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

Regardless of the opinions expressed by several people in this thread, I remain totally committed to the Geni goal to build one tree of everyone who lives or who has ever lived, without duplicates. When I find more than one profile for who is clearly the same person, I will do my best to take whatever action I must within the capabilityof the Geni software to get them merged. And if not me, then somebody else will. It's the way the system is designed.

Judith, if the portion of your tree that you would like to keep private contains no ancestors that you share with any other Geni users, then it should not be a problem- since your tree would then contain the one and only copy of each of those profiles. But unless you can guarantee that none of your siblings, children, cousins, aunths, uncles, parents, grandparents, or in-laws of any of those people will EVER want to become Geni users and build the tree from THEIR perspective, then the Geni database is destined to eventually contain duplicates of parts of your "private" tree. And as I stated above, the Geni goal is to have no duplicates- meaning merges are inevitable.

I think this is a GOOD thing- as long as it's all done carefully and accurately.

Haven't read everything here...BUT

For the most part I have tried very hard to make sure that no living person is made public on my trees. But I have made public anyone who is deceased or who could be expected to be deceased (logically) so while I may have info on a lot of people, if I have any idea that they could be living...I do not enter them at all....others, I enter very little info...mostly just name, dates and places of birth and residence...and a lot of that info is from data that IS quite public.....

If that encroaches on someones closer relatives I apologize..but they ARE in obit and other public records (town histories, military records, etc) so the mention of a name is not, to me, giving PERSONAL data about the individual.....that is a definite No-no in my book....unless that info is part of an obit etc that usually is just a log, and brief history recount....

From 1850 and back there is a lot of info that I have discovered about the movements of my family across the states, what they did, the hardships they endured, how the social stucture was in their lifetimes, .....it was not that long ago but what we now take so much for granted would have been viewed very differently by them...

I know that even most adults nowadays can not imagine a life without such things as automobiles, or even electricity, or inside plumbing....but all of those things would have been unheard of just 150 years ago....unless, for some things, you were VERY rich (the plumbing).

so we don't have to go very far back to find that even our grandfather's and grandmother's were THERE when something marvelous was invented...and how did they ever exist without it?

And WHY history should be relegated to the further past does not seem to be a correct point of prospective to me....

What happens when that youngster that now couldn't give a hoot...says a few years down the line..."tell me about Gramma Whoever or Uncle So-and So and noone remembers anything about them.....at least lets get their names and placement in the tree recorded....most likely only close family will be interested in the 'facts' down the road...but where they are on the tree MAY be something we only have so many chances to make sure that they ARE noted.

I don;t know that I have that great an interest in the BIG TREE...but more that there was a branch and my family was ON IT. And being part of it is enough of a claim to fame.

tho you have NO living direct relatives - does not mean that cousins close or distance will not be interested in the 'family tree' i have only 1 aunt on moms side left, my brother; my 2 children besides 5 step-children alive and 2 deceased and 2 cousin's one on dad's side and one on mom's side - -
none have ever been interested over the last 30+ but alot of the distant cousins have been what I have done - over the years on the John and Anthony emery of newbury, Ma. descendants, the Aults, Edington's hardesty, Gastineau, Vandeventer etc. has been a labour of love I had several of the 'older generation" who shared their info freely - and thus so do I its our heritage it needs to be passed down - every scrape of it - down to "us" 'me' even to those un-caring childrenm grandchildren etc. - as one day they will be interested JUST MAYBE i started back when because my parents were older there were very few of the older generation left - mom and dad did not talk of 'family' while i was at home - so i had a few surprises along the way - - like grandfather emery was not an only child... there were 11 other siblings - his wife's brother married grandfather's sister thus double emery/edington cousins; there are 2 hardesty branchs in my tree and the whole mess is complicated by marriages of cousins, on both sides...

To say the least the attitude -expressed above is very selfish and stinks in my opinion - then why be on GENI????????

Judi/Judith....I too had relatives that were unknown...mysteries...some whom I seemed to be the only person to remember they existed at all...or people that noone talked about.....I always hit a brick wall if I asked....but I have found a great number of them and have gotten to understand how families drifted apart and lost contact...even brothers and sisters (some was a matter of distance or communications...the lack of easy means of keeping touch....) or lack of education....couldn't write, or some catastrophe that others weren't privy to...or even economic, as when some family members moved to where the jobs were...while others stayed on the farm....etc...

Like some others I also feel like, when merging like people, even tho I recognize that others may be related OR NOT I find it frustrating that my name does not appear as a co-manager....I realize that others may easily have entered the name/family before I did...but my contribution has no less value and my requests to be ADDED as co-manager are not always answered....in fact, some profiles are now managed solely by people who aren't even on Geni now...so I can't access or edit info.....and if I CAN access, my name is nowhere as a 'party in cahoots'....I think that a lot of what Kathleen Eliz is saying comes from that feeling of being shut out of her own tree.....and why, if 'about me' info is carried over on a merge aren't document or photo records (or am I reading Kathleen's message incorrectly?).

