This is more of a rant than a question, but I need to write about it. I am frustrated with the long lists of undated profiles. Lately I have been making date guesses on undated profiles, or looking them up in Google (and sourcing it; even if it is not a primary source, I figure it is better than no date).
I was searching the Elizabeth Chandlers, and sooo many have no dates. Even worse, about half of those are privacy level public, when they should be open (born over 200 yrs ago). I just spent the past half hour writing private messages to profile managers. So I wrote the notes, but I did not save all the names of all the managers, (so I could follow up after the required week to ask Paul to open them). I have to budget my time, and right now, I feel it is more important to get the word out; making profiles public when they should be open hinders collaboration. Not to mention the tan, yellow, or red level profiles; many of which are also undated. I don't even try to deal with those.
We have a huge problem with undated profiles. It hurts us from the start. When folks first join WikiTree, they want to see their tree. So they download a GEDCOM, and faced with long lists of undated names, they are frustrated. People have worked at the user-friendly pay sites. They think, "Surely I am not meant to open every single one of these profiles to see whether there is a match!" They let the duplicates go by, and we have even bigger problems.
I suppose it all comes down to education. We need everyone to help. How can we get the word out that an undated profile is a problem? How can we encourage managers to correctly set privacy levels? I am willing to help; I just don't know what to do, so I am writing this, ... and feeling a little Don Quixoteish here.