Suggestion: Restricting open-edit FamilyTree: 'View My Relationship' approach
Note: Somehow in the process of making this suggestion it was duplicated. The duplicates can be removed and this version remain.
I would love to be able to mark some near deceased ancestors as 'sufficiently complete'/'locked'/'claimed as a near relation'/'claim priority edit rights'/removed from 'open-edit' - but don't find that option in the Tree. :(
I have a general suggestion related to several other posted ideas I have made on the topic of 'restricting' open-edits to the FamilyTree.
The current features of 'View My Relationship' and 'Record Hints' could help users control open-edits of persons more closely related to them in the Tree.
General principle: If you are more closely related then you would see edits from further-related/non-related users as suggestions/hints to accept or reject - the behavior would change from the current process so that open-edit would be a suggestion for more closely related users to decide. Yes, this would require a comparison of 'view my relationship' between the user suggesting the edit and more closely related descendants. One would believe descendants should more responsibly determine whether edits are valid or not. I would hope this would help new Tree users avoid causing difficult/frustrating issues to untangle for more closely related persons. If users learned their suggested Tree change would not immediately take effect - hopefully this would help them more carefully make the suggestions. Further I would hope this would make collaboration through messaging more appealing - the current process of allowing open-edit leaves too much opportunity for malicious/random changes without collaboration.
I think this general principle especially helps for closer generations - as one goes further back the relationships (at least to me) are more of a collaboration with other Tree users. The principle - say after 5 generations for example - could be expanded into a 'family association group' - where users of like 'view my relationship' degree could be alerted 'as a group' - to accept/reject 'edit hints' as a group - rather than the current individual process. What I mean by - 'as a group' - would be something along the lines of accepting being a 'yea' vote and rejecting being a 'nay' vote - and no change proceeding to publication until a 'super majority' responds to the polling hint(s). Of course this idea presumes enough active descendants in the Tree to accept/reject the hints - perhaps some modifications could be made to the idea - but I think this general principle has merit as an approach to restricting the current open-edit process.
A 'completeness' locking seems to make sense as well. If after years no one has challenged attached vital records - shouldn't they be considered 'complete' and be able to be 'locked' from edit/removal. I would rather the person/records be locked from removal and require a 'request permission' process than allow erroneous open-edit removal without collaboration/explanation. After all isn't that what my original attachment of the record indicates? My assertion that the record documents 'this person' to the exclusion of others?
Comments
-
More closely related people are likely to have access to family lore to use as evidence. I.e.: I understand my mother's birthday is Sep. 10. Without documentation, however, that is just family lore. Sound genealogical research requires family lore takes a back seat to primary evidence. In lieu of such documentation, however, the "more closely related" descendants could have dibs.
Similarly, the idea that "...descendants should more responsibly determine whether edits are valid or not" does not cut it. It is sound research, not closeness of kin, should be the judge of validity. I know it is frustrating. We, too, have been held hostage by people who come in and do drive-by changes and vanish. So, all other things being equal, I am fine with the closest kin holding the trump card.
2 -
it seems from your posts that you do favor restricting/banning GEDCOM - Why not this middle-ground approach? GEDCOM/Tree-syncing just allows quicker - drive-by-merge/edits...
I take it that you would be more in favor of including 'most active contributors' to the Tree rather than descendants as the restricting 'moderator' - am I correct in this understanding of your position? This is a valid point - and I don't see why it could not be worked into this 'restricting' approach. Perhaps a two-level pre-publication approval process or something similar.
Thank you - I appreciate both your perspectives so far. What sources would you think you could not 'submit for approval' in this method? This method says nothing about not attaching valid sources ... It just restricts who can accept/publish them or reject them. I agree valid sources/documentation are desired - but would you really want a distant cousin removing the close relation sources/person you have researched during a merge? Why not allow the closer relation/family group the opportunity to do that merge? If closer relations 'are not capable' or not able to watch multiple generations (not effective) then what about the descendants electing a 'family association representative/group' they view as capable? As far as standardization of places and dates - yes important but secondary in my opinion. To be clear I'm not wanting to do away with merging - I just want to try to ensure a merge does result in a 'better' version of the person being merged.
Plus as I mention - this method would likely generate more collaboration - persuasive explanation from a researcher of their reasoning for the requested changes. But you are right - it might introduce frustration with others not being persuaded by 'evidence' - I hadn't really considered that side of things. But if research and evidence are primary - why allow a merge without any 'reasoned' evidence (yes I know there are reason statements - but I have yet to see a decent one in 'drive-by-merges' I have experienced - no reason was typically given-thankfully I've only experienced a few)?
This brings up another point - open-editing has been the case for quite a while now - for largely 'complete' people why not move to this restricted approach? I realize maybe all the cousins haven't contributed but is a residence record or standardizing a placename a good reason to merge? It seems like maybe I need to revisit merge and refresh my memory about what has changed 'again' - but I still like this restricting approach especially with GEDCOM and tree-sync being available.
Just an idea here that I think has merit - if you can persuade me it's not better than the current open-edit - I'm game to listen. I do take your point about documentation but I don't see how that couldn't work in this suggested idea. If you don't like 5 generations then what about 4 - is that closely enough related that the idea has merit?
0