It may sound petty to some...but I'm sure Kathleen and Judi/Judith are trying to say essentially that, while they admit that others may have an interest in their family, whether close or distant, the feeling of being cut off or losing credit by their names being omitted is almost like 'stealing.'

PLEASE don't see that word and think that I am accusing any PERSON of taking over a profile...just that THE PROGRAM should include BOTH names on a merge..not dump someone's name as being a party who has an interest in the profile....

And I know that I am not offering anything in the way of a solution....I find too many people in my own tree match list that I have absolutely no knowledge about....and I try very hard not to make errors...but why isn't there a box for 'put this one back into the loop, I know nothing' option....or a place to send back to manager, too little info....

.

in near future we ALL are nonprivate profiles..... and who cares about Your personal opinion.... :)

Iida...I hope that rude remark was not directed toward me....because last I knew I was entitled to my Personal opinion....just as you do.

Perhaps you are just having a bad day....and YES, someday we all will be public on the tree...

Right here and now tho, the argument is how much openness is acceptable and how much is not....just because I believe that anyone who is deceased should be public does not mean that everyone feels that way. Since the vast majority of people within the private range that I enter are on the fringes of my information means that I only would have them on the roster....by no means would I presume to meddle with them intentionally....and that is the concern of a lot of people, myself included....that immediate family would be messed up....and maybe an 'alert' could be worked out if there be intruders in the midst...but lets face it, to be fair to all the genealogists who have spent their lives working material, it would have to be set quite close to home....and, of course, include anyone living as safe from being messed with....

Further up the tree, and more distant in the past presents a number of problems with too many fingers in the pot...I believe that the concept of Master Profiles and curator oversight of those profiles is more an effort to fend off misinformation and give some leadership to that information....than any attempt to hijack a particular historical profile....

Sorry.... nothing personal.... IMHO Geni is like Google Earth.... if You have open sky over head, everyone can see your head... if you will be private-go inside and use piece of paper to draw family tree.....

regards

Since Geni is a collaborative family tree, and it's published everywhere, people who doesn't' agree with it's privacy policy should manage their family tree on other software.
the huge advantage of Geni is the collaboration, it is also a weakness when looking from "private tree" point of view.
You can hold them both...
I know there's a work going on about synchronizing Geni with other family tree systems - stay tuned - maybe the combination of private oriented system with Geni collaboration method will give a better solution to both sides.

judith - I do get it - but even tho you state -" You are not getting it. Almost everyone is DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!" THERE ARE DISTANT COUSINS out there some where - on some of the lines - The world has not come to an end as yet that I know of - Like you state in my direct line EVERY ONE IS DEAD but my Aunt before me - after me there is only my brother and his kids, me and my kids, my dads nephew and his child and grandchildren - and my mothers nephew

BUT i have done this all these years to preserve the knowledge of the families - for future generations even if meager distant cousins is all the remains that may one day be interested

i am putting my stuff on GENI that I have done in the last 30+ years because the world has yet to come to an end and the distant cousins will still have offspring of some proportion; my one cousin still has offspring - when my direct 1st cousin on the emery side - the name dies with him - but there still are other cousins - no matter how distant - the McKee name dies with my brother and his son - my nephew will never have children as he has testicle cancer several years ago he will be 34 in august - -

BUT I do have 2 children and 3 grand children who just might one day be interested in this all even tho they have nothing to do with me since their father died back in 1990 - I have step children, grandchildren who may be interested in their Scottish heritage as all the children of my deceased husband are 1st generation born in America - and if the connection is ever found may be related to Robert burns, the poet - as my deceased step-daughter so proudly tooted her horn around town about - tho there is no documented proof and as best i can figure out lacking at least 2 if not more generations to to connect to even a possible branch and then it will be so 'shirt-tailed" David's family if of Ayshire Scotland - but proving the lineage back to Robert burns, the poet is all but impossible - -

I am totally for the master profiles - and not offended by it nor feel threatened by them - I have asked that several be made because of miss-information being merged in and wrong merges being made, and some deleted because they bear the same r similar names.

