Notice: Volunteer Coordinators are Currently Conducting Project Check-ins

Question

Volunteer Coordinators are currently conducting member check-ins for a variety of projects. 

If you receive a message from a Volunteer Coordinator about your contributions and activities within a project, please take a moment to answer.

These check-ins are meant to keep our projects vital and help our leaders better manage them.

If you have an interest in joining the Volunteer Coordinators, please post an answer in our G2G thread.

Thanks!

Comments

Julie, would you mind explaining for the sake of those of us who are not project managers how "having a long list of people with badges who aren't available to advance the work of the project..." is a problem?  How are the project managers utilizing these lists of badge members where having inactive members on a list are a drag on the project? Or how is it a problem for the project?

From those of us on the outside of the group of project managers and leaders, the receipt of a message re: a required check-in or deletion from a project may cause the recipient of such a message to feel that they are simply a workhorse for the project manager/s and are not wanted on a project unless they produce a certain amount of work,  regardless of their interest in the project.  This perception can give them the impression that they lack importance and that there is a two-tier system of importance on WikiTree: ordinary volunteers and then the managers.  This two-tier system is antithetical to the stated goal of equality on WikiTree and required collaboration of volunteer genealogists.  A two-tier system can create distrust of the system and a balking on the part of the worker.  It's possible that the leaders and managers have become more focused on their control and less on collaboration and encouragement of the volunteer WikiTreer.

All this to say that if there is a real reason to cut members from a project from a "management" perspective, then it needs to be clearly explained. If WikiTree wants to cut down on numbers, then it can put into place practical, egalitarian policies, like one cannot join more than 3 projects at a time. Or one has to be a WikiTreer for a year before joining a project.

Or WT leaders might simply consider not requesting new volunteers for projects on a weekly basis, if they need to cut down the numbers of volunteers. Advertising for new volunteers causes us happy volunteers to think we are needed, and being pleasers, we join up and then become a burden and a drag on the project managers who recruited us in the first place.

Project membership should be discouraged, not encouraged if the projects are becoming unwieldy or unmanageable.  But if this policy is just to cut people who are not producing enough, the policy feels somewhat elitist.

---

I think the problem here is that everyone is being way too analytical about the purpose of these check-ins and are trying to read some different sort of meaning than what is intended.

If I'm managing a project, I would really like to know who is enthusiastic about participating and helping with the various tasks the project is involved in. Who wants to actively participate in advancing the research? Who can I call upon for help?

I think a better question might be: Why would you want a project badge if you're not actively participating in it and don't want to engage in discussions about it or collaborate with other members who are involved with it?

The purpose of the badges is to show members of a project who can be contacted about the project either by project leaders or other members who might need information about it. It's not helpful to have dormant members "wearing" the badge. If a new member contacts them, they're not going to respond, and that new member will just assume that our projects are meaningless.

Quite honestly, there are far fewer of you who are "offended" by being contacted than there are those who are happy to hear that someone's interested in what they're doing.

---

If a person is dormant, you can check that on his profile contributions. You have to open the profile anyway to send him a message. It only takes a few seconds to establish when last he contributed. That way you can really say with reason something in the line of, You were last active on so date, are you still interested in the project?etc.

---

Louis --

The Volunteer Coordinators are contacting hundreds of people a week. I'm sure you can imagine how much more time it would take to check contributions at the same time. 

Incidentally, this is an effort that will continue and Deb is doing a fabulous job of incorporating constructive feedback into what the VCs are doing. It's an important task that is helping to revitalize our projects.

I'm not going to be participating in this conversation anymore. I'd rather be focusing on the research I'm working on today. ;-)

Edited to Add: By the way, sometimes when a dormant member is contacted and find that a project has been rejuvenated, they become an active member again.

---

I understand, we are all participating to make WikiTree better.

---

Thank you, Louis. You're absolutely right! 

---

No, thank you for putting up with my direct English translations. If I have an actual English conversation with an English person once in five years, it is a lot

---

If I have learned anything from working on WikiTree, it's that we need to recognize that we're all coming from different places ... literally!! Being multicultural is not easy. :-)

I hope you have a lovely weekend, Louis.

