ATTENTION Curators, please assist

Only one Pro user is necessary. Merging requires permission on both profiles, either together or individually. Only Pro members can approve merges, so the solution is to get a Pro who has edit permission on one or both profiles, to approve the merge. The simplest way to do that is to get the Pro access on both profiles at the same time, by either collaborating (if the profiles are public) or adding him/her to your Family Group (if the profiles are private).

Cecil - You are part of "The Big Tree". I know this because when I click on your profile, it tells me I am connected to you, and I know I am connected to the Big Tree.

To everyon wondering about this -- On your home page, there is a line - right hand side, about half way down, right under word "Statistics" which says "You are connected to .... people on Geni" -- if the number is over 60,000,000 then you are part of the Big Tree.

The best way I can think to describe what the Big Tree is -- It is the biggest pasting together of Trees (as a result of merges). As I understand it, Geni's ideal goal is (or at least was) for everyone now alive and who ever lived to have one and only one Profile, all connected. The Big Tree is the Work in Progress toward this goal.

Still my goal! It's why I use Geni.

Thanks. Lola, Mike and Erica. I see a problem on your gosl Erica. As I explained yesterday, I requested over 600 merges in the last 6 weeks and almost no one responded. I don't know what the answer for that.

Yesterday I had 100,000 blood relatives,and today it is down to 5,000.....where the other 95,000 went...lol

Cecil for public profiles curators can assist - actually you can, too, reporting them as abandoned profiles from the action menu after a curator checks "last online" (more than a year)

For private profiles I don't worry about it, even if I'm sure of the match. I have cousins who have not logged on recently. When they do we'll resolve the duplicate.

What area are you working on the tree? My own is mostly Colonial America and their mostly English ancestry.

Lois you may very well be correct but frankly the idea of multiply managed disconnected trees makes me lose my appetite - so whether it's technically feasible or not, let's pretend it isn't. :). I'm here to assist on the World Family Tree in the public arena.

Sorry re reading Lois' comment and re affirming Mike's - if I collaborate with a non Pro the merge is completed.

Erica - off-topic a bit, but - you mention above that your main focus is Colonial Amercia and their mostly English ancestry, and above say of "everyone now alive and who ever lived to have one and only one Profile, all connected" that it is "Still my goal! It's why I use Geni" - so wondering -- have you added every living relative you are aware of, adding newborns as soon as you are aware of them, or ??.

Lois my focus and interest is the public deceased tree so I would like to beg off any questions about the private living tree. Others can answer much better.

Cecil - 600 merge requests in the past 6 weeks sort of blows my mind. I wonder -

1) How many were for Private Profiles matching ones in your Max Extended Family (ie back to 3rd greatgrandparent or out to 4th cousin)?

2) How many were for Public Profiles matching ones in your Max Extended Family?

3) How many were for Private Profiles outside your Max Extended Family?

4) How many were for Public Profiles outside your Max Extended Family?

When you say you requested Merges -- did you actually send a geni-message to the Manager of the Profile - explaining in cases 1 and 2 above how you were related to the Person in question and asking if they would like to merge? Did you limit this to only one member of a family (eg, if someone had added your great-aunt Sue along with her children and etc and etc - anywhere from several to 100 or more profiles - did you send just one request - or did you rudely click merge on all of them?)

Geni's other, equal goal, is for Family sharing info with Family. In cases 3) or 4) above, what explanation did you give the manager for wanting to merge?

Since you are a Pro connected to the Big Tree, cases 2) and 4) should have gone thru automatically unless they were part of a separate Tree.

Personally, I consider if very rude if someone clicks "merge" for one of the Profiles I manage without sending me a geni-message explaining why - preferably before clicking to merge. On the other hand, anyone who sends me the message (either direct or from the Profile in question thru "Contact Manager") I usually respond to. If you have not tried contacting the managers, I strongly suggest you do so.

Would make sense if Geni did not consider private profiles as merge candidates - would save much heartache.

On the other hand, I have happily merged with a few relatives.

Go into thir profile and check 'activity' ....a lot of them are new and don't even realize that the profile is 'private'.....after all, THEY can see it....and they don't understand.

So contact them directly....explain your interest or connection....and ask them if they would make it public.

Hi Lois, Wow, you are asking a lot of questions. Truthfully, I used the tree matches and I went one by one asking to merge. I have np idea how many were privates or publics. If it is rude then I apologize to everyone it was not intentional.

Fay, a lot of times managers have no profiles so there is no way to know if they are active.

Erica, I am working on 2 trees: my wife is a Mayflower's descendants from 3 trees and I am still looking for my ancestors from ?

The 21 Mayflower passengers immediate family trees on Geni are pretty clean and good and have Master Profiles; I'll send you a collaboration request. The trick is to build up accurately and carefully. When I started in Geni I had no thought that I had any sort of relationship and it turns out I'm a cousin to most of them. We have family projects to work with specific lines you are welcome to ask to join.

Cecil. I think everyone in Geni that has attempted merging shares your frustration.

Merging with a private profile is always problematic as the person probably has made it private because they want to keep it private (that's the whole idea after all!), or they have done so unknowingly and don't access Geni much.