I am for the curators as the tree has vastly improved and the problems have some what lessened - I know several of the branches the smith, hinckley's and into what I call the "queens & Kings" area off the Emery-Woodman-Goodridge branch has GREATLY IMPROVED - In fact I got so very frustrated at the so-called "extra-bonus' from a Gedcom that was only to deal with the Yocum-Anderson-Preston lines - that I cautiously broke off all these "queens & Kings" branches and cleaned them out of my PAF file for now -

I have took great pains to try and keep all my profiles public - so that if something happens that I can no longer active work on GENI or that I heaven forbid should die expectantly - that my profiles can be merged with others without the issue of being "labeled private" - since i have carried on all descendants of certain branches of my lines - and they intermingle so - i am just tired of the road blocks of some of the profiles that are listed 'private' in my tree that the people no longer are a part of GENI (they have refused to answer there contact mail through GENI for well over a year - the request to collaborate or be a part of the family group has been pending for well over a year and the majority of their profiles have been given to others - but the ones need corrected - merged together etc. are totally inaccessible - such as my Grandfather emery - and his parents are split in half and the siblings same and all are not listed.....
I have listed the living - but have omitted that data of those who are living or presumed to be living - this has also helped me to connect with distant cousins who are joining GENI and some totaly new to genealogy and have very little on the family or nothing at all except back to the grandparents - One just recently fit the later she opted in on the Edington & hardesty branches - as well as the Sullivan, Meredith & Emery thus she has most of her family tree already built for her.

at times i still thinks one persons suggestion of long ago of an overlay of ones tree onto the "big tree" could be the answer then one could join the big tree when they feel comfortable - but whether it could be done or is feasible is the big question =

To me everything - after the STANDARD 4 generation pedigree chart should be public - 1) you 2) your parents 3) your grandparents 4) gr-grandparents most never physically know their great great grandparents - I was only lucky enough to know 3 of my 4 grandparents - and for the great grandparents they were long deceased - I was born in 1951 - dad born in 1908 and Mom in 1920 - I call my self the "Generational misfit' then on dad side grandpa Mckee was 1880 had his dad was 1834 but i do have Great Grandpa Mckee's civil war diaries!

I think the "big Tree' is like being able to go from "here" to "there" without contstantly being detoured.....the clean up of duplications and error info only shortens the route....and the "Big Tree" is however far or back in history you want to go...

I do not put any info in people who are presumed to be living - if they are deceased i have not I am not sure i am jumping on you when I use your words - then then I guess that is your opinion then - - all my first 5 generations are deceased in my direct line except for very distant cousins - - all are born before 1930 - excepet for the very distant cousins - the Emery's and Haresty's mckee and Vandevetners i have done manuscripts that have been passed around; sent to libraries -

i was not a big fan of the Big tree but that's what Geni is all about and that fact is not going to change was It was that way when I joined - and you joined with have to accept it or as I was told back in Nov 2009 after I shortly joined and started having trouble - was to dump it and leave -

If you feel that I am against you because i support the curator system so be it - i am sorry I think the tree is in far better condition than when i started back in Nov. 2009

Non of us loose control of our profiles if they are merged - unless we reliquish managership down under our names are all there if this is not done i sadly relinquished managership of alot of my smith-hinkcley and profiles - regret it - - I was completely ready to leave GENI back in august 2010 when I was coaxed back into collobration - but i am stubborn - pug headed or what ever esle you call it - - I have one goal in mind - to clean up my personal ancestral files - salvage whats let from several cmputer failures and preserve my research and that which has been hande to me on the so-called "silver platter' for my distant cousins, and future distant cousins to have to hold on to and to expand - - even if it is just their name and no data - they can connect and 'fill in the blanks'as i was told to do by one dear swett lady who handed me an outline of seven generations down two branches of my family off of one guy thomas hardesty she promised she who help me more when she felt better - that day never came - she died shortly thereafter of cancer

I am sorry I am going to carry on their tradition of giving freely of my heritage - whether it be through GENI or through ancestry.com or - - all of this is also on there as i have Gedcomed my files up there and have tried to kept them unattached as I am using my genealogy class course as a means of verifying the documentation given - or re-enforcing tha I found years ago - and cleaning up a very bad gecom merge of what was to be documented but was only defunct links to online newpaper obits and to ancestry - there was what I call no "meat documentation" to the file - i had seen work this posted to message board which included the data and the link In my heart I can never do that to anyone - i have colelcted all the documentation over the years - why should someone else have to re-trace my steps - re-order library books or pay for obtaining the documentation again I know I was or not well linke on GENI because of my ideals and standards of who Genealogy or family history should be done - but it was how I was taught - by my "elders" who are all now deceased - they freely gave of there efforts and i shall try and do the same - - I also have everythign i am putting on GENI up in TNG (The Next generation) on a personal shared web sit until i converted over to that I wa making webpages thorugh paf and [utting my stuff up on line - - I have a whole website dealing with the descendants of john and anthony Emery of newbury Ma, i updated john's section back in 1982 and continued working on it and Anthonty's section - i had four large notebooks 3 inches thick - there are well over 49,246 individuals accounted for probably closer to 100,000 since the numberign system went to 1a 1a/1 etc when new descendants were found I have not decided if i will re-unumber or if i will cut and past everythign into a genealogy program but then i wonder if it will be able to handle the vast amoutn of data - etc.

