughter of Thomas and Anneka (Hendrickson) Rushmore, see subject
132, page 3 for their issue and further particulars. Daniel Cock
married, 3rd, before October 29/1766, his cousin Susannah Youngs,
daughter of Richard and Phebe (Weekes) Youngs, see subject 304,
page 5. They had no children.
2/3. Meribah Cock, born March 2/1701, died 1762. She married, 1st,
Joshua Townsend, son of James and Jane (Reddough) Townsend. See
subject 308 page 6 for issue and further particulars. She married,
2nd, as his second wife, in December 1760, Micajah Townsend, born
1699, died November 9/1781, son of John and Esther (Smith)
Townsend. See subject 616, page 3, but had no children by him.
2/4. Hezekiah Cock, born November 28/1703, died 1769. He married
Susanna Townsend, born March 14/1712, died about 1780, daughter of

Subject 306. P3 (291)

George and Rosanna (Coles) Townsend, see subject 154 page 1 for
their issue and further particulars.
2/5. James Cock, born April 27/1708, died June 12/1746, a farmer and
a Justice of the Peace. He married Deborah Feake, who died October
30/1794, daughter of Robert and Clemence (Ludlum) Feake. After
James death, Deborah married, 2nd, Thomas Doughty.
Issue:.
3/1. Phiany Cock, born 1730, died November 15/1770, unmarried.
3/2. Loretta Cock, born 1735, died May 25/1810, unmarried.
3/3. Daniel Cock, born March 26/1747, died October 22/1804. He
married on December 20/1768, Rosanna Townsend, born September
4/1751, died October 4/1831, daughter of William T. and
Elizabeth (Cock) Townsend, see subject 154, page 2.
Issue:-
4/1. Elizabeth Cock, born December 7/1769, died March 30/1859.
She married Samuel Cock, born June 28/1765 died August
5/1855, son of Clark and Elizabeth (Pearce) Cock: 8
children.
4/2. James Cock, born January 12/1772, died of yellow fever,
September 14/1795. He married Katherine Ackerly: no issue.
4/3. Townsend Cock, born December 4/1773, died February
14/1868, aged 95 years. He married on November 14/1792,
Margaret Farley and had three children,
4/4. Deborah Cock, born February 5/1776, died April 1/1854.
She married George Townsend, son of Richard and Hannah
(Weekes) Townsend, see subject 154, page 2 for issue and
further particulars.
4/5. William T. Cock, born August 22/1780, died 1858. He
married Abigail Somarindyck, daughter of John and Sarah
(Willis) Somarindyck and widow of Leonard Thorne. Two sons.
4/6. Thomas Cock, M.D., born June 12/1783, died June 14/1869.
He was associated with Doctors Valentine Mott and Cheesman.
Ha married, 1st, on January 19/1809 Elizabeth Ferris,
daughter of William and Miana (Hunt) Ferris and had four
children. He married, 2nd, in 1833, Esther Seymour but had
no children by her. He married, 3rd, on May 3/1836, Maria
Margaretta Riehle and had two children by her.
4/7. Phiany Cock, born April 23/1785, died in 1840. She
married in 1804, Charles Thorn and had four children.
4/8. Maria Cock, born January 15/1790. She married Dr. Joseph
T. Hunt, a surgeon in the U.S., Navy, who served in Algeria
under Decatur. They had three children.
1/10. Mary Harcourt. Born 1674. She married, 1st, in 1703, Maurice
Shadbolt, who died in 1712. She married, 2nd, in 1712, Robert Coles,
born 1670, died 1725, youngest son of Nathaniel and Martha (Jackson)
Coles, see subject 618, page 3.

I am incredibly fortunate to be on Geni with many cousins - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th ... and even 10th, 11th, 12th etc.

There are obviously pros and cons to a collaborative family tree. I prefer my immediate family tree - back to my great grandparents - to be limited to a small group. When you get back to 1800s and before, there are serious advantages to sharing the tree with the many others who are ALSO descendants. I have found out things about my ancestry that it would have taken me a decade to research myself.

