Could members be more careful about appreciation, please? [closed]

Question

To follow up on Chris Whitten's post earlier today, could appreciation teams be a little more careful about making comments encouraging QUANTITY of contributions? WikiTree's point of difference should be sourcing and quality of research.  I was surprised today to discover a member who never adds sources (that I can see) was specially thanked by the Appreciation Team for her 2200 contributions in July. Many of her contributions were as pointless as adding Mr or Mrs to profiles. Every new profile she creates is sourceless using the "Unsourced family tree handed down to Person X" comment. Often dates are wildly estimated and no places are added, making it difficult for future sourcing. 

I'd like to see the Appreciation Team doing a little more checking of QUALITY before thanking members for large contributions. (It might also be an opportunity to flag where mentor intervention is required.)

Comments

One of my pet peeves, also. Ever annoyed by the few members who think it their duty to add as many profiles as they can regardless of sources. That should not be the aim of WikiTree.

---

I feel the same way.  I have looked at some of the profiles of members who do hundreds of edits with seldom a source or biography.  I am lucky to do 200 a month but they have sources and biographies.  I don't want to discourage new members but some of these members have been here for years.   Nor do I know everything about the site, I'm still learning but the focus on sources and biographies  is not a secret when you join.  I don't want to monitor others and don't worry about numbers myself.   Research takes time.

---

It's not me! I did 2200 edits last month and added a huge number of sources. I've never used "Unsourced Family Tree" as a source, but I have added sources to profiles with this on. Some edits will be minor, like adding England or United Kingdom to place names, correcting typos or adding a space where my typing ran together. I never add Mr or Mrs. I also hardly ever get thanked, but that's not what I'm here for.

---

A lot of my contributions each month are from adding sources (and doing what I can to at least present the facts in sentence form) to profiles others have created with no real verifiable sources entered.

I've done what I can to fully research them, too, even if I don't always do census information.  I have tracked down some difficult emigration/immigration details, as well.

@ Gillian .. what are these things you call "thanks"?   Do they taste like chicken, or like strawberry ice-cream, or can I wear them like a hat? 

---

let me cast my mind back.... lol

---

I agree with Cherry, research takes time. I would only add 20-30 people a month with biographies and source information.

The last check box before adding a new person asks for source information to be added, we need to be looking for Quality rather than Quantity

---

Hi Fiona, did you submit a Mentor Intervention Request so the person you are talking about can get help if they need it?

---

Eowyn, my concern is that she will know it is me as I've just withdrawn from a number of her family profiles that I created and she has thanked me and adopted them.

Answer 1

If you see anyone creating many profiles without sources, entering unsourced family tree, etc, create a Mentor Intervention Request form PLEASE!  The person you reported will not be told that you reported them and the mentor may send you a note, so you are aware that the person is now being mentored, which will probably make you feel better!

You are helping the Tree! I am a Mentor and I see a lot of Mentor Requests because of people not sourcing profiles when they are created.  Since we just had the Connect A Thon, I wonder how many were sourced properly.  I have seen plenty that were not sourced with correct sources.

Comments

Thanks, Linda. I’ve been concerned about this person for months, have sourced a fair number of profiles, have cheerily suggested places sources can be found as most are relatively easy and offered assistance.

Answer 2

Fiona, I understand your concerns completely. The only way to deal with this particular issue as it relates to contributions appreciations is to just stop doing it. (I can’t make this decision myself.)

Last month, there were 530 members who reached 1000 contributions. I did all of the appreciations for those members. What is beyond my capabilities (and would be for any month) is looking at 400+ members’ specific contributions to check on the quality of those. If this was necessary, then it would be the only WikiTreeing I’d do for the month. Even doing it the way I do now takes nearly a whole day with other duties (chores) and pleasures (food) interspersed, less if I have no interruptions.

Yes, it does devalue the achievement for members who really earn them when a member is not contributing the same quality. It’s like the old social promotions in school, right?

This is kind of “off topic,” but can I share with you my personal experience doing the appreciations, particularly the latest round? I read profile bios (when they are open enough), saw what people are working on, read articles that they’ve written and linked from their profile, checked out graphics design and photos. I’ve really gotten to know so many more of my fellow WikiTreers than I would have had I not had this responsibility. And, as often as I could, I commented on the things I saw on these profiles. This was a very real pleasure for me, and satisfying when I got some kind responses to boot.

Those (new) activities on my part were in response to one blistering message I got from one member to never post in his/her profile again, particularly citing the “boiler plate” message I sent around for the May appreciations.. So, this last time, I used three different messages and did the things I mentioned above, trying to personalize each one (not always successful as I tired near the end).