oh well I guess i do not get it - and never will - always do get kicke in the teeth because i have shared so freely -

almost everything is now accessable in some type of format if even just indexes online - and with the 1940 census soon to be opened up if not already .... to think when i started the 1900 census was hard to access or not even yet opened - i forget if it was every 75 or 70 years they released it - but I was over joyed when it could be as the most needed one form me does not exist but in fragments - the 1890 -

I am sorry if when I say I DO GET IT - EVERY ONE IS DEAD = but those were your words - not mine - and yes i do get it - as all but very distant cousins are deceased - but there are at least 10 now who have joined GENI in the last 3-4 months who are totaly new to genealogy and have been elated to find the connections within the so called "private area' of the big tree - thus they do not have to re-do all the work - that so many along with me have done before them -

i use to be able to afford to XEROX all this and hand it out for free to those who helped - or for the cost of postage and xeroxing - - but that all ceased when my husband died on 23 Aug 1990 - and for 3 years genealogy took a back burner - till i got my 2 kids out of high school and then it was limited as could not afford the interlibrary loans etc. i got my first computer in oct.1986 taught myself everything dealing with it - and set to work comupterizing all my "paper files' it tool me till after 1996 to doit it but it was accomplished - i could mke print outs to work from - - but thats ceased to exist too as can't afford the ink to do it so everythign is on computer or disks - - I have lost some because of this - but oh well that's life -

Good...you two are on the same page...I think the only thing that Judi/Judith didn't say was that the section of her tree that her LIVING members can see is because when they joined she allowed "family' access...NOT the whole living world....and that way, they can softened any sore points (even 'if' something is so-called public knowledge and add or edit to enhance within the truth....

I hope I read that part correctly....

I guess we all forget sometimes that what WE can see in our immediate tree is NOT necessarily open to the general public....and besides, who would be interested in these people anyway BUT close relatives...it's not like a red flag goes up and shouts "Hey, everyone, look at what a creep my great-uncle (or whoever) was.....

Obviously, within immediate family there is some give and take, some things that maybe are a bit too touchy...but that is contained WITHIN the immediate family.....I dont see the infighting, and neither does anyone else.....

So while I collaborate with a lot of people, I don't get any bulletins about their close families....I seldom even LOOK at people in most of their trees so close to the present time....further back, we do sometimes intermingle; and that is where the collaboration comes in handy...since we can talk to each other and modify records......and add docs,pics, etc.....as long as we keep to the facts we seldom butt heads...

Interesting conversation.

My personal opinion is that any publically available information should be publically shared information. In the United States and in most [but not all] of the rest of the world, full names, birthdates, names of parents, siblings and children, and certain court, legal and police records, all typically fall into that category of publically-available information that ANYONE can legally optain by simply requesting it from the appropriate government agency. Anyone who does not agree that this type of information should be publically-available through the government in the first place needs to work toward getting the laws changed. Your own personal enforcement is a guaranteed exercise in futility.

Now I definitely do generally respect the right of people to not share the efforts of their own research of these public databases. But Geni is NOT a place to expect such protection. In other words, if you are not willing to share the otherwise publically-available information, then it's up to YOU to ensure that no one else ever sees it. Once the publically-available information that you worked hard to collect makes it into the wild by whatever means, it is not reasonable to expect further protection.

Regarding merges, Judy Loubris said: "David the only problem with merges , they are not always correct. There are a lot of difference in some of these merges. Judy" This is, of course, very true. But I don't see that as a valid reason for merging to stop, or even slow down. It is instead a reason for increased dilligence in finding and fixing the errors.
The mission remains the same: to end up with a single tree of everyone who lives and who has ever lived, without duplicates. In my opinion, all Geni users should be expected to do whatever it takes [within the capabilities of the Geni software, and the law] to work toward that goal. Also in my opinion, the rate of progress toward that goal needs to be fast enough to minimize frustration amongst geni's active members.

Dave K.

David...I think they were more concerned with data that is in the 'privacy realm' under Geni policy...I think everyone who is a realist will agree that older data is really, as you say, accessible...but sometimes the facts don't cite background info that only a family member might be privy too.....THEN I think they should add it to the ccold, hard, fact facts data.....(and never try to wipe out adverse info just because it seems to give your family a 'bad name'......the people who claim a connection with those persecuted in the Salem Witch Hunts sure dont seem to mind the connection....and even someone who is connected to, say, John Wilkes Booth have a chance to ADD insider info that would explain his thinking...

So I agree with you....and with them....
This is a historical, genealogical site...not a muck-raking site....so some discretion is what I'm proposing...the facts "YES" but if it is in a close proximity ...everyone...please think to present your findings to the manager and perhaps find some way to word the data so that it really IS accurate....and not biased...

(Hope this doesn't get misunderstood).

And..if you see something wrong with merge data..you can always contact the manager and ask them for documents that prove the part that is different....

WILL tree matches come up again later if rejected originally?

Sounds like we agree.

And as for, again what David said, IF its a public record then it need not be letting any family secrets out of the bag....if its that much a secret, it won't be in a 'public' record.....