---

That's interesting, Julie. I do appreciate that you are always friendly and polite and are aware of what tone you use when communicating with members. Which is important when not face-to-face, but I truly wanted to know what the goal was.  I do want to say that other than the thons, I have never been contacted by anyone in a project for any kind of assistance, so that is surprising to me as an objective.

---

Edie --

There's been an effort over the past couple of years to reorganize and revitalize some of our projects, and in the process some projects are implementing these check-ins. Not all projects are doing using them. Others just depend on their members to participate in the Google Group or other project discussions and ask for help that way.

Answer 1

Thanks, Deb! Glad to see this happening, which will be a huge help. 

Comments

I hope so. 

Answer 2

This is fantastic, Deb. You and the team are doing an amazing job! Thanks for all your hard work.

Susie :-)

Comments

Thanks, Susie.

Answer 3

A query tool to produce a report of all profiles edited for a specific time period would be great to have. As it is, I'm reviewing my contribution list, copying and pasting those into a spreadsheet and then making columns for which project was affected, if any. The last step requires viewing the profiles individually for categorization.

the bonus benefit is that I found dozens of profiles that i failed to assign to project categories. Maybe a better method or tools exist of which I'm unaware?

Comments

Fann, what are you seeking to accomplish with sub a spreadsheet/report?

---

To answer queries from project coordinator(s) on what activities occurred during a specific time period, but also to get a picture of where my contributions fall out, just for personal interest (such as identifying bio contributions, major fields contributions, merges, comments, new profiles).

By manually producing a spreadsheet, I reported out most recently:

For April and May, about 104 (out of 262, or about 40%) of WikiTree profiles that I worked fit into the scope of the US Southern Colonies project (USSC). True to my NC roots, 70 (67%) of the USSC profiles worked were NC-based. 

And, from the process of doing the review, I noted:

The majority of these are yet to be categorized as such (most of which were edits, as opposed to new profiles). Even with the new profiles, though, the step of adding categorization is something I often overlook. 

So, in summary, being able to have a spreadsheet without having to manually put it together would help me to also make notes and classify by project, and keep track of areas where I might need to do more follow-up, such as profiles marked as unsourced and orphaned profiles. And it would help to summarize what is partially discernable from my contributions list that is not readily apparent without doing some analysis. 

---

You can probably guess that I was a lay epidemiologist in my professional career.

---

You wrote "To answer queries from project coordinator(s) on what activities occurred during a specific time period".

I wasn't aware that project volunteers are being asked to track this information. That seems to be administrative work above and beyond what's reasonable to expect from project volunteers.

---

Jillaine, it's not being tracked. But every six months, projects are asking their members how they have contributed, if they are still active, etc. I do both check ins as a coordinator and have to answer the question as a member.

Personally, as a member, it's really difficult to say what I've done over six months because I do a whole lot for a whole lot of projects. I too have been considering keeping my own spreadsheet, but also wishing projects had somewhere we could keep track as we go.

---

Emma, I brought this up in the Leaders group and we're looking at some options.

---

Awesome, Eowyn!

Answer 4

Some of this is hugely redundant though...

Had a laugh that I'm being asked whether I'm still active considering last month...

Comments

Hi, Richard,

Active is referring to the project being polled, not general WikiTree activity. Also, messaging will be changing for check-ins going forward.

We have had some glitches as we try to organize and find the best options and methods for check-ins. An "Under construction, please excuse our mess." situation, if you will.

Also, keep in mind that Volunteer Coordinators are not checking contributions to see what every individual they are polling has been doing recently. That simply wouldn't be an effective use of their time. If members do not respond to a check-in at all, the VC may check to see if they are still active on WikiTree, but nothing beyond that.

I hope new messaging and improved methods of tracking will make everyone concerned happier with the process.

