Persons who have not been online for a year (Abandoned Trees)

Except David...that this takes a lot of the decisions out of their hands...they can always say "you told me to" and have your WILL as proof...

That is if you, of course, said "Bye, I won't be back"...

In cases where you WONT it immediately solves the problem (or as soon as they know you are deceased) of whether you have abandoned or not..

David...you could always bequeath all your profiles to 1 user, if that is your wish..

On another point...it is now 2012....if you go back 125 years to 1887...would you agree to make public those that died 1887 and before? And then, henceforth, each year, allow the same (in 2013, all those 1888 and prior...etc).

Rather than all deceased public...

For those profiles that contain documented dates of birth that are before 1887, I don't think anyone would object. But as you know, many profiles contain no dates. Even worse, there are some places in the Big Tree where there are several generations in a branch that have no dates. Even worse if when somebody merges two different but similarly-named people together because one of them has no dates to contradict the other. What if the UNdated John Smith was really born in 1960 and he is merged with a John Smith from 1860. Do you automatically mark the profile public?

I personally would prefer it if private profiles didn't exist at all in Geni. But since that is clearly a minority opinion, then we at least need it to be consistent and fair. And I just don't know how to do that as long as it remains possible to enter profiles without dates of birth and merge any two profiles you wish.

David Lee Kaleita agreed.. had to contact a curator for just that reason some one stacking something onto my tree with no dates and bad data that was not abandoned just not thought out at all was a pain in the butt but got it fixed..

Hmmmmmm..

That idea is worth exploring David...

I am starting a suggestion of giving curators who have expertise in a area the power to delete things and send messages to the person who's tree they are screwing up stating why the delete occured and what to be done to fix it.. and maybe having the merge put on hold before it even gets sent to the user or before the user decides to accept it with out thinking list the whole set of who is getting merged in with a note that says please check with the person who you are matching with if this data is correct and if their are any problems please check with them...

that would help with not only abandond trees but the people who b*** about merges most of them created from abandond trees and private profiles

If more people took the RED warnings seriously when merging, we'd have fewer bad merges. Red means STOP and think about what you are doing. But, then again, they don't read curator text boxes when merging, so why do I expect them to read a red warning.

Amen, Maria

Sorry Fay, don't know where the E came from, it wasn't intentional.

I don't think i've "dragged" Eldon into anything. IMHO his post (http://www.geni.com/discussions/87412?msg=816491) started this talk of "wills" regardless of who actually submitted a formal proposal.
As for my "bitching " at you, well that's something of an insult but might explain your attitude. I will stop trying to Discuss the issue if all my comments are simply perceived as bitching.

Alex Moes was being sarcastic.. anyway i know a lot of people who shy away from the forums and asking for help because of the nature of the debate offen goes south and some times it's my fault other times not so much..

LOL, it's not just "a lot of people". I often shy away from involving myself for the same reason (not often enough tho :-)).

Lets face it Alex...we both got a little testy....

A proposal is just that....not an 'in fact' change of policy....

I am sure that the problem of abanoned profiles, especially those in an area where they could not possible be 'living' (because of their relationship to parents/siblings) ...and where there is no way/no response from the manager...is something we all would like to see resolved....it leaves too many merges uncompleted as a result....and holes in the work we all would like to see completed.

I also thought that, going forward, it would be wise to have some method of assigning your work to either a relative, like-minded person, or person that already was in that area (either geographically or by family) that would prevent such problems in the future...( I know that a lot of people have MAJOR problems with a disinterested 3rd party...such as Geni mgmt...having control of their work).

I also wanted to point out that YOUR family (the universal YOU, not anyone in particular, Alex) deserve their place in history....and having too tight a rein on your 'allowable portfolio' does not allow them (the deceased) to take their place in the history of the area, country, community, and their own family...and in their relationships to others...

AND (this is NOT a back-pedal of the proposal on WILLS)...I also think that David Kaleita's suggestion of being able to to 'add' co-managers is worth thinking about....

We are also, Alex, in a time zone situation...in discussions.

My situation is, since I work a great deal on siblings (unworked by others who go straight up their trees) and work DOWN ....as a result I have a good number of single-managed profiles......so David's idea of being able to 'add' co-manager's hold's interest to me....

Which also would have been part of my WILL.

I would like to choose who, either in the area they exist or by like methods of working or by close family connections to those individuals.....I would leave that/those sections of my 'portfolio' of profiles administrated by......

Finally....in defense of Lois...who's policy regarding 'privacy' is among those you claim is 'in the extreme'....I totally understand her reasoning (even if I think she does a dis-service to her older profiles)....in protecting the integrity of the information she holds.....and would say that I'm sure that SHE wants those persons/profiles to be taken care of by either someone SHE picks out or who she is able NOW to include in the management of....and NOT to ANY disinterested 3rd party.

I'm sure she will tell us if I have 'gotten her position' essentially correct.

Obviously "extreme" wasn't the best wording i could have used, i simply meant that Lois is at the opposite end of the privacy spectrum from myself, it's wasn't intended as a judgement of the way she manages her profiles.

Alex - No offense was taken (re: "extreme") - automatically took it as you meant it. Actually, was pleased to see you seemed to understand what I was saying - and even more so that my views and desires were treated as worthy of respect.