So again...David is right and Judi/judy are right to be concerned but now you have the argument to use for family.....if the public doesn't know about it now, they won't hear it from what you put on Geni, 'cause what you put on Geni is 'known and public already'.

First off Judith L. I personally do not go skelton hunting nor witch hunting that does not appeal to me at all -

I deal with a persons lineage they were born, they married, they divorced & re-married (if the case), they had children by whom-ever or adopted, they died and they belong to this or that branch of the family tree.

My information comes from public records - obituaries, marriages, newspaper articles, publish books - county histories, genelaogies, Whos who, census records which are open which is from 1930 back - soon to be if not already 1940 and what information that is given me

And if a miss deed has hit the pages of a newspaper; or now today TV or radio news broadcasst can one really call that skelton hunting or witch hunting? Its public record in my opinion and whether it should or should not be included could be debated 'till hell freezes over' sorry about the phrase and never come up with the same opinion I fear. but I generally do not put that in I may note it in my private family tree.

As for merging - we have ALWAYS DONE THIS through the ages in genealogy - only its been on paper - we SELECT the data to be include or excluded we correct it if its wrong and document why we done it (I HOPE) - we hopefully shared our information with others when asked and who ever got it - probably selected out just what they needed or wanted thus altering our 'original information' and tossing out the unwanted -

THE MERGING of profiles and GENI is no less the SAME or DIFFERENT of what we DONE ON PAPER (or now computer program) - EXCEPT that now you can SEE all the BRANCHES and TWIGS of the family tree or the term used 'BIG TREE' just not ones own litte isolated branche or the branches you wish to included or exclude WHY on earth should anyone in their right mind be offended by this? Writing and publishing a book is baiscally the same thing but only one persons name is generally attached to it as author - or compilier and often excludes many of the branches as it would be economically un-feasiable today to print a fully descendancy genealogy as allowed by the "Big Tree" picture that is presented on GENI. The emery descendants from John and Anthony have tried to do this since 1978 - I have 202 computer files would be paper files containing no less that 20 pages and probably 50 pages or more per - which would be anywhere for. 4040 -10,100 pages

It is our DUTY when merging to READ CAREFULLY - then merge - and when resolving confliciting data if present It is our DUTY to READ all version CAREFULLY and choose the best provided fro each of the categories - birth - baptism - death etc. dnd if we do not agree or have differnt is to correct the information and add it to the profile and along with documentation or a reason why we changed the data - In can of missing data - if we can supply it it is our DUTY to shre that to to 'fill in' the profile just as we would do if we were doing it on paper or in our own computer files - -

The bickering and arguing needs to cease it was our choice to join GENI for what ever reason we did - it has been our choice to remain on GENI - if we can not accept the idea and concept of the 'BIG TREE' - as I was told back when by a rep - dump and leave GENI or start over by using another e-mail address - - but to me the dumping and leaving and/or starting a new under a new e-mail only compounds the problems of the "BIG TREE"

Some perfer to carry out a a straight-line lineage - from them to parent to grand parent; some decide to include just names of siblings - others chose to carry out the siblings basic information born married, divorce, died and a 'group sheet' for each sibling who married and had children and list the vital information or each child - some even note the names only of the children's children -

Like David K said - My personal opinion is that any publically available information should be publically shared information. In the United States and in most [but not all] of the rest of the world, full names, birthdates, names of parents, siblings and children, and certain court, legal and police records, all typically fall into that category of publically-available information that ANYONE can legally optain by simply requesting it from the appropriate government agency. Anyone who does not agree that this type of information should be publically-available through the government in the first place needs to work toward getting the laws changed

Judith L. if you can look at my tree you can see I am not out on a witch hunt - that I do not list any vital information ie birth, marriage, divorce for an person if presumed alive but i do list all bilings and etc. and if adopted yes i do state that as genealogy deals in 'BLOOD LINES" only I have listed my birth date - so that one can see the 'generational gaps" that are within my branches - there is 2 generations between me and my fathers birth date and there is a generation + between me and my mother - as the common # assigned to a generation is 20 years i grew up feeling 'old' and like i have labled myself i am the 'generational misfit'

The biggest conflict I have is with a step-daughter - and she does not even want it recorded in paper version that she was married once before - yet she has 3 children by this man - they have never been legally adotped by the step-father and each of these older children by this first marriage know that he is not their real/biological father the 2 daughters made sure the only son of the first marriage knew all their birth certificates still bear the biological father's name even tho each have used their step father's names in school records - the son i think uses it in legal records but not sure and poses even a bigger problem - the daughters several years went on the hunt for their real father and sought information out on him but came up blank and created choas but in my mind they done nothing wrong - they wanted to seek out and find their biological father even tho it was him who walked out on the family when their mother was 6 months pregnant with the last child of the marriage - the son - - she divorced him soon after the child was born and re-married within the year - she has a boy and girl by the second marriage - she claims the girl is so niave that she does not know mom was married before - so so far i have left the name out of the father space - included the 3 children under it with no last name attached to them and listed their spouses and children with no data included - and the biological children under the second husband with names attached. I can not affix the three children by the first marriage legally to the second husband - as they are not his biologically nor adopted

