ATTENTION Curators, please assist

@Mike Stangel
That would be helpful to have some kind of "sorting by likelihood"; even if not exact, adding "weighting" for dates, matching parent/sibling/children/partner names and dates (birth & death), marriage dates (... all that for 'starters'!!) would be real nice.

The closer the dates, the higher that "date weighting"; the more dates that match (between person, parents, partner, sibling, children), the higher the weighting (or 'sorting factor', if you prefer.

Would be nice but our search engine doesn't have that much flexibility. So for now we're going to move to 2 tiers of matches (call them "likely" and "possible" if you will). We have long-term plans to move to a different search engine that may support the kind of ranking / rating we'd all like to see.

Great to know, Mike -- thanks!

"(call them "likely" and "possible" if you will)"

How about "likely" and "unlikely"? Because if they can't be called "likely", aren't they almost by definition "unlikely"?

If more discussion is warranted on search criteria, I suggest a thread other than curators help ...

If they're "unlikely," they wouldn't be in the search results. That sounds unassertive and therefore inappropriate. "Likely" and "unlikely" are on a relative scale, as opposed to black and white poles. "Possible" works just fine. :)

hmmmm .... Maybe, maybe not !

Ashley

"Unlikely" was intended a little tongue in cheek, but also has a serious side to it.

Alternatively, the opposite of "possible" is "impossible". Some of the matches Geni suggests are definitely in that latter category. How about those two categories? It would save a lot of user time if Geni already told us which matches are unlikely or even better impossible.

More seriously, as you said, if they're "unlikely," they wouldn't be in the search results. Hence if they are in the search results they are already all "likely".

If they are on a relative scale, then maybe "more likely" and "less likely"?

In reality it's not about likelihood. It's about confidence levels. High or low confidence would be good parameters. Also allows for a medium to be inserted at some future date as well. And maybe a quantitative confidence scale could be overlaid at some future time.

Good Morning

The topic you are discussing ,search results, has intrigued me for some time. I do not know a whole lot about computers and programs. I can't even spell algorithm. What I have noticed , however, is the geneology sites I have used all leave something to be desired in the search department.

Do a search at ancestry.com. it looks to me like the results are given and ranked by the number of hits on the surname. Consequently the search results of person I chose were a 3 star rating and the 5 star results recommened were no where in the ball park.

I have noticed that I won't get a relible hit unless I have a timeline and location and at least one reliable source. How profiles can be verified without using location, date and a legit source is magic to me. I look at possible merges with a name and date maybe a relative or two and wonder where is the "magic merge" button that will make both
profiles compatible, removing the doubt before accepting the merge

When the company I worked for started to use computers for
results "Garbage in garbage out " was the rule for input. Later it was said computers like engineers, deal in black and white. The input we give determines the shades of gray. Maybe if we all worked towards cleaning up the gray input "likely , unlikely " and "possible, impossible" would move closer to "go, no go".

I am FnDuck and I approve of this message.....(maybe, maybe not)

Does anyone know what happens to private profiles on abandoned trees? I am asking because another person asked me for help on a profile I inherited and when I looked at the tree there were 6 generations with 23 profiles that were private. The abandoned tree belonged to my 14th cousin once removed
http://www.geni.com/family-tree/index/6000000002317749930#600000000...

Eldon, we changed our thinking on abandoned trees about six months ago. It used to be that when a profile / tree was reported abandoned, we would reassign management up the "added by" chain, or if that turned up no active users we would leave the profiles with no manager, meaning any user could come along and take over management.

After doing this for awhile, we felt that system was unfair to people who want to use Geni as a long-term legacy for their kids or grandkids, even if they don't log in every day / week / month. If I create a family tree and put it in the closet, it'll be there to pass on whenever that time comes. We felt Geni needed to be equally timeless, so we changed our policy. Now, if we cannot find a nearby active user to transfer management to, we leave the profiles managed by the inactive user and they are essentially untouchable. I know this may be frustrating for distant, active users but we felt it was the right thing to do.

Mike Stangel can this information be added to the help platform FAQ?

Howzaboutit Private User?

Mike Stangel OK, I understand the reasoning but why-o-why don't you publish policy changes in the news feed or somewhere where everyone is aware of them.
I personally am not interested in the profile but was just trying to help another user who asked me. There could be data there that he could use.

Also, this could seriously affect merge issues that Geni gives us, so any potential merges on private profiles should not be shown. What we don't know about, cant bother us.