So, Fiona, even with my best efforts, I just couldn’t pull off what you’re asking. But I do promise you this: I will discuss this with the Appreciation Team and see what alternatives there are. Thank you for your post!

Comments

My opinion, although not expressed in as blistering terms, is that the Club 1000 badge itself is quite enough appreciation.

This new thing, posting messages on all the badged people every month seems to me a waste of time.

If this duty has made you look at member profile pages and getting to know them, I suppose that is a good thing. It may be something we should do more of.

For my part I mostly check up on people when I come across them doing suspicious things :-( I do care about accuracy more than about quantity. And it does not inspire trust when I see your cheery message on the profile of someone who is in the same category (or worse) as the person Fiona worries about.

---

Pip, great thoughts and I do appreciate what you have been doing!  

Maybe to cut down on some, if the appreciations weren't done each month to a profile, if the previous month, that profile also had 1000 contributions and you had thanked them.  Maybe that would help cut down on them, maybe do it every 3 months, if someone has that many every month, so it would be sent once a quarter.

Remember you can't please everyone all the time!

---

Pip, it is very kind of you to put so much effort into thanking Wikitreers for their hard work, but if it's that time-consuming, maybe you should cut back! There are only so many hours in a day, after all, and we don't want you burned out!

---

Please add me to the list of members who would be very happy not to receive congratulatory profile messages (and email notifications) for my monthly contributions badges.

---

I have messaged Pip. This was in no way meant as a criticism of him or the appreciation team who are doing a wonderful of acknowledging many people’s excellent contributions. Eva, I didn’t intend for my comment to be blistering or to single out individuals. In fact, collaboration and acknowledgment is what makes this site special. As stated, I would like to identify ways we could value really good genealogy, rather than just contribution.

---

Oh, Fiona. This is a misunderstanding. I don't think the blistering comment was yours - and I don't think it was mine, either (sure hope so). Pip mentioned "one blistering message I got from one member to never post in his/her profile again, particularly citing the “boiler plate” message I sent around for the May appreciations."

It so happens that I have also sent him a private message about the Club 1000 appreciation messages, also telling him I don't appreciate boiler plate messages, but expressing my appreciation and respect for all the friendly and useful work Pip does in G2G; certainly NOT telling him to never post on my profile again - but I did say he could do better things with his valuable time.

I'm not criticizing Pip - but I do think the Appreciation Project should reconsider this idea. It IS new. Which I know because I have a straight row of Club 1000 badges since March 2016 (the month after I joined). I'm retired and do genealogy on WikiTree every day, so the contribution count is just a spinoff.

I should also add that I have just been dealing with another case than the one that made you post this, of a person who certainly does not need more rewards for rapid production of substandard profiles and family connections. That member seems a bit addicted to "challenges" and "thons" and has thereby created some serious messes. It was a bit weird to see the Club 1000 thankyou on the profile of that member.

---

Eva, just so you know, I was not referring to you in my post above. Your message was to the point, yes, but not rude in any sense. Besides, I esteem your knowledge and abilities too much to not take seriously the things you say.

---

Fiona, it wasn’t you either! I took your earlier message to heart, but didn’t know how to handle the situation. I do understand that you were not criticizing me, but the concept. So, no worries!

---

Linda, thank you for your input. And I have learned (if only reading G2G posts) that in a community this large, there will always be someone who is not pleased. 

---

Thanks, Jessica. Really, it was not a chore, though I may have made it sound that way. I do enjoy letting folks know that their contributions, in whatever form they come, are noticed and appreciated. This duty (contribution appreciations) kinda just fell in with my personality.

---

@PIP -- Ah HAH! Thank you for that explanation, PIP -- answered a question I had about all those Appreciation notices. Now I don't have to ask g2g.

Answer 3

I am satisfied with myself if I can put meat on the bones with source. Recently in Australia we had this conversation and we agreed, a profile without sources and /or location was in my words , like mammary glands on a bull.

Comments

Dionne, someone has flagged this. Aussie humour not being understood again, I presume. I agree with your sentiment!

---

Thanks Fiona, what is the problem?

---

Perhaps someone doesn't think the word t i t s is suitable for G2G.

Here, have a tit.

Now count the seconds until I either get flagged, or this post vanishes.

---

Oh dear

---

I cleared the flag for you.

---

Kindest regards Maggie

---

Thank you, Maggie. 

---

Our American Titmice look much different than that one, beautiful!

---

Maggie, please don't clear the flag again.

I was the one who flagged it the first time, and yes, the word beginning with 't' USED IN THAT CONTEXT is not just vulgar, it is borderline 'cuss word' in some cultures.

If it is used in the context of the bird: tits is of course acceptable.  But this was not.  It was used in the sense of anatomy - and in that context is offensive.