The biggest problem that I faced on the Smith-Hinckley line was that they were merging every Mary Smith, John Smith, shubal Smith as one person even if they crossed generational lines - - they were merging children Jonathan and John into one person claiming they were DIFINATELY the same person and they were merging all the children who were named as an infant and died as a infant or child into the profile of the surving child who married or died of legal age - and done so until I started anotating these profiles It was as fi they were merging just for the sake of merging - they were not READING the profiles completly iy still happens toay but not as much - - and that is where the curators came into being to help clean up all these bad merges - to help set the 'Big tree' in order Like I said over this I was ready to leave GENI -

Why do we have a "Big Tree"? to tie in all the branches together to be able to see the "Big picture" see how families have intermarried and are connected together now and in the past

What is the purpose of it?": SHARING what we have learned of our ancestors - to preserve our research work for future generations to make it accessible to others and above all to possible GAIN new info we do not have on our ancestors

It is funny reading these posts about how you dont like sharing your tree on Geni.I have one question for you then.Why be on a family tree program designed to blend everyone in the world to create a big tree.Since I have started doing this i have gone back many generations.Yes I have kept some of my profiles private for a reason but back four or more i am finding out information.Simple thing.

Tawny thats what I am here for - to perserve and make available my 30+ years of research - as no one is intersted in what i am doing and i am not sure if something happens to my my research will not be perserved I may be wrong - I have heard the horror stories of after death or incapcitating illness ones personal research items are just thrown into the fire - - I had one gal I knew personally that all her file cabinets, all her genealogy books, papers etc. were thrown out of the house into an unheated garage - they were dirty, moldey and mildewed - - I was able to salavge a few greene county indiana items i was in need of but otherwise most or all of the material i deemed un-recoverable and doomed for the dump or burn pile as who wants to sift through damp wet moldy and mmidewed books and papers????

Also another thought will all the horrendous earthquakes, floods, prairie fires tornados etc. that are occurign around us this year in is just nice to know that maybe some of our research just might be recoverable if put into GENI, TNG or Ancesty.com or into personal websites.....

like I have kept saying all my public profiles are accessible to anyone - the living or presumed living are up with no data - for connection purposes only for now or in the future - those with deceased family all around them - are assumed to be deceased if born c. 1920 or earlier

I have am also entering all into ancestry.com through a genealogy class - to verify and provide documentaion - and putting the documentation up with my profiles - I am not getting done what i should thorugh it - professional genealogist certification - but maybe I can figure out how to use what i am doing and incorporate into the lessons - i have one perosn who claimed documentation - but upon importing all i found was links to internet sites that were defunct or inaccessible or pay - if your going to document from such pay sites you also have to be considerate to include the data just not the link from them not everyone can afford to join a "paid site" and thus I consider a genealoagy database done in this matter UNDOCUMENTED

off my soapbox and back to work - should of never even started making a comment on here again....

Yes the amount of addresses that genealogy websites that are supposed to be there are invalid.ancestry.com is good but they are very expensive.i like geni for the price and i also use other websites to confirms information as well.of course there are some stupid people on this website that makes it a little unpleasant sometimes but to build my tree.

well put - thank you -

On page 4 of this discussion, Judith "Judi" Elaine (McKee) Burns mentioned:
"at times i still thinks one persons suggestion of long ago of an overlay of ones tree onto the "big tree" could be the answer then one could join the big tree when they feel comfortable - but whether it could be done or is feasible is the big question" ----- I definitely think something along these lines would be the ideal. One Tree of Public Profiles with connections to and some overlap of Trees of Private Profiles -- perhaps with comment in Public Profiles at the edges saying something like: this is John Q Public's Public Profile -- he also has private profiles in Family Tree(s), if you are a descendent of his, feel free to contact [---] about possibly joining one of their Family Trees. And in the Family Tree, a comment on Profile of anyone also appearing in the tree of Public Profiles mentioning that existence and possibly providing a link to it, so folks can transition over and continue to follow the ancestors back on the public tree.

My third cousin added many, many relatives. Now someone else (apparently yesterday) has said "These are the same" for many - and for those where geni decided this other person has the "Primary" profile - when I look at the tree, now instead of seeing the descendents my cousin added, it goes down thru this other person's - with white box, first initial, last name, cannot click on. No wonder folks thing their profiles have been lost. The profiles my cousin added still exist, but suddenly they are very hard to get to, very hard to see. Would like a way to say hey, don't care about "primary", I want to see the tree of Profiles added by my family members

Lois this has happened to me. This is why I am very Leary.

