Exception for main managers for pre-1500 profiles

+15 votes
440 views
Why can't an exception to the pre-1500 badge be made for the creator/manager of their pre-1500 profiles? Especially since many of those profiles are being marked by "Leaders" as missing sources.

The managers are notified but cannot do anything since they are blocked from that which they are supposed to manage.
in The Tree House by Bob Diao G2G2 (2.3k points)
retagged by Robin Lee
Thank you Anne, that is very good to know; who could have guessed the delete button is hidden within the hide button?

I just tried the hide button but it only offers me one button which re-shows the comment - another wikitree change without due notice perhaps?
Borderline nerd, yes, but in this case, as a leader I occasionally have to hide objectionable posts (the kind that advertise "stuff"), and I discovered it then.
Anne, that delete button only shows up for leaders, the rest of us do not have that option we can only reshow the hidden answer or comment.
Dale, you must be able to delete your own comments. Correct? I know that's what Carl was talking about (deleting his own)
Of course Anne, I can't imagine anyone even considering deleting another person's comments. Similarly I had taken for granted that everyone here is engaged in recording facts. I can't understand why all the emphasis on royal relationships, that is only a matter of degree. Go back far enough in time and we all originated from common parentage in Africa, Royals and all the rest of us. I respect those royals who have managed to steer a true course in troubled times and I regret those who have resorted to injustices for spurious ends. I'm a Royalist but not a romantic and I'm glad we have Royals here in the UK but I can understand why so many countries have dispensed with theirs.
Sorry Anne, The option to delete comments in G2G is not available to me or any non leader, I can only hide them and even then leaders can still dee them and reshow them if they wished.
Thank you all for your encouragement and advice. I didn't think I'd be able to qualify for the pre-1500 badge, I found the computer-speak a little unnerving and was on the verge of throwing in the towel but you persuaded me to try, so I did, and to my utmost astonishment it was not all that difficult to get involved and do the necessary, and now I'm able to submit the rest of my family tree and as a result I've found a link to the American Horner family which I'd been looking for over a long period. It has bucked me up no end and given me a sense of genuine achievement.

I just hope all you other good folk struggling with this set-back will  grasp the nettle and give it your best shot and surprise yourselves with what can be achieved when you refuse to be deterred.

All kindly blessings, Carl.
Well done!
Congratulations on earning your Pre-1500 badge, Carl!
Thank you kindly Russ,

Merry Christmas,

Carl

2 Answers

+12 votes
That makes some sense to me also. (I am pre 1500 certified though.) Just to think it through though:

I suppose your question is especially about people who might not be specialized enough to be doing lots of pre 1500 profiles, but might well be able to handle a small number.

I suppose the new rules are intended to avoid people having 100s of profiles which they can't handle well, which then causes a lot of unintended knock on problems. (Even one bad profile at that time depth can cause lots of problems, and they can be slow to fix.)

So the question is whether there is a way to achieve both aims?
by Andrew Lancaster G2G6 Pilot (107k points)
Hi Andrew

I think one reason for the pre-1500 requirement is that when you go back that far in time the available sources are few and far between.  What you end up with is a lot of profiles with no sources or even worse, bad sources.  I bit the bullett and got pre-1500 certified.  I have been having to take a harder look at those lines with pre 1500 profiles.   The result of this is that my family tree is a lot more accurate and reliable.  It also resulted in losing a lot of "royal" connections that were based on poor research and sources.   But I value the accuracy....if my connection to King James is based on an error or false connection then I can't really say I am related anyway.  I would rather know that I am not related and my line to be accurate then to perpetuate a myth and bad information.   In my opinion, pre-1700 certification results in higher quality, more accurate genealogies.  