---

Obviously there is a cultural divide going on here, because I see nothing offensive, or "borderline cuss" about the word "t i t s", any more than the word a$s (which Americans have become so used to being a term for a portion of the anatomy they seem to have forgotten it means donkey and so censor it in all contexts, which is why I self-censored).  It may be a tad (borderline) risqué, but crude, rude and vulgar it is not.

---

Don't worry, My intention was never to offend anyone. I humbly beseech your pardon. It is a pity that that tolerance when it comes to cultural sayings isn't tolerated.  I took the offending word out and replaced it with a more correct anatomical word. I also find it a pity that no- one laughed at my play on words about putting meat on the bones with source (sauce, i.e. making the profile come alive).

---

Humor, does not always translate well. This is especially true of humor such as was attempted here. Being a multicultural site, when such is pointed out, we should accept that it is a problem, avoid using such phrases in the future and move on. Belaboring the point is discourteous at best.

By the way, the phrase isn't just Australian humor. I grew up hearing it but it was never said in polite company so as to not offend anyone.

---

Rionne,

I want you to know that some of us did not grow up in the Victorian Age. 

I always hover my cursor over the poster's name, so if a picture is available, I imagine that person saying what I'm reading --more like a conversation than dry text reading. I'll tell you that my monitors were this | | close to being sprayed with coffee! 

HA! What fun! I appreciated your humor and am old enough to understand that sometimes even a slightly ribald ol' saying pretty much sums everything up better than anything else!

Thanks for making my morning!

Answer 4

Personally, I think it would have been much more appropriate to reach out the leader of the Appreciation Team and voice your concerns privately. This post feels like a public verbal lashing towards the Appreciation Team whose goal is in no way to police members.

The Appreciation Team is comprised of members who choose a particular area on WikiTree where they want to show their WikiTree love internally towards members who work hard. No one is asked to do anything specifically. They choose an area and that's what they do.

This is a newer project and will need tweaking (just like any project really). Feedback to leaders is helpful. Public posts slapping the hands of members is not.

Comments

In hindsight, Emma, you are probably correct. I should have contacted the team leader personally, and I now know how small your team is. I had no intention of publically verbally lashing anyone or publically slapping anyone's hands and I tried to make my original post as generic as possible so that no individual was singled out. While I love the friendliness of WikiTree and the idea of rewarding good work, public forums like this also have a place in airing member concerns. After all, we are supposed to be one big family.

---

I had a big contribs number for July but added a lot of Holocaust profiles. Big number because when I add a source I hit the SAVE . Lot of t-storms and outages my area this summer and I lose stuff that was hard to find if I don't "save" as I go and whammo outage and reboot computer.

Answer 5

It seems to me it is primarily the Thons, and maybe the Club 1,000 badges, that encourage quantity over quality.  As for Pip's messages, they are sweet but I agree he probably needn't spend the time.

Comments

Julie, I'd hate to think that anyone is here just for the badges. Aren't most of us adults? The team a-Thons do seem to encourage unnecessary competition, but are at least an opportunity to work on the tree together. And I absolutely appreciate everything that Pip does. His presence and contribution make WikiTree a much friendlier, more welcoming place. My post was never a criticism of him or directly the members of the Appreciation Team, but rather the concept of recognising someone undeserving.

---

I was not criticizing Pip.  I was reacting to him saying it took him a whole day to do those messages, and simply thought, as someone else said above, that if a person got a badge, maybe that was appreciation enough.

Answer 6

Fiona,

Having been a manager in large organizations for decades,  I'm familiar with the goals of appreciation and acknowledgement programs.    They will never be perfect.  They are intended to improve the moral and work environment;  perhaps even increase productivity and effectiveness.   So it's always alarming when the reward programs themselves actually generate controversy.  (Try adding large bonuses to the rewards to increase the controversy!!)

I think the WikiTree members that receive acknowledgement for their  monthly contributions REALIZE quality wasn't considered.   The onus is on the WikiTree member to provide quality.   If the member doesn't realize they are providing poor quality work,  that's a separate issue from our reward programs.   If the member is purposefully cheating the system,  that's a bit strange but it probably happens.

But if you're trying to not reward the WikiTreers  that  "work the system", then you miss out on rewarding the  99.9% that weren't working the system...... because the effort to review the quality of work would be onerous.   

To me, it's best  to keep the rewards program separate from quality issues.  I like using Linda Peterson's approach of using the Mentor Intervention Request form instead.

Just my approach.   But I certainly agree with your concerns about quality.

Comments

Thanks Peggy. My thought is that the PM is just going her own sweet way, adding unsourced profiles and making minor tweaks to suit herself, without even considering quantity or rewards.