---

The point that is not being understood.
Firstly, on my profile: disclaimer #1.
And then we get to activity (as stated in my Member of the Week thing on both occasions, although I work on the overlap of projects, but the goal is always connection: That being why 2500 contributions resulted in last month's efforts, due the following threads: here, here and here 

---

Hi, Richard,

Your contributions are admirable and all WikiTreers should be grateful for your dedication. However, you were one among about 600 badge holders being polled. The single Volunteer Coordinator doing that polling could not and should not be expected to examine every profile

---

Richard has a valid point. While the goal of making sure that the people who are listed as being part of a given project are still interested in taking part of that project is a good one, the process could be handled better in multiple ways. I got one of those checkups too, and, well, it was both insulting (albeit unintentionally so) and clumsy. 

First, I would suggest that those checkup lists could be weeded down considerably, without having to check each person's profile individually. The Sourcerers and the Connectors both have monthly challenges with associated G2G threads (and the Connectors also have the Connectors Chat page), the Notables have a monthly G2G thread, and other projects probably have similar places to spot those who have been active regularly. Doing a scan through those threads or pages should enable removing a bunch of names from the number of people to be queried pretty quickly, and that would not only save time when it comes to having to go to each person's page to post the query, it should also save annoyance, or even hurt feelings, on the part of those who have been regularly and publicly active in a project, and yet still get asked if they're still interested.

Now let's look at the message itself: 

Hi 

¹

, On behalf of the Connectors Project Leaders, we are doing a six-month check-in with members. Please let us know if you are still active

². If you are active, please let us know in which ways you are currently contributing to the project. All of us at WikiTree would like to thank you for your contributions and hope that you are enjoying exploring your roots. I³ look forward to hearing from you soon.

1. The space and comma after the "Hi" suggests that the person's name was supposed to be inserted there. Unfortunately, when it's not inserted, what seems to have been intended as a means to make the boilerplate feel a bit more personal kind of draws attention to the absence of personalisation, and thus actually makes the message seem even more impersonal. I would suggest either taking the time to insert the name, or else putting in something less "incriminating", like "Hi from the Connectors Project" (or whichever project the survey is being done for).
2. What really jumped out at me was being asked to let "us" know, without any mention of who the "us" are, or how to let "us" know that I'm still interested. Since it has presumably been at least six months since the last check of this kind, it could well be that the project leadership may have changed in the meantime, so I don't believe that a quick review of who the leader(s) of the project being surveyed are would be amiss. And it would help if the means by which we are supposed to respond could be delineated: is there a G2G thread about the Connectors Project where people might go and affirm/reaffirm their interest in the project? Or maybe something radical like a chat page? Or maybe we should go to the Project Page, look for the leader(s), and contact her/him/it/them? Enquiring Minds Would Like To Know.
3. After all the "us"es and "we"s, the sudden appearance of "I" is a little jarring; it's kind of like changing the tense in the middle of a sentence, or inserting some informal chit-chat into a business letter. Maybe not wrong, but distracting. It also kind of implies that the person we should respond to is the person who posted the message, rather than the project leader(s), which is also kind of confusing.

---

Some of this is helpful but please keep in mind that this is a new project and kinks are still being ironed out.  Deb has done a wonderful job at trying to be as receptive as possible to the criticisms that have come. Some of them have been constructive and some of them have been flat-out rude.  Let's also remember that this is also a project of volunteer members who are trying to do their best so maybe just be nice and reply to their request when they ask if you are still interested in the project.  They have feelings too. Like Julie mentioned above, this isn't as big of a deal as people have made it out to seem. Want to participate in the project? Just reply and say so. :)  There's really no need to be insulted or offended.

---

Eowyn, I think the problem is that the query is so impersonal and makes one feel unwanted if not producing enough. Having only 20 tags that I can follow and knowing that we are only supposed to be members of projects that we are active in, I try to make sure that I am active, or intend to be active, in order to stay in that project. If I don't have time for the project or if other projects are more of a priority, I remove the tag.  And I don't join projects I know I don't have time for.  But then again, maybe I am the exception and not the rule.  But I would have expected active WikiTreers to follow the rules regarding projects.  Inactive WikiTreers are another matter. So queries like this are superfluous for WikiTreers like me and feel off-putting. Sorry if I am over-sensitive.

