Collaboration Pool

Sorry that was DLD Donna Lee not DMD.

play nice judy.. i just report jerks like that to mike stangel and his telling off usally convinces the person to stop doing the abusive stuff..

and please try and loose the caps as a rule.. I don't like being shouted at and i don't think erica does either

and i've met some good people thru the collaberation pool but also some jerks

I think Mike Stangel and other need to have a set rule of thumb here.. this thread started out with good intrent but has gone a bit pear-shaped with people blaming others for bad merges and not checking data against reliable sources (that part i can understand because it can be some what challengeing but to act like little kids and blame the curators there is no need for that)

Erica Howton? your input?

If any one does not want profiles merged into the tree and your the only manager at present they should be made PRIVATE - not matter what era they are in but the that plays and reeks havoc with the purpose of GENI collaboration and sharing and their goal of the "ONE BIG TREE" ; I nave ran into private locked downed profiles back in the early 1800's, into the 1700, 1600's, and 1500's and they are not the MP's either they appear complete white and with the little padlock in the corner -

Maybe I am wrong - but this is absurd as making profiles completely private in the 1700, 1600 and 1500's mpme pf these and there surrounding profiles are alive today.

I also feel that GENI allowing private trees sometime after aug. 2011 went backwards on what their goal was to begin with - I remember well being told if I did not like it....

I think they should of made a seperate database for those who wished their trees to remain private or family groups and kept these people out of the area completely of the "BIG TREE" -and charged those people accrdingly because they are maintaining a private tree on a public site - and yes it should be a charge more that the public user who is willing to share and merge

I am tired of the battle of whether it is right to merge or not - especially since GENI keeps sending each of us e-mails with possible merges for our lines - what are we all to do ignore the plea from GENI to merge profiles? To have several of one profile maybe even 100 of a profile this only creates utter havoc because of the way GENI is set up and the original intended purpose of GENI - -

okay I have said my peace I will now go crawl back under my computer table here.

Fortunately I have found very few of the jerks Michael mentions but there are a few.
Some are using geni as a private online family genealogy page with no real desire to participate in anything else. There are many here willing to help correct mistakes and as apologetic as one person was over a mistake made, told me some people take this way too serious.

99.9% of my profiles are public even down to my kids and grandkids -those I know are living or have doubts of whether living or dead I leave data out of I want distant cousins to be able to find their connection - as that is all I have who may be interested in the material I have and maybe one day my children will want to find out there ancestry and be interested in it - my son does has a Phd in History so he would possibly be the likely canidate if ever. I do not want to hinder or block anyones research because of so-called "Private" profiles for I have done extensive research on my Mckee, Vandeventer, Dye, Emery, Edington, Hardesty, Ault and other lines I was lucky enough when I began in1976 to have older distant cousins hand me stuff wihtout question so I feel obliged to to do the same thing - - claiming "sole rights" to profiles to me is unjust and a blockade to what GENI is all about - - yes there are errors along the way - but that's common - even in stuff we got back when through snail-mail; when we read county histories, other genelaogies and even public records etc. not all agree on the information - we have to give every questionable piece of information, docement - and use the best information available if there is not birth - christening/baptismal, marriage, divorce, death, will or probate and census records to support given information. We MUST work together - we must get over this "SOLE RIGHT" attitude to a profile as it is also someone else's ancestor too in some distant related way.

(Judy), my comments were not directed at you and I am very sorry if you felt that they were. I was merely stating a few experiences i have had here and also have had the language changes on my page a few times.

(Judy), same as rogder my comments were not directed at you and I am very sorry if you felt that they were. I was merely stating a few experiences i have had here

and i'm sorry i got on your case about caps.. stuck keyboards are a pain in the butt

sounds intresting as far as i know no 1812 war ancestors in my family

Guys, we're getting pretty far off-topic here. Can we get back to using this exclusively as a place for people to opt-in for the collaboration pool? Thanks!

Private User people aren't supposed to use this discussion thread to join the pool, they're supposed to collaborate on the project page. :)

Alex Moes No, both places are used for collaboration, this discussion I think, more than the project

Eldon, the project page is very specific in it's description that people wanting to join the pool should collaborate with the project and explains exactly how to do that.
I started a discussion about the fact that people were tagging themselves in this discussion thread as per the original methodology (preserved still on the project page).
I'm not advocating one method over the other but there's definitely contradictary information being given out.

