Search for content in message boards

Public Member Trees Rating System by fellow owners

Public Member Trees Rating System by fellow owners

Posted: 13 Feb 2014 9:29PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 13 Feb 2014 9:29PM GMT
Public Member Trees needs some type of "review" and "one to ten star rating" system at each Tree to be rated from "Excellent Tree" down to "Tree Needs To Go Private" until
cleaned up.

Each review, made by visitor if he desires to, from excellent down to terrible, the owner would automatically get a notice of review and rating to his email inbox.
The visiting reviewers return email addresses would also be open to help keep down and ward off malicious reviews.
One review per visitor.

A sophisticated ten star review system on accuracy, sloppiness, pure bunk, etc etc .
Let the real experts at Ancestry decide what categories needs to be in the rankings.

It doesn't take anyone very long to see what a mess that a,, much too large,, of a portion of the Public Member Trees has gotten really really bad over the years.
A well intended family tree feature that went sour fast from irresponsible weekend warriors suffering from ADT.

I'd venture to say that half the trees at PMTs needs deleting, or made private, started over to give the PMT back some credibility as a "go to site" for responsible people to put their trees online.

When enough bad ratings add up to a certain level on any one tree, Ancestry Administration should have the right to make it Private until the owner gets it cleaned up and corrected
before going back to Public,, or owner can delete.
Most will never come back to tend to it anyway. Allowing the bad trees to remain public is really not fair to the owners that work hard to have
a good tree. Even an average tree.

The Public Member Trees at Ancestry no doubt have become a blight on the entire Ancestry site.

Anything worth doing is worth doing right. That's holds true for the irresponsible tree owners and the Ancestry's movers and shakers (administration) that just looks the other way,, enabling bad behavior .

There's enough blame to go around for everybody.

Re: Public Member Trees Rating System by fellow owners

Posted: 13 Feb 2014 10:45PM GMT
Classification: Query
I would most certainly not support any type of tree police. If that were to be done, I would certainly remove all my trees. I agree that many of the trees are junk but there are many that are not and the content can be subjective as well.

Re: Public Member Trees Rating System by fellow owners

Posted: 13 Feb 2014 10:51PM GMT
Classification: Query
Trees aren't created for your benefit, they are created for the tree owner's benefit. It's each individual's job to maintain their own tree, not go around trying to "fix" and judge other people's trees.

Re: Public Member Trees Rating System by fellow owners

Posted: 14 Feb 2014 12:09AM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 14 Feb 2014 12:11AM GMT
Jerry - this has been proposed from time to time, but there are a lot of reasons that (IMO) it should not be done. First and foremost, the very people whose public trees you (rightfully) despise would be allowed to have an opinion on the propriety of YOUR tree - and if ten trees say X (incorrectly) and only yours says Y (correctly), then the consensus is likely to be that YOUR tree is the one that's wrong. That is, the votes are going to be for the ten that say X, because "everybody" says that, so you are the one who is out of step, and therefore "wrong" (never mind that the others all copied mindlessly from each other, and that even if those trees have a few records or photos attached, there is a high likelihood that they attached anything with a similar name, without regard to all the indicators that point to it not being the same person).

I agree with the comment above - I would remove/privatize my trees immediately, if such a system were put into place. Also, I would not want to take time away from my own research just to try to critique the messes other people have created.

Re: Public Member Trees Rating System by fellow owners

Posted: 14 Feb 2014 12:18AM GMT
Classification: Query
"Public Member Trees needs some type of "review" and "one to ten star rating" system at each Tree to be rated from "Excellent Tree" down to "Tree Needs To Go Private" until cleaned up."

What nonsense. Go do some genealogy.

Re: Public Member Trees Rating System by fellow owners

Posted: 14 Feb 2014 12:20AM GMT
Classification: Query
For my benefit?