Mike Stangel
PS: 5 generations, Why?

Mike, I completly respect what you are saying, I have been working on my tree with many extended family members to create a long term legacy for all of our children.

But I do find what Eldon has identified to be rather frustrating, the following are just a couple of my points.

I can be linked to a section of tree, there is a pathway between me and that branch, yet when I click on those individuals they come up as "Private" because they were added by someone other than the person that manages the initial link

Private profiles are often for generations that extend back into the 18th and 19th century, surely these profiles are for all to see

Even though I am leaving a legacy for my kids and grand kids, by the time that even 2 more generations go by they will not be able to see the tree as it will become private to them as well, thus rendering the information useless.

Surely if one is connected to a profile then the simple way to resolve all of these problems is to make all connected profiles visable, other than maybe the most recent lines?

It is most frustrating to be able to be in contact with a distant relative because they have a public profile, yet I can't even see a first name of a much closer relative who is deceassed because someone chose to make that profile private. We already have created huge issues with the merge and non pro users (Sorry not a rant) many people have left the site yet left the info, which no one can see.............

Eldon, we're talking about a corner-case of an infrequent occurrence (abandoned tree when there is no nearby active user) -- that doesn't really merit a blog post. There's a lot that goes into the choice of how large to make the Family Group by default / at its maximum; choosing a smaller number would risk exposing private information about living people.

Jason, you can view and edit any profile in your maximum family group range (5 generations up, out to 4th cousins, etc); under this policy your grandkids will always be able to see those profiles. Profiles that have no users in their max family will be made public, so that as we "pass the torch" to future generations the profiles above us gradually become part of the public domain. I'm connected to about 60 million profiles, including you and your kids -- should I be able to see all of them?

Mike, sorry if this seems like a rant now but an example of what I have just posted is my relationship to one of the curators for this site, Jason Scott Wills, there is a path between Jason and I, yet his profile and a section of tree are invisable to me. These private profiles include those born in the 19th century.

These profiles will appaerantly remain invisable to me and therefore my children and grandchildren unless they are made public by their manager. If their manager chooses to never return to this site then non of that information will ever be available????

It will, Jason. Right now they are private because somewhere within their max family group, obviously within 5th great grandchildren, is at least one Geni user. At some point that won't be the case (sorry Jason, circle of life and all that) and at that time, Geni administrators or curators can flip those profiles public. We may even open that up to all users at some point, but making private profiles public is something we obviously want to tread lightly upon...

Mike,

How will Geni know if a user is "gone"?

Mike, I'm really happy to see you saying you'll tread lightly with this. There is so much talk and so many proposals going around regarding getting rid of privacy, often accompanied by people claiming to have "inside info," so it's nice to see that's all bluster. We can make improvements without being radical and foolish.

Job, every profile has a "Report" item on the Actions menu -- one of the choices for why you're reporting a profile, is that it is now deceased. Users can use this to let us know when another Geni user has passed away.

Mike thanks,, learning something new every day..
But if when nobody reports it, Geni would not know?

And as I keep pointing out, there are deficiencies in the reporting function, still to be addressed.

http://help.geni.com/entries/507614-reporting-of-profiles

Erica Howton We will add that to the FAQ's

Thank you, Charles. Too bad about the Yankees,

Mike, Ashley:

Quite a few Users told me, they had "No Idea" - some of their Profiles of Dead People were Private - until I pointed it out. They did not want them to be Private - when they Entered the names.

The Software "Default" for Dead People - should be Public - Not Private - and the Option - should be Highly Visible in All Entry Formats.

Manual change onus - would be Reversed - Simplifying things for Majority of users on Geni - who want Profiles of Dead People to be Public.

Peter, everyone has a different opinion about that. Some people would have no profiles be made public, or only those that have been dead for 70 or 100 years. Others would prefer that all profiles be public, even living minors. We're trying to strike a balance.

Mike,

How about the suggestion to making it much more visible if a profile is public or private?

So the big green blob after the name (according to Geni indicating a globe) and a green frame around the image frame in tree view (and not an anonymous gray box) is not visible enough? Personally it is visible enough, - you just need to know what it means.

Mike, Bjorn,

My Point is - Many New Users (incl. some old ones) - have No Idea - the Software is Creating some Private Profiles - of Dead People. It is Not - that they're making a Security Choice.

And it is New Users we Want - don't we ?? - as well as keep Old ones happy Adding New names.