I also majorly agreed with and appreciated your comment that, "The waters have well and truly been muddied by calls for automation of privacy settings being changed during the transfer."

Fay, your comment above also shows an understanding of my position - thanks. Only possible correction - For some Profiles, I am pretty clear who should "inherit" - at least as of who is active on Geni now -- for some of my Profiles it is way less clear. (I have no sibling, parent, descendent, or first cousin interested -- some of my great-grandparents have at least one other Geni-user active on the branch for them and their siblings; some do not).

At one point in this discussion, I had thought the problem could be solved by putting instructions in my actual Will, or leaving a letter of instruction with a relative, along with the e-mail and password I use on my account. HOWEVER - it would be quite possible that someone, seeing a death notice for me, might already have notified Geni that I had died, and my e-mail might be removed (and my profiles assigned to someone else) before those instructed to do so either could or did get around to following my instructions.

Lois.....I believe that the chances of an 'outsider' seeing a death notice for you would be WAY after the knowledge to any relative of yours...but a point worth bring up.

So leave out the part of 'publization' of profiles from the WILL...completely.!...

Perhaps a combination of a WILL and David's suggestion regarding 'adding' a person of your choosing as a co-manager on those profiles currently held as 'private' or even close..

I have many people coded 'private' , they are all living....with no regard for current age....(and age 13 is NOT considered 'adult' in my state).

My only public's (at least intentionally) are deceased.....but since I am older...that does mean that my parents are among the deceased.....as well as all aunts, uncles....etc....

I can understand younger people wanting to extend further...but those I have listed go back to the beginning of the century (the last one)...

Fay - If by "leave out 'publization'" you mean drop the suggestion the profiles be switched to Public - thanks much, with that change I welcome the idea of a Geni-Will!!

Actually I was not thinking of an 'outsider' as much as someone in my Max Extended Family on the Geni Tree - who might try to "do right" by me and have my death be acknowledged on Geni, without realizing there was a reason to wait. Tho I post enough in these Public Discussions, it could be someone who "knew me" from these. With a Geni-Will, should someone notify Geni of my passing, there would be a much better chance for the fulfilling of my wishes as to who would inherit which Profiles (ie it will if I fulfill my responsibility to fill it out, keep it current, etc.)

By the Way - In the About Section, your Father's Profile gives the date of Birth for each of you and your siblings; and Each of Your Parent's Profiles, in the Timeline, includes the date and place of your Birth, the year of birth for each of your siblings (all Publicly viewable, since your Parents are Public Profiles) -- some folks would want the full info on themselves and their siblings entered to share with the family, BUT would not be comfortable with that info on either their siblings or themselves being Public - hence the reference to having a buffer generation of deceased between the living and the Public Profiles that Dan referred to above (the end of 10/3/2012).

Talking about info on your parents' Profiles - I should have said gives names as well as mentioning gives birth info for you and siblings.

Lois.....computer crashed so been on a quest to get that fixed or I would have answered sooner.

The data in my parents profiles giving my name and siblings names was deliberate...just the basics...and was deliberate....but I see your point on parents......

I have other data to post and will probably do so on my parents.(regarding them)...and have work-sheets on my siblings (to be turned over to my administrator, I think, for future entry...(haven't gotten all the pertinent sequences figured out)....

But keep in mind...the Genealogists and authors of Town Histories mostly also put themselves (living) into their works (with limited info, I grant)...so I follow in their footsteps.

Anyway....As soon as I take care of a weeks worth of stuff....I will go to my proposal and edit the part about making deceased automatically public close to now-time.

Lois......Just updated the suggestion about "Wills" to delete the matter of making 'public' ALL deceased profiles.

Fay -- I appreciate the change - BUT - I see the posting in Help, that you are referring to - at the top - labeled as having been posted on Oct. 3, 2012 - has been changed, with no indication it has been changed or date of change indicated.

1) Is this something all Curators and all Geni-Team members can do? I certainly am not aware of any way I can edit any of my comments in Help (tho there are definitely times I wish I could edit them and/or delete them!!)

2) Can you edit just your comments /postings, or everyone else's as well??

3) This means we never know when we read a post with multiple approvals - is it currently reading the same way it was reading when the folks clicked the Me Too button and/or made comments saying how in favor of it they were (or how against it they were). This does not strike me as good. I think there should be at the very least, a comment on the changed post, saying "Amended [date]", preferably with also hint of the change; and not allowed at all if anyone has clicked the "Me too" since the changed version may or may not also have their approval.

Point taken....will go back and add notation that as of 10/16/2012 prior suggestion that all 'deceased profiles be made public' has been AMENDED....and therefore left to the individual to specify in their Wills.

Does that work for you...?

Has Geni ever resolved what to do about people who hold profiles eligible for merges, but have not been on the system for over a year? I have one request that is nearly two years old. How long a wait is long enough??

Howard try going to one of the profiles you're looking to merge and reporting from there as "abandoned.". A nice notification feedback system was implemented only a few weeks ago.

Erica, How long does it normally take for a reply from the people who do the request review?

With the new feedback system you should receive an acknowledgment within a couple of days.

Erica, It has been over a week on some of my reports, I don't think Abandoned Tree reports are a high priority. Maybe Geni staff would comment and give us a time frame for actions

Now I just got 10 notices at once.