Cheers, David
Hi David,   Thanks for your honest, open opinion....some want a connection to royalty or a famous person so badly, they will overlook the "reality".
Robin,  I very much appreciate your comment.  This may not be well received but I think that if one can not stand on the merits of their own efforts and accomplishments no "royal" connection real or fabricated is going to make them a better person.  One gets what one earns.  Royal connections are fun to talk about but it doesn't make a person anymore or any less. I think I may have "royal" connections and believe me it didn't make me a bit better looking.  Sorry for the diatribe but I'm the son of a minister and I guess preaching is in my DNA.  I promise to keep my comments to genealogy from now on.
Dave,

I wish you would post your replies to Andrew and Carl as a separate comment.  I believe that, combined, they deserves a "Best Answer".

PS-maybe a smidge of the reply to Robin
Kathleen just that you like my comment is enough for me.  I just hope my comment will not offend anyone
David , I whole heartedly agree with you.  My ancestors  have very little to do with who I am.  I really hope  some of the Royals and  Notables turn out not to be my ancestors.
Well, I feel that my ancestors had quite a bit to do with me.  If they hadn't had children who had children who had children etc - I would not have been born! LOL

But from my researches, they were honest, hardworking peasant folk (as am I); I love them dearly and am proud of them and honoured to be connected to them.  I hope I am making them proud by doing all this WT work. :o)
+1 vote
There is clearly an issue for pre-1500 profiles created before the policy was introduced and where no-one can edit the profile now because they only have managers who haven't themselves applied for the pre-1500 certificate.

Is there any way to know:

a) How many pre-1500 profiles we have on WikiTree?
b) Of these, how many do not have profile managers who are pre-1500 certified?

======UPDATE=====

I've managed to find the answer to (a) using the WikiTree+ tool. If you go to http://wikitree.sdms.si/default.htm, Statistics/Database Dump and get a table for "Birth Date century", this shows that 91,308 profiles (out of 13.9m, or 0.66%) were born before 1500.

This compares to 279 members who have the pre-1500 badge (an average of 327 profiles per person). Given that [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Reducing_the_Size_of_Your_Watchlist this] advises against more than 5,000 profiles per person, this seems to be quite manageable.
by Andrew Turvey G2G6 Mach 3 (34.0k points)
edited by Andrew Turvey
Andrew,

I am not clear what "issue" you are trying to solve, maybe start a new G2G with a statement of the Issue and need for a solution.   OK?
I've reworded my answer to clarify

Suggestion report for Pre1500. There were 32,109 suggestions on 2017-12-24. that are specific to pre-1500 time period.  

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/DBE_ErrorList_Pre1500

It used to be much higher but a number of the pre-certified Data Doctors have been hard at work reducing the number of pre-1500 where we can.  The problem for us are any with PPP or privacy controls set.  Actually none of the pre-1500 should have a privacy control set but in the past we would run into some that did.  Hopefully those have all been opened now.  

If you are a PM and have pre-1500 profiles you need to add sources to post what you need done on G2G and we will work with you.  The intent is not to keep you from working with the profiles but to make sure we are getting valid sources for pre-1500 time period.  There are a lot of bad sources for that time period.  And ancestry, geni, my heritage, lds trees are not valid sources.  Some of the peerage versions have issues and we are well aware of which ones.  The goal here is to make sure we have solid information for this time period because as it cascades down through the ages it affects a lot of profiles.  

Related questions

+36 votes
4 answers
+3 votes
3 answers
155 views asked Sep 12, 2018 in The Tree House by S Stevenson G2G6 Pilot (108k points)
+14 votes
6 answers
+7 votes
2 answers
326 views asked Aug 1, 2017 in WikiTree Tech by Glen Street G2G1 (1.2k points)
+47 votes
3 answers
+27 votes
13 answers
+46 votes
4 answers
+8 votes
5 answers
+31 votes
5 answers
1.3k views asked Mar 31, 2016 in Policy and Style by Robin Lee G2G6 Pilot (707k points)
+7 votes
2 answers
221 views asked Apr 17, 2017 in Policy and Style by Andrew Turvey G2G6 Mach 3 (34.0k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...