1.) Judi/Judith...I think I was the one to re-visit witches etc.....
But what you brought up about disasters that hit and the files that were lost because they were just 'dumped' into a bad location and moldered away was VERY right-on and extremely well stated...

It made me remember too that I still have 8-tracks that I can't use and a few tape recorder reels that I can't find the equipment to listen to them on....and what WOULD I grab in the case of emergency evacuation....my stacks of books and files...my PDF discs (if I had them).....or my son and my cat......

I think, no question, the latter!.

2.) Tawny had a great reminder about URL webs sites....I see that I'm not the only one who found one in a profile and tried, to no avail, to access it....only to find that it no longer existed, or moved to parts unknown....SO by all means, at least re-cap what was on the site.

3.) Lois...Judith L. and I join you in being some of the people who have encountered the same situation...with a change of lineage route appearing and then finding no clear way to resolve since the path has been 'privatized'.....and I CAN speak for Judith L's work in far distance profiles; I've seen a lot of her work....and, in light of both Judith L and Judi/Judith's close tree relations I surely can see that the family dynamics are being addressed as best as they can be at this time....it is extremely hard to convince people that just because they can SEE something on YOUR close family tree ,that other's CAN'T see the same thing.

4.) Lastly, back to what you said Judi/Judith.I personally want to thank you for reminding us that Towns came TOGETHER and COMBINED RESOURCES to create "Town Histories", that personal family genealogists were allowed the vast access into a particular person's lineage; that people brought their family Bibles, that towns started publishing yearly "Town Reports", that churches made data available so that we have now what could so easily have been lost......THE INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED....and not lost in some damp,dark, shed (or attic, or disc file).

Lastly, I don't know what the laws are pertaining to 'open access' for each state...perhaps Geni could create a pop-up which would appear when entering a State or County's address that would REMIND everyone the terms, decreed by THAT state before information IS 'Public'...not-withstanding newspaper records, etc...

Fay

Wow, that sounds sensible to me!

thanks for the information Fay

I can't believe this is still a topic, since the first notice in Oct 2010! Obviously, it must still be a problem for Geni members! as Judy A I says:
"I too have never liked the fact that people get into what I put in myself and change things around. I never would do that knowingly to anyone."
That has been my stance from the outset, since a few who took over my data to "share" changed data to what was, by documents I have found, totally erroneous! Other problems with "sharing" also came up, as below.

Hatty says- "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."

I agree, I have several cousins that have given me valuable info, that I couldn't have gotten otherwise. My "problem" with GENI is that over time MY listings were "transferred" from MY tree, to others who wanted to "share" in the trees [including Photos Only I have]! I set up my Geni tree, which took weeks to do, at the end, I had 222 names in my tree with photos. Then some family members asked to "Share" the tree. I said OK, NOT KNOWING that Geni would transfer ALL of my data to her, and delete those in my listing down to 55 names & fewer photos!

This purports to be a "shared" site, not a "take over" site! Genealogy, IS a 'sharing" process... But it seems that in Geni, the first person to post names etc, is always in danger of loosing all or most of the data they put in to the next person who wants to "share" your data. That was my first complaint & still is... It's all about this Geni transfer effect ... which is not a sharing, combining, nor any other typical means of genealogical shared methods, as other sites I belong to have in place. In other sites, a sharing is not a take over, but each has total control over their own & not over the other's shared data. [i.e. another can't change data, without conferring with the first poster.]

Eric S says: "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.

I don't know why I'm still here either. Is it silly to want your own hard researched Genealogy data, being "taken over" by others, who haven't done any of the work?

I have NO Qualms - SHARING my data... I DO have Qualms about my data being transported, transplanted, & relocated to another's pages, while said data is removed from mine! How can be considered "merging" or "collaboration" - when one tree is decimated, and transferred to another, who gains all the data put in by the first?!?

I repeat my stance. If this happened in a school setting, it would be called plagiarism. If it were done in a work place setting it would be considered corporate theft! So, what's the difference here? It's still a problem, and until GENI recognizes this is a problem, and makes the proper adjustments of what they call "collaboration" - I will not add any of the latest info I or photos have received! & I haven't been in since.

"S that simple. So, you Geni geeks, how about it, are you willing to change the management process and, become a true "sharing site," or do you still stand by your stance that my info is always accessible, and able to be changed or taken over by anyone who wants to?