Merging with a private profile is usually an exercise in frustration, and unless the merge is extremely important to you, I would tend not to bother.

I would like Geni to not consider private profiles as merge candidates - the blood pressure of the average member would drop dramatically.

Lois. If you have a relative, the merge would be suggested on a common public ancestor - attempting merges with living people is not always appreciated.

Cecil, usually it's not highly recommended to work on your hot tree matches since in most cases that could only lead to more mess due to incorrect merges

First, you must be vigilant about your own work and the profiles you manage. I do not agree that using the merge request is rude. This is a program, and all you are doing is notifying another manager that you think that two profiles are the same and should be merged. It is up to the other manager to carefully examine the request and accept or decline it. I have had merges declined and I have declined merges. There are no feelings in this.

Now, if you have a pro go into a profile you manage and trash it, that is another matter and that person needs to be reported. I only edit the public profiles that belong to other managers if I have complete documentation and I post that documentation to the profile. Usually there has been no activity on the profile for years (and the manager may not have been online for years too), and I encounter it as a part of a line I'm working on. If I have good data, I'll post it, as the whole idea here is to share and build an interconnected tree.

re: showing matches with private profiles

I hope this does NOT go away.

It is THE primary way that a new Geni member of one's extended family -- that you may not have known before how to contact them -- can "find you" when they get onto Geni.

I have a second cousin that recently joined Geni; no one in the "rest of the family" knew anything other than names and some birthdates. Thanks to the private matches, as soon as the father was added, their profile matched one I had entered ... and that cousin was then able to contact me and start a dialog! Would not have happened without matching private profiles.

Yes, the "hot match" (tree matches) list should probably be looked at from the viewpoint of "I assume it is NOT a match; convince me (with the info shown) that I should look further at the details".

Hi, I have a question about printing lists from a tree. Getting all the ancestors from a specific profile (5.000) in an ancestor list. Can I get a print with all profile-names directly from Geni or do I have to export the file to another program and then print out?

Kenneth B Eklund

Interesting question, Private User.

If you go to the "Family" -> "Lists" menu (at the top of the screen), the select "Ancestors" as the Group, and "Update List" (button at the bottom of the left-side advanced search options), that will give you a list -- but only 20 per "page" (which may actually be 2-3 print pages) ... and a simple browser "print" only prints those 20. You'd have to do that for each group of 20.

Another option, if you don't really need them as a "list", is to go to the "Tree View", select the horizontal "5 generation ancestor view" icon, and you'll see the just those ancestors. You can used the "printer icon" on that page to generate an "image" -- not a list. Again, you'd have to repeat that for each generation group which extends past the 4th generation.

Neither of which is real great.

Probably the flexible approach is to generate a GEDCOM file from Geni, download it, and find a desktop genealogy program that'll print a list in the form you'd like.

Thnxs Dan, best then to do a GEDCOM download.

Would someone please check last online for Private User

Many pending merges over a year old

She was on line in April 2012 Eldon.

Thank you Erica. I guess we will just have to wait her out.

That's funny, I checked and she shows last activity Aug 12,2011. But curators have wider search abilities.

Karen Finch was last on line in April 2012 but her last activity was in Aug. 2011. Both Erica & Fay are right ;-)

May perhaps be worth a personal geni-message to her, rather than just waiting!.

You might then find out if she is willing to merge, but not being Pro, knows of no way to accomplish it (and you can then suggest ways you might be able to help her out), or if she is against the whole merging thing, or perhaps wasn't sure they were a match or etc.

From: sylvan.tyrrel@yahoo.com
I have observed that someone is intentionally destroying the Tyrell LINE:
1) From Roger Tyrrell (1175 - 1230), Father of Edward Tyrell of Avon (1210 - 1315), Father of Sir Galfrid Tyrell of Avon (1233 - 1250), Father of Edmond Tyrell of Avon (1260 - 1290).
I looked at comparing 2-duplicates of Edmond Tyrell of Avon (1260 - 1290) and the program brought up Sir Galfred! I stopped there as beyond my ability to make any intelligent changes.
2) A path around the Time-Line described in (1) is established by Bonnie Grogan Frazier, who is also the manager. I did not contact this person, because the following observations were made:
First Observed: Unaltered Time-Line from Roger Terrill (d.1682) through 10-generations to Sir Walter Tyrell of Heron. I, Baron of Tyrell (1320 - 1406). At this point the Time-Line shows that Frazier has added another Walter Tyrell (no amplifying information - Name Only) to complete the "by-pass time-line". Sir Walter Tyrell (1320 - 1406) is the Father of Thomas Tyrrell. II (1350 - 1406).
Second Observation: Thomas Tyrrell (1350 - 1406) can not be the son of two different fathers named Walter Tyrell. The program does NOT provide a means to COMPARE Walter Tyrell (Name Only) with Sir Walter Tyrell of Heron. I, Baron of Tyrell (1320 - 1406), the later Tyrell is well documented and I believe should be LINKED as the Father of Thomas.
Furthermore I think the By-Pass path set up by Frazier, and the destruction given in (1) above is intentional to alter the true Time-Line.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sylvan F. Tyrrel, Jr.