Sure would be nice if all these junk trees., that are protected so well, that use my hard work willy nilly that was really researched, documented to the max and proven correct, for years and pieced together,, would stop using my work for "their benefit" that they put in their so called family files for their benefit, of course shouldn't benefit me.
I'm talking about dozens of junked up trees that use my work and my work is not even at Ancestry.com in any way but another site online.
Condone and enable mediocrity, or even less if you want to. That's not my nature.

And when I say "my hard work" I don't mean the online lazy clicking around like most here do. Don't have a clue about it, nor care about. Can't even grasp what it's all
about it as far as I can tell.
Just plagiarize others hard proven works and paste it into their sorry pathetic little files and call that genealogy,, research. And I don't mean work that I gathered from online like these jokers here, I mean driving for miles, hundreds of ,miles in some cases, spending long hours in archives and back rooms of libraries digging stuff out to piece it all together so the lazy ones can copy/paste and brag about what all they have researched and done . Of course you might not understand that yourself. much less care about any of that.

It wouldn't be so bad for the lazy ones to use my, or others, work, for that matter, if they just wouldn't start whittling on it and twisting and warping it to fit their liking.
But I'm sure that approach is okay with you too and from what I am learning here, would be okay with most in these forums. What a shame.

So when you spout,, "" Trees aren't created for your benefit"" to me, you need to know more about what you spout about before you spout.

My work is good enough to benefit them but not good enough to benefit me,, the schmuck that created much of their files to begin with.

I think I am seeing the light here and can see now how the PMTs got so screwed up. So please pardon me for trying to come up with ideas to better this sites features.
I won't do it again. Let the whole site remain to look like a bunch of foolish clowns trying to play research aka copy/paste.

And for you guys that would remove your trees if it were to be critiqued by your peers,, what does that say about you and your work? If you can't stand the pressure, don't dress out?

Re: Public Member Trees Rating System by fellow owners

Posted: 14 Feb 2014 12:28AM GMT
Classification: Query
You wrote: And for you guys that would remove your trees if it were to be critiqued by your peers,, what does that say about you and your work? If you can't stand the pressure, don't dress out?

You do realize that those people who can not recognize that mother's are never born after their children are the very people who will critique the accuracy of your tree, do you not? How does that benefit anyone, much less the serious researcher...

Re: Public Member Trees Rating System by fellow owners

Posted: 14 Feb 2014 12:41AM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 14 Feb 2014 12:53AM GMT
Yes I can see now where you guys are right and I am dead wrong about the ideas, or ideas, to improve things here.
I see now, plain as day now, that the forum has become what it deserved to become.

I was wrong I was wrong I was wrong. You guys, surprisingly, makes it so easy to say those few words for one time in my life.

And you are right, I think I will go do some genealogy.

Re: Public Member Trees Rating System by fellow owners

Posted: 14 Feb 2014 12:47AM GMT
Classification: Query
I agree now and yes, like I said, I stand corrected about it all. You guys are right 110%

Re: Public Member Trees Rating System by fellow owners

Posted: 14 Feb 2014 12:56AM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 14 Feb 2014 12:57AM GMT
If you don't like people taking your hard work, make your tree private. Everyone is entitled to create their tree however they want. It's their tree, not yours, not anyone else's. They do not exist to help other researchers - while they can accomplish this sometimes, that it not their purpose.

Stop worrying about other people's trees and just work on your own. If other people have errors in their tree, that's their problem, not yours. Why do you care so much what is in other people's trees? Because it makes finding accurate information from them more difficult? Genealogy is all about taking conflicting information and sorting out the good info from the bad - if you don't like doing that, don't do genealogy.

"And for you guys that would remove your trees if it were to be critiqued by your peers,, what does that say about you and your work? "

It says that I don't give a crap what other people think of my tree so I have no interest in other people "rating" it. I work on my tree, not other people's trees, and it's no one else's business what is in my tree. Don't like what's in my tree? Unless you're going to *politely* offer to collaborate instead of criticizing my tree like you're entitled to fix it, then keep your nose out of it and in your own tree.
per page

Find a board about a specific topic