Edit:  I think Greg has a good point above.  The real question is what is the purpose of this project?  The stated purpose is:  These check-ins are meant to keep our projects vital and help our leaders better manage them.

What does that mean -- vital?  Does that mean weed out the dead-wood -- people who are not really participating?  Or discourage people from having too many badges for projects?  Or are the project leaders overwhelmed by having too many participants?  What is the real problem being solved by this project?

To add to what Greg has suggested, perhaps you could look at people who have too many projects, according to whatever tally you want to use, and then query them.  Or just set a limit of projects, for example 5, that people can be involved in.  Then they can't get too many badges and they have to choose what they want to be involved in.  It could be like kindleunlimited:  When you want to be added to a new project, and you already have 5, then you have to get rid of one in order to add one.

---

I would have thought "keeping them vital" meant keeping them productive and working on how best to serve the members (as opposed to just sitting there letting the email pile up LOL).

---

I guess you mean keeping the project members productive.  Does it really hurt to have less-productive members on a project?  If so, how?  I have a number of projects that I am really interested in, but some I only participate in on occasion because of my own priorities and because I work outside of the home, raise sheep, am writing a genealogical book about my brickwall search, and have many family responsibilities including to a 101-year old mother.  It's not lack of interest, but lack of time that keeps me from participating in all projects equally.  And I do want to keep up with what is going on in those projects.

Answer 5

There seems, in the comments that I am reading here, a lack of ownership about the low-grade implementation of this idea. In my view, failing to have a uniform and thoughtful and somewhat pre-optimized implementation of is part and parcel of the idea. 

Some feedback for this new make-work project, as I experienced it:

1. There was no means of validating the requests for our time and effort in replying. 
   • "On behalf of the Connectors Project Leaders, we [...]"
     • "we"-who? Are these people the Connectors Project Leaders or someone else? If it's someone else, who is it?
     • Is this some rogue project leader creating a new make-work project, or is it something important?
   • When I was polled, there was no mention on the project page of the project of a check-in underway. I have zero idea of the purpose. That shapes my analysis of whether it it worth taking the time to answer and how I ought answer if I do.
2. The questions asked were excessively vague. 
   • Deb: "Active is referring to the project being polled, not general WikiTree activity." Yeah, but that was never made clear.
   • e.g. "Please let us know if you are still active." → With respect to what? Is there a threshold? What does it mean to be "active"?
   • "If you are active" → Well, answering part II will be rather difficult, won't it?
   • "please let us know in which ways you are currently contributing to the project" → This comes across like a form of corporate speak and it doesn't give any indication whether any of my participation counts as "contributing to the project". 
3. The tabulation and asking could be better performed by providing a survey link. 
   • Again, have information about the link and a version posted on the project's page. 
4. The focus of the query appears to be about justifying one's present value in terms of present action. Call it a "What have you done for me lately" vibe, in which all of an individual's value to our community is measured by what they are currently doing and able to do. 
   • The request that I received comes across like this scene or this one.
   • If this is a value underlying this action, then I strongly urge you to re-evaluate your life and whatever brought you to this point.
   • Many involved here have otherwise busy lives and often involvement might just be for a bit of time when it's suitable to our schedule.
   • There is conflicting feedback here on the subject of whether this exists to cull project membership or not:
     • Haywood: You are correct that these are being done to remove members from projects who are not active contributors,  Apparently, the reason behind badges is no longer just to say "look at me, I've got an interest in the blah-blah Project".  They are there so you can say "look at me, I'm DOING SOMETHING for the blah-blah Project".
     • Ricketts: If someone wants to remain a part of a project, all they have to do is say so. Nobody is removing anyone from a project if they want to stay involved.
     • Langholf: Want to participate in the project? Just reply and say so.
5. If there are negative responses to the people charged with implementing a poorly designed idea, then the originator of the idea needs to own that. It isn't "just be nice and reply to their request when they ask if you are still interested in the project" when a lack of consideration has been demonstrated. The message is reasonably offensive to many people. Don't shrug that off. 

