2

Upgrade 'profile managers' list to be 'profile contributors' list.

Dan Cornett

May 29, 2013 14:59

None

Follow

It would be helpful to move from 'managers' of profiles toward 'contributors' to profiles ... and that list can include both the creators of the merged profile *and* those who have modified/edited/added-to the profile.

The term 'follower' can still provide a function (as it does today), but adding the functionality of listing 'contributors' may help a lot (and that can be, if you want to get fancy, by either some measure of the 'volume of contribution' or by the 'last contributed' date-time).  If you use that latter approach, inactive contributors will get pushed toward the end of the list -- and the list would instantly point to those who did the most recent changes without having to review pages of revisions in detail. The 'send mail to 20 most recent contributors' could be much more valuable, too.

What about those 'managers' who just "inherited" profiles from another user?  (e.g.: account closed due to being deceased or leaving Geni).  They should still be listed as a 'contributor', but should be added at the END of the list, not at the beginning.  The person who's account was closed should then be also moved to the "end of the list".  (Thus, if only one initial 'contributor', that would leave the new 'contributor' first in the list, but as any others added or updated content they would move to (or be added to) the front of the list.

I would suggest that the person completing a merge *not* be added to the 'contributor' list. (nor the "Geni" user, either, although both of those would still show up in the Revisions list.)

When the other profile and relationship fields (e.g.: marriage, work, schooling, etc) are changed (even if not currently under revision control), the person 'contributing' those changes could also be added to the beginning of the 'contributors' list.

4 comments

• 0
  
  Ashley Odell May 29, 2013 16:58

  "Contributor" (great word), "editor," even "caretaker" (though that could get confused with "curator")...anything other than "manager."  I feel like that one little wording change would go such a long way in getting people to calm down about "OMG, someone else is MANAGING my relative!"  To contribute is such a positive thing that I don't think we'd get so many complaints anymore.

   

  I don't know that I would be in favor of letting people message only the most recent contributors...someone might have basically built out the profile when they first created it, and 20 (or whatever) other people have come along since then and made minor wording changes or cleaned up typos.  Most recent activity doesn't mean most vital.

  Dan, just to be clear: Are you saying that everyone who works on a profile in any way be added as a contributor?  My concern there is that someone might make an edit just to be listed, or someone might be a contributor for something as small as fixing a typo.  I wouldn't want to see that abused, and we all know there are people who would be seeking contributor status the same way they obsess over management  now.

  
  Really, I'd be happy if all we got out of this was the wording change.

• 0
  
  Larry Kelly May 29, 2013 18:02

  What you all seem to miss is that the ”Manager” the way is just the person who makes the original input. Geni Defaults such that anyone can change anything in the tree until the specific person named makes a change to their profile. At that time Geni Changes the persons privacy profile such that the edit function is disabled and About disappears completely. Thus, Manager has no real meaning at all!!! So why list the tree manager unless the system is changed to give the builder additional control.

• 0
  
  Peter Rohel (c) May 30, 2013 19:43

  http://www.geni.com/discussions/89816?msg=876129 (A) - profile management: *both A & B should be tailored to - Free vs. Pro capabilities. 1) Profile management Functions & Display - are product decisions - and thus require a product & technical resolution. 2) keep Added by - Remove Managers altogether 3) use Follow profile instead - of Management - for needed functions & notifications 4) Profile 3-5 Deletions per day & max 10 per week 5) Profile edit - Msg. Display: "Thank you for your changes, users Following this Profile will be notified of your modifications" (B) - profile additions - question: Do you want the branch part of the Big tree with most profiles of people who died Public OR Do you want a separate Private tree? 1) 4 sand pits - a) Big tree active (dead=public) b) Big tree pending (dead=public) c) Private trees d) Gedcom imports 2) either 1 physical file & 3 logical files OR 4 physical files 3) Data Entry - upon possible Match to a) Big (live) with "Yes" to Big tree - instead of Merge - give user Collaboration to original profile 4) Data Entry - upon possible Match to c) Private trees with "Yes" to Big tree - send Msg. to Private tree profile Followers: Duplicate public/private profiles of this Branch are being Created - do you wish to Collaborate ? What would A and B solve on MH-Geni? 1) 100's of users - would be Less likely to create 1000's of Duplicate profiles - just to be Listed as Managers, increase their Counts (when duplicates already exist), become tree-huggers, etc. 2) All Users - would considerably Reduce their Maintenance Time on - Merging, management requests, why was that done correspondence, etc. MH-Geni & user counts - would become more Accurate. *profile manager benefits like MH-matching, Gedcom exports, etc. - will need to change to represent more variables - like family group, blood count, activity, free vs. Pro, etc. *other likely benefits I can't think of at this time
• 0
  
  Ashley Odell May 31, 2013 20:29

  Peter, is it possible to make individual feature requests for all of those proposals?