Using this discussion thread for collaboration would seem odd to me as two users discussing one subject would not be of much interest to the 514 other participants of this thread. Likewise someone searching the discussions board for a thread about collaborating will not be interested in specific collaboration discussions.

In my opinion one of two things should happen,
1)this discussion thread should be closed with a definitive statement that any one wishing to collaborate should join the project (with a hyperlink to the project)
OR
2) the project page should be re-written removing instructions to collaborate and instead directing people to this discussion thread.

As i said i have already started a discussion about this:
http://www.geni.com/discussions/111167

Sadly almost no one thought the subject interesting enough to reply either for or against.

Alex Moes I receive messages for both this discussion and the project and find this one easier. If someone posts to this discussion, I just click on their name and request collaboration from their profile mentioning the Collaboration Pool. Doing it through the project requires joining the project which a lot of people don't know how to do. Then waiting for someone to approve your joining. Then a notice shows up on the news feed that someone has joined the project and you still have to go to the profile and request collaboration.

Which seems simplest and easiest to you?

Eldon, the way you dexcribe it certainly it sounds easier to use this forum rather than the project.

I don't have a personal preference, i accept collaboration requests from anyone who mentions the Pool.

My "problem" is that there are two separate sets of instructions which causes confusion. The project page and this discussion thread should be brought into line with each other.
Which method we go with is up for debate as far as i am concerned, which is why i stated the other sdiscussion about it.
I could just as easily edit the collaboration page myself without talking to anyone, but that would hardly be very collaborative :)

I agree with Eldon on discussion ease of use. Alex perhaps raise a discussion specifically in the collaboration pool project volunteering to update the project overview page for better clarification.

As far as I know there's no way to close a discussion,move a thread, etc.

Erica Howton As I understand it, the only way to close a discussion is for every one to remove their messages. Then the person who started it can remove it.
Alex Moes My feeling is, If it isn't broke, don't "fix" it.

Is it possible to edit the title ? If it could be done maybe a title like this:

Collaboration Pool to join "@plus name" NO POSTS

Maybe it would get your point across.......ttfn

Private Actually having to read instructions before using would probably turn a lot of people off, especially us men :-)

I know of no way to edit discussion titles.

Erica,
I agree there is no way to edit a discussion title and in Geni no way to close a discussion offically. A nice clear post in capital letters, perhaps repeated several times should have some effect. Eldon's explanation of how to delete a discussion is correct but the chances of achieving that with this topic is exactly 0.
I have started a discussion to update the project page, the hyperlink for that discussion is at the top of this page.

Eldon,
My feeling is that it IS broken, have you read the collaboration pool project page?
It clearly states that people should NOT type @theirname in this discussion but rather SHOULD collaborate on the Project.
If that isn't "broken" then i need to buy a dictionary.

Alex Moes That is the way projects work, you have to join them. I am not sure but believe the project was started because people were having trouble tagging themselves in the discussion. How many times have you seen the @ symbol and name where a tag was not done correctly. Actually of course all you have to do is post in a discussion and you have tagged yourself. Most of the people who want to collaborate have not taken part in discussions and don't understand that.

Eldon,
Anyone can search the discussion board for topics about Collaboration, find this discussion and join in on it (attempt to tag themselves), they don't need to join the project that the discussion is associated with.
I would think that unfamiliar users are more likely to find a discussion on the forum than a Geni project, so perhaps we should revert to the @yourname practice (which never completely stopped) but how might that affect people that have not tagged themselves but have joined the project?
I take it that we agree that the current presentation is confusing and badly presented?

Alex Moes No need to revert, Just use either one. I get more collaborators through the discussion but also request when one posts or joins the project.

I think we have beaten this subject to death.

I am getting all sort of message from people who have nothing to do with my family tree. Lastest note 2 people have been added to your tree, went to look and someone add to their own tree and it had nothing to do with mine. It taking up a lot of myt space in Geni and on my email account do I have to listen to all this chatter!