Any honest person applying for LDS MH accout needs to be given the MH/FS Agreement for review, or must be unwilling to bind themselves to it, as required in the current MH Terms of Linking. We will not be blindly bound by it, and will recommend widely by every means available that all members of the Church of Jesus Christ should likewise withdraw from MyHeritage until the demand for compliance with a secret document is removed from the MH Terms of Linking, or that all applicable terms of the document are made available for review by members affected by it .
Frankly, we have given the matter some thought, and cannot conceive of any morally defensible reason for MH to make such a demand, We feel shocked and threatened by this lack of transparency.
We look forward to an amicable resolution of this impasse, and continuing success of your enterprise.
I am happy for other members to see my family tree, but I do not want anybody except immediate family to have access to info about the living members of my family. Woud it be possible to place blocks individually on people in my tree to protect their info from strangers?
Somebody, very distantly related (back in late 1700s), has copied all the info about my family including photos of myself a particulars of my daughter and her family. I have removed this info from my site now, and requested that they are removed from the other tree.
I managed to get in touch with some 2nd and 3rd cousins and their families, who I have not seen for 50 -60 years, and for their benefit I would like the info about living people to be there.
Thanks for your answer, that makes me feel bit better. I know I can cancel this person's access now, but that is bit late. I would like to be able to make a different setting between close people who I know and trust, and very distantly related people, who I invited to my tree and they are welcome to all the info about long dead ancestors, but not more recent ones; I do not really like info about my parents and their siblings to be copied and put on other trees either. Some of their decendants might get upset about that.
Sadly I am now considering to make my tree private as well.
I have invited some people who accepted, but did not allow me access to their tree, even that by our "smart matches" we should be very closely related, but I do not know who they are. I think the system would be more fair if person who gets access into another tree would automatically grant access into their tree. Basically, you could not take without giving.
Just an observation really but this is the first forum I've ever been on that doesn't give live data such as who is logged in etc. Can't help wonder if its because finding these forums are not at all obvious and seem slow to show much new activity? Any thoughts?
First, I'd like to thank MyHeritage for providing this great online genealogy service. I've been doing a mini research to find the best online genealogy service. So far, MyHeritage.com is the easiest to use, the feature is the most complete, and the price is the most affordable. Or simply said, MyHeritage.com is the best online genealogy service. And the mobile app is great and very helpful for mobile data entry!
Second, as anything in this world, nothing is perfect. I still have a major complaint about MyHeritage. Other than that, everything else is good to great. It's about the family tree member access and privilege management. Currently, MyHeritage manages this simply by setting a family member as site manager or not. Nothing else. Of course, this is not adequate to accomodate some access privilege scenarios.
So, here I'd like to propose another solution for that problem. I believe my solution is pretty simple yet able to cover most of family tree management requirements. I propose there are 4 kinds of family member, they are:
1. Site manager: S/he owns the highest and widest access to the family tree member. S/he is able to view and edit all of the information of every single person in the family tree. It's exactly like the current site manager.
2. Family manager: S/he is the second rank of the family tree manager. S/he is like the site manager except s/he has limited access to only a part of the family tree, instead of the whole tree. S/he is assigned by the site manager to be the manager of a specified family tree. You may say s/he is a site manager assistant. Her/his scope is defined from (any) single person on the family tree (not necessarily her/him-self) then goes down to all of that person's decendants, plus that person's spouse. Outside of this given scope, s/he only can view all of the information of all persons in the famiy tree. Plus, s/he is not allowed to delete change log entry.
3. Family maintainer: S/he is on the third rank. S/he is like the family manager except s/he got more limited access to only her/his own direct and immediate family. S/he is automatically only able to edit her/his own spouse(s), parents, siblings, and children, or any persons with direct relation ("line") to her/him. S/he is not allowed to edit any persons out of her/his direct and immediate family, not even her/his own grand parents, uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces, cousins, nor grand children, nor any persons with no direct relation to her/him. To other persons out of her/his own direct and immediate family, s/he can only view.
4. Family visitor: S/he is on the bottom of the rank, before public guest. S/he is like current regular site member but with slightly better access. S/he is only allowed to edit her/his own personal information, no other else, not even her/his own spouse(s). And this will also to make sure that any site members are truly part of the family tree, no outsiders are allowed. To any other persons on the family tree, s/he can only view. In my case, I need this for the teens or unmarried on my family. They need to know her/his family tree but s/he doesn't (yet) have enough privilege to modify the tree. :)
In addition to this family visitor member, a site or family manager can further limit her/his view access. If the limited view option is enabled, a family visitor can only view two levels from her/his own position on the family tree. So, if I'm a family visitor with limited view option enabled, the farthest person I can view on the family tree are:
- my grand parents (parents of my parents),
- siblings of my parents (with spouses) aka my uncles and aunts,
- my cousins (with spouses) but not including their children,
- and my grand children (with spouses) but not including their children.