While I understand the view of many of the posters to this thread, I think Kathleen's position is beginning to border on silly for a public site that is based on a principle of collaboration. It makes me wonder why she remains on the site, when clearly other sites like Ancestry.com allow a person's tree to remain solely their own. It seems to me that people like this want to benefit from the "good" research that is being done by folks on here, and avoid all the "bad" data that creeps in by less-experienced users or less knowledgeable genealogists or people who simply have incorrect information. To me, this is what genealogy is all about -- evaluating bits of information (whether primary sourced or not) to piece together a more-or-less accurate picture of our trees. You're never going to get 100% accurate... although Kathleen's postings seem to imply that she is 100% certain that her information is accurate and complete. I would speculate that while her information is generally reliable, she certainly must have *some* misinformation in her tree somewhere, including information that she has added to the record through research. To paraphrase a song, it's not what you don't know that is the problem, it's what you're certain of.

And in addition, I don't understand why Kathleen's replies to Shmuel-Aharon Kam seem so angry.

Kathleen, the idea that you did the "research" -- no doubt using many *public* records -- and now feel you own that data is a real stretch. If you found someone's social security number scrawled in a book, does that mean you own that information? No... although you might *possess* that information. And I might add that you will only possess that information for as long as you are alive, at the most. The world would be a better place if everyone realized what my father used to tell me, that "You don't really own anything." You may be the self-appointed "official keeper" of the family tree, but that doesn't mean that someone else in a future generation, or someone related to you -- regardless of the distance of that relationship -- is any less entitled to possess it than you are. You can say that you don't like it messed with, but it was your choice, after all, to join Geni which is a *collaborative* site, and to post the information you found there for your collaborators to be able to access. It's like going to a community garden that shares its harvest among the planters as a rule, and then insisting that even though you want to USE the extensive resources (the land and the water) and tools of the community garden, your own little plantings will remain exclusively yours. At the very least, that's a selfish and arrogant attitude.

For what it's worth, I have done a lot of research myself and posted much of what I have learned here (and yet I still consider myself a rank amateur), because above all else, the genealogical research I have done and what I post here is for my own use AND for the good of my relatives past and present, and my future descendants and relatives. I don't feel I own this information about any of my relatives any more than I would lay claim to owning that person as an individual. While I do agree that information posted here near relatives (grandparents and closer, in particular) should generally remain in the control of the original poster as much as possible or practical, I personally am putting my "research" out there so that anyone who wants to see it to learn more about their own history can do so.

If everyone had this "ownership" mentality, none of us would have any information on our ancestors, because people would lock it away and insist that the only people who could access it were immediate blood relatives. I personally have been able to connect my line further back than I ever thought possible via Geni's collaborative nature, and even by tracing lines of in-laws and distant relations, since so many lines are intertwined. It seems silly to me to claim that just because you are related by marriage means you are any less entitled to collaborate on a family tree.

I guess my thought is that I am willing to take a bit of inaccuracy from time to time and be an active participant to help ferret that inacurracy out of the data that involves my family tree, in order to reap the rewards and benefits of a massive collaborative tool like Geni. Do I only add information that references a primary source to my tree? Of course not. So no matter how much information comes to light, any person's profile is going to not only be somewhat inaccurate or incomplete at *best*, but also be an imperfect snapshot in time of the data we "know" about that individual.

Also, I worry about the overall nature of the opinion that you don't need to share information about other relatives in your line, or collaborate with others because the only people who care about it and are alive are you and your son -- because while that *may* be true for now, if the information you "own" isn't passed along to others, it's doomed to eventually fade from memory. I personally feel I owe it to the memory of my ancestors and to the future generations that come after me to collaborate as much as possible, with as little a sense of "ownership" as possible, so that the information flows more freely. Even if that means that occasionally I am inconvenienced and have to re-build some of my information online (I do keep a backup of almost everything I put here so I can recreate it from my own files), or if I have to weed through someone else's incorrect information to determine if there are any accurate pieces of data.

And one last thing, for people who have said they have "lost" photos on Geni and are implying that in losing them here they are gone for good, what were you thinking? Didn't anyone ever teach you to make a backup of your photos? You wouldn't have, in years past, mailed a photo you treasured to someone without making a copy of it. Why would you do the same online? For goodness' sake, people, make backups of your digital photos!

Okay, I'm off my soapbox now. Suffice it to say that the tone of some of the postings bothered me enough for me to make a comment.

By the way, for those people who claim that the site is full of amateurs, of course it is. But weren't we all -- even those of us who claim to be genealogists -- amateurs at some point? I come to this genealogy experience with a beginner's mind. The moment I think I "know" something, or that I "own" some information, is usually the moment I am proven wrong.

My two cents. FWIW.