Comments

JN, I appreciate your answer and had a laugh. Actually, I think project managers should have enough to do without going around and poking people with a stick. And I get a little annoyed when leaders treat the rest of us like minions by asking questions like this.  I have found that most WikiTreers are well-educated, thoughtful people.  And we're not babies. There are important things for project leaders to do, including answering requests and private messages.  I don't think this is one of them.

---

My reply was merely the other side of the coin.

As Eowyn and Julie said "if you still want to remain part of the project, just reply."

My response (to another comment altogether) was a common-sense statement: if you want to, then you reply; if you don't want to i.e. maybe you have left WT altogether, then don't reply.  They will then chase up, and if you still don't reply, why do you want the badge anyway? so they will remove it for you.  I received the 'check-in', and just replied straightaway.  Simple.  (And, ironically, just above this check-in was a comment from Pip thanking me for making 1300 contributions that month! *grin*)

And, if you still want to keep a badge and be part of the Whatever Project - be nice.  Don't just sit there. Help them out. :) 

---

Ooh, Ros, that's a great idea! A compliment regarding the number of contributions would make it seem so much less impersonal.  Btw, I've already had a check-in on one project and replied immediately. Just wondered if the project was trying to get rid of me, hence my comment above.

Speaking of projects, I private-messaged you about one. Can you take a look at the message and let me know how you would advise me? I didn't think my question was worth a g2g post.

Answer 6

Not really understanding why so many are getting upset with the check-ins. This is just a good way to see who is still active and who may no longer be, as well as maybe peak the interest of those that are no longer active to become interested again. I have also noticed several of the projects I am involved in are getting more organized and grouping different areas of interests together. They are asking us to pick a sub-project, for instance, PPP profile management or different Countries, to be the area we are assigned to. This is great for seeing where the need is. Also asking what we are working on within the project helps to know what areas still need more help as opposed to others. I see no shaming in this at all. I know if I was a project leader, I would want to know what is being done within the project I lead and where I may need to discuss areas that needs some work. Anyway, Thank you Project leaders for all the hard work you do in your Project field!!

Comments

I don't like being locked into a box of "this is the area you said you were interested in", when my interest is extremely broad, not narrow.

---

I'm new to this thread and for the second time today just don't see what the G2G uproar is about.  So two points:

1.  What is the benefit of being in a project?  I recently signed up for several projects. Generally it was because I had ancestors in the time and place, such as Maryland and Pennsylvania.  I thought it would help me follow the activity that might affect my ancestors/profiles.  But thinking it over, I see that I get that benefit from following the tag, not being in the project.  So if the manager wants to come along and kick me out for not being active enough, OK, especially if I have a chance to explain myself first.

2.  It is perfectly obvious, from many recent threads, and although many argue to the contrary, that some WikiTreers do want to pile up points and badges.  I don't even think I need to give examples because everyone who regularly reads G2G threads has seen the discussions.  So if project managers want to prune down their participants to those who are doing something--anything--that seems reasonable.  

and 3 now that I've reviewed the thread again.  It really doesn't seem that hard to say, in answer to an inquiry, for example, that I have ancestors in Maryland that I've worked on in the last six months.

---

Well said, Julie! 

Answer 7

It seems to me that, technically, it's possible to see who is active over 6 months within a certain project and who had not contributed, without email replies.

I don't check email every day, or, sometimes, every week.  I get too many to deal with and have, well, a life in addition to my strong commitment to WT.

So, why do people need to spend energy on polling project members about their continuing contributions?  Can be tracked technically.  

I jump around from tree to tree making contributions almost every day.  In spite of this, I get deleted from projects from time to time.  Makes me feel awful.  I'm committed.  I'm taking certification courses and looking for deep sources.  Do I have to prove I'm still here via email?  Seems a bit "old school."

Just my 2 cents.  I love WT.  Please hear my intent here.  Let's use technology to deal with fears about people dropping out.

