Calling all greeters

+5 votes
101 views
It has just come to my attention (see https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/653444/why-is-new-profile-unlisted-when-email-is-attached) that your to-do list of greeting new members needs a new item added to it.

With the new privacy requirements, when a new member signs up, their profile will be unlisted.  You're going to have to provide assistance to them about having to change their privacy level when they are confirmed.

Perhaps there should be an automatic solution (which would require software changes) to automatically change their privacy level from black to red when they are confirmed, that would eliminate this problem.
in The Tree House by Gaile Connolly G2G6 Pilot (908k points)

2 Answers

+12 votes
 
Best answer
*This is the same post I put on "Why is new profile unlisted when email is attached"

This is not a bug at all.  Some new members inadvertently change their privacy level to unlisted and some have no idea how they did it.  I actually track all the Unlisted that have volunteered (they may or may not be confirmed, but usually have been) and send them messages to help them take care of these privacy issues.  

To my knowledge there is no automatic unlisted privacy level when a guest member signs on as default is usually yellow privacy level.  If you find members with this unlisted problem, please send their WikiTree ID to me or one of the other Greeter Project Leaders and we will work with them.

Thanks, Cindy
by Cindy Lesure G2G6 Pilot (113k points)
selected by Deb Durham

THANX for the clarification and correction, Cindy.  I apparently misused inductive reasoning to jump from the new requirement of unlisted privacy for all non-member living profiles to theorize that new members, who are not yet full-fledged members when they join, are assigned a default of unlisted privacy.  I further judged that, if this were the case, it would be adding another layer of complexity to their initial learning curve for them to have to immediately make a change to their privacy level when they are confirmed as full members.

As penance, I just took a closer look at privacy levels and options and found the following examples (extrapolating from cases in my close family members):

  • A member's own profile does not have a privacy option of Unlisted, Public, or Open, which matches my understanding of how it is supposed to be.
  • The profile of a different (full, not family) member (for whom I am a co-manager) does not have a privacy option of Public or Open, but does have an option of Unlisted.  There is something wrong here - I should not be able to make a member's profile Unlisted, especially when that member couldn't do it for him/her self! 
  • The profile of a living non-member that I manage has privacy options of Unlisted and all four Private levels.  I thought it's now required that these profiles all be Unlisted.
  • The profile of a deceased non-member that I manage does not have Unlisted as an option, which matches my understanding of how it is supposed to be.

This does lead to a question of why a guest member is able to make his/her profile Unlisted, when that option is disabled for full members.  If it is the intent to permit guest members to be Unlisted then it would probably be a good idea to change that to red Private automatically when a new member has volunteered, signed the honor code, and is confirmed as a full member, since Unlisted is not an option for full members.

EDITED:
Oops, I made another mistake.  The example profile I used for a member that I co-manage is not a full member (as I stated) - it is a family member, so I suppose it's OK for that to have the option of Unlisted.  I don't have an example of a full member whose profile I co-manage, so someone else needs to look at that case.

Aww, Deb, you beat me to it - I was planning to select this as best answer as soon as I finished writing my comment above - I guess I just don't type fast enough!!!!
Hey Gaile!  

I am a big fan of your work, by the way!!  I think that there may be some issue that does need to be addressed by sysops regarding the privacy levels and agree that it would be better to make it so Guests cannot change their privacy level to higher than red privacy level.  But I am really not sure if that is something in the works.  Thank you for bringing it up because now the Greeter Leaders will have that on the next meeting agenda!
+7 votes
It is unclear that this is happening to all profiles.  The GDPR rules have been in effect for a while now and I know of many folks that have joined since then and not run into this issue.

Unless something changed recently and this is now happening to all new users, I suspect that there is some anomaly that occurred in this case.  Perhaps there is a race condition that permits some profiles to end up in this misconfigured state.
by William Foster G2G6 Pilot (106k points)

Related questions

+7 votes
2 answers
152 views asked May 30, 2020 in WikiTree Help by Gaile Connolly G2G6 Pilot (908k points)
+1 vote
0 answers
+18 votes
3 answers
+7 votes
1 answer
57 views asked Jun 1 in Appreciation by Wendy Taylor G2G6 Mach 5 (54.1k points)
+6 votes
2 answers
65 views asked May 1 in Appreciation by Wendy Taylor G2G6 Mach 5 (54.1k points)
+13 votes
3 answers
76 views asked Apr 1 in Appreciation by Wendy Taylor G2G6 Mach 5 (54.1k points)
+8 votes
1 answer
+9 votes
1 answer
+17 votes
9 answers
+10 votes
1 answer

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...