if you sit and tear apart a merge - NONE of your data has been destroyed, usurped from your original profile - - it is is still there just like you entered it,
with each merge - one must chose the "best' entry or best 'format' in which data is i put in Culver, Marshall Indiana, another puts Culver, Union Township, Marshall, Indiana, another puts in Culver, Union twp, Marshall, Indiana and another puts Culver, Union township, Marshall county, Indiana , amd another tosses in Culver, Union township, Marshall county, Indianam USA and then yet another tosses in Culver, Union township, Marshall county, Indianam United States, then yet another tosses in Culver, Union township, Marshall county, Indianam United States of America then others toss in spelling errors, no-caps etc. they all are correct except for spelling errors the lengthy report of the location , someone decided to just use the simpe version which is Culver, Marshall Indiana

my major issue has been with getting away from the 'genealogical standards'
Which is :
PERSONAL
Given name: used for first and middle name
Surname - just the one last name given at birth , in case of adoption its what appears on the legal paper work - in case of woman what is dub her 'maiden' name but in the case of adoption many forget to note the "adoptive status" this i differ with as GENEALOGY is "Blood descent" I know PAF provides a drop window for biological, adopted, Guardian, sealign, challeneged and diapproved - just how this is carried over in gedcom to another program and supported by another program is varied - some just dumps the info into notes - then
birth date
chrstening/baptism date
death date
burial date
and simply location is labeled place standard entry for it is
lower to higher - town - township - county - country

the biggest error occuring on GENI is they are using the chirstening/ batismal date as the birth date which is entirely WRONG and they as using the burial date as the death date - unless it is stated as bring born and christened/baptised date on the same date a chrsitening/ baptismal date is not the person BIRTH DATE

I have also seen the use of the date the will was written used as the death date with no notation - the will could be written 10-20 years even longer before the person died - the same with the proving of/or probate of the will and been used as the death date which is not correct either and very very missleading proper eyique there is will dtd ---- proved /probated ---- or simply bet. 00-00-0000 and 00-00-000

This how and why we are coming up with the very wide range of birth and death dates in existence as people are wrongly using the christneing/batismal date for a birth date of which it is not and others are using either a date the will was written or proved/probated and the death date which is incorrect also or the burial date then you kick in someones estimation of the birth or death then each of these events has varied as much as 1-20 years from them actual birth or death date because of this -

one must rememeber that a chrsitening/baptismal date can be done as a child or as a young adult ; sometimes several children of the samily was christend/baptised on the same date too thus they were a child and not an infant.....

and with no documentation presented of these events we are asked to 'choose' the best fitting date for the event -

also we do not own public records for birth-christening-marriage-death- buurial dates - so you can not call this plagiarism depending upon the biological content and how it is written - does not fall into plagiarism either - as we have picked up info from published works such as vital records of an event in life - county histories, printed genealogies, newspaper articles etc etc. - we have only gathered and complied the best of the info from sources - to make a concise - neat brief biological sketch of a person. WE ALL are guilty of this - even our ancestors before us!

oops I am back on my soapbox AS for our phots - when our profiles are merged to goether if none appear in the other profiles they are carried over into the new profile because they are attached to you profile and doing a merge does not detach them from your profiles - -

I would tell you to prove this - break apart a mege and see what occurs but i will promise you one thing if you do do this you will have the WRATH of all GENI users on you - even if it is a bad merge I went thorough this I have seen the errors of merges and the common mistakes made - such as a baptismal/christening date used for the actual birth date - and the burial date/will date/ will proved or probated used for the actual death date - and UNTL we as GENI users uses these dates for just what they are stated - for - christening/baptismal , will dated, will proven/probated, burial we will neve have a CORRECT date for some births and deaths -

i have taken and placed these dates in the correct slot only to have them moved back as a birth date or a death date

Almost all the Hardisty/Hardesty birth/death dates are chirstening and burial dates I have fought this battle for 30+ years and it is an especially never ending battle on GENI and the burial date get put back into the date date - I even found a published book on the hampsthwaite parish recotds the proves this fact to be true i have the abstract of the hardisty birth deaths marriages - up on the project as well as a linck to the direct source listing all people of the parish i think - one of my latenight finds and i did not go to be until 5 am.

opps back on my soapbox again -

Just so you know the State of Mass doesn't allow you to get into birth records less than 75 years old. Might be even older. My mother's just became available a few years ago. That was the year 1915.Some town halls won't even let you look at any records unless you can prove you are a direct line and then some still won't let you look. For the most part I have had good luck with Town and City Halls but I have run into a few , Lowell, Ma. was one .that wouldn't let me touch the record books. Lynn, Ma only has one day you can come in and look and they don't have that much.Saugus let me do most anything I wanted in the correct years. But then they know me over there, knew my uncle . Both of us had been Town Meeting members, so they knew who we were. Uncle worked for school dept, conservation officer and elected to the Housing AUTHORTY . Wakefield they just gave me what I wanted. Cemetery Dept. at first was difficult but came around, very nicely i might say. Some times it helps to have people know you. Some times it doesn't. I don't know what other states allow and don't allow. I know New Hampshire sent me a copy of a will ,no questions asked and sent me a bill., instead of requiring me to pay first. As far as merging goes. If the info matches then merge, if it doesn't don't and sometimes when you try to merge the system won't let you. What can I say! Been there, tried it, sometimes succeeded sometimes didn't. Sometimes didn't want too.