Comments

Well said, Robin, and I completely agree. In the last couple of months I've probably written 50 biographies for the Mayflower and Puritan Migration projects, and while doing so, connected 50 people or more, merged many and sourced everything. Do I need to "log" this activity? Because I'd rather be working on making the tree better, than checking off boxes on some list. I contribute, if someone feels the need to drop me off a project because of that, so be it. Their loss, not mine.

---

Bobbie, my thought exactly.  If people can't see that I contribute, well, then, I lose respect a bit.  I'm working on the trees, trying to make them more accurate and robust.  Do I have to prove that somehow?  Can't y'all see that?

---

It's what I always hated about the corporate environment: everyone always having to prove they were doing something, while not actually accomplishing anything but filing out forms and jumping through HR's hoops. I'd rather just get on with the job at hand, and someone else can judge my performance. Best day of my (later) life when I walked out the "retired" door.

---

Amen.  Retirement is glorious, isn't it?  Get to go with where your passions lead, or not, sometimes just spending the day staring at the lake, the clouds, the amazing world around us.  Why don't we live this way all the time?

---

If it is possible technically (and I don't know that it is), here's an example

Your Whatever Project has 600 members.  Would you like to check 600 contributions lists to see if they have been working on your Project? No?  How about asking each person instead?

---

There is a centralized contribution feed that is watched by various people for various reasons.  A bot can check that feed to see who is editing which profiles, creating profiles, merging profiles, etc., and which projects those profiles are in...  Not hard technically (i.e. in software).  Perhaps requires some tweeking to get it right, but definitely not that far from what has already been done in WT technology.

Just to be clear, I'm a retired EE, a high-speed microprocessor designer with about 30 years experience writing things on many levels (microcode to interpreters), using very large data sets, and inventing a language used by the IEEE.  I'm not just spouting off.  The WT technology is impressive and increasingly intelligent.  I'm just suggesting a possible next improvement.

---

And then, project leaders would only have to check with those who do not show up on the project feed lists from the bots.  Much easier than polling 600+ members and having to have 600+ members reply.  

Again, just my 2 cents.

---

The feed can be filtered by badge, eg

https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:NetworkFeed&badge=pgm

shows you all recent activity by PGM members.  That includes work outside the project area.  But you could use it to find project members who aren't doing anything at all.

Or, you can check to see who appears in the feed for the Project Account's Watchlist, e.g.

https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:NetworkFeed&who=WikiTree-30&watchlist=1

shows activity on PGM Watched profiles, including meddling by non-members.

For some small projects, that will do it, because they aim to Watch all the profiles in their scope.  But it doesn't scale up.  Other projects have a scope that runs to hundreds of thousands of profiles, maybe millions.  They can't have them all on a Watchlist.

But presumably any work anywhere in that lot will qualify a member to keep the badge.

And you can't put a project tag on a person-profile, and you can't get a feed for a category.  And in any case, it would be impossible for the big projects to mark up all the profiles in their scope.

For some projects, you could try to guess the project by looking at places and dates.  This is already done for some DD reports.  If it works well enough, it could be applied to the badge feeds.  Then you'd have a feed of project-related activity by project members.

But you could also do project-guessing on the global feed.  Then you'd have a feed of all project-related activity by all contributors, not just project members.  This would probably make the project members list look a bit silly, and weeding it out would look a bit pointless.

---

Since projects seem to worry about who is not contributing, then it may be preferable to do something more automated rather than to delete random people who don't remember to reply to email.

---

And can't you already hear the screams of people who were 'deleted' and said "but nobody ever asked me"? 

Or RJ's 'project-guessing' or going through the project's feed and weeding people out.  More screams.  Sounds a bit "Big Brother"ish to me (Orwell, not TV). 

---

I'm suggesting only that the automation id those who appear not to be contributing to projects, who can then query them.

And, yes, it will take some tweaking.

SOOO, I'm thinking it's not that OK to suggest things.

---

Please do suggest. 

Just be prepared for other people to have differing opinions.