To any persons further than those, the family visitor is treated like a public guest. This limitation is very useful for teens of the family who doesn't quite understand the importance of personal data privacy. So these teens can only view her/his close family members, in order to prevent potential privacy violation to any other members of the family.
And, of course the last is the public guest which is already available, if allowed by the tree manager.
So, there is my proposal for better family tree access and previlige management. I do hope MyHeritage.com to consider and implement my proposal because I need this to manage my family tree. I can't work on it alone since my family tree is quite big, I need help from other members of my family. But I can't let them all to become the site managers, I need to limit their access to the family tree.
This problem is the only complaint of mine as a new happy user of MyHeritage.com service.
Again, thank you for this great online genealogy service. I wish MyHeritage luck and success.
PS. I apologize if my english is pretty bad because english is not my first language. :)
Have started using record matches page and really like the tick and cross boxes for selecting confirmed or rejected. How about putting the same sort of thing on the smart matches page?
Also, for those of us with poor visual acuity, a brighter green on the tick button would be appreciated - the current green is hard to distinguish from the fefault grey, even though the fact that the "review match" button goes grey instead of blue means that it is not hard to figure out which have/have not been confirmed.
I am scanning old Slides from 80 years ago and putting them in family Albums. Now on these slides my Grandmother wrote down the exact date, place and family group at a family reunion in the Photo back in September 1935.
I'm having other Branches come in and tag there ancestors within that photo.
What thay are doing besides tagging persons, is changing the date and Place. OR deleting origional infromation entirely.
If we are going to "share" photo's The person with the origional documention should be able to "lock" fields based on the facts from the person who took the photo, not to be modified by a great-great-grand child born 50 years later.
Site Supervisors are in essence profile Managers who are sharing historical facts. If somebody tries to alter a known fact they should have to be able prove an alteration. Not just go in and delete or modify the data from the photo.
What I mean is on Photo's or ducuments assigned to an individual, a closed or open paddlock should be assiged to the field, date, place, individuals. And when the field is shown with a closed paddlock, it just can't be modified, unless there is discussion and a presention of facts to justify a change.
It would promote discussion among the family, and make use of your message boards. Which aren't being Used.
My grandparents took these photo's 80 years ago. They wrote in the margins of the slide, DATE, PLACE, and Title. Sometimes mentioning all the people in the slide. When there wasn't enough room for the the people, they would say the millers and hogles. Like the Family reunion photo I refer to above.
At that point that photo becomes a historical document. Like a marriage license or birth certificate. Proving these people at this place at this time. I don't mind sharing photo's with other family trees. So as it is they too could alter those "known" facts along with my own family site members which should also not be possible.
It's a cluster F waiting to happen after 50 years. Heck, I"ve only had some of these photo's up for a couple weeks and they are already being modified by people who weren't even there, don't know when it was taken who I only asked to tag their relatives, their great grand mother and changed the facts of the photo.
I am having to migrate my family history site to this site from my family.com, which is closing. I can see that there are some interesting facilities for research here, but I am feeling dismayed that there seems to be no way of having a proper discussion with other site members - or am I missing something? We are already well-researched becasue of work done by past family members over many decades. We have vast amount of data: photographs, documents etc, and, although we are not averse to new information about family links, the prime object has always been more to share and to make sense of the data we already have. We have worked at uncovering more of the stories around the (many) people we know about, and it has always been very interesting, with a lot of lively debate and then sometimes someone showing up with a new bit of data which fills a gap in our knowledge. Myfamily.com allowed us to start a discussion thread about anything, any time we liked, and to go on for as long as we liked. Sorry, but at the moment this site is striking me as a whole lot less sociable - the 'share your news' thingy seems to cut off after a mere two lines - useless!!! (And no, I don't want to tell people if I am 'feeling weird', thanks, it is not about me, but rather (for example) that I have made a new discovery about Great-Great Aunt Somebody's Will ... or maybe I have overlooked something? Or is this something which could be considered?
I have come across several cases (in the concensus page of smart matching on the web) where I know for a fact that the most common concensus data is wrong. This has included spelling of names, and dates that I have confirmed via BDM websites. When there are only a couple of people, I sometimes "do the right thing" and select 'contact' to send an e-mail with the correction etc. But when there are lots - and recently I found 9 at once, I don't bother, because it would just take too long.
Now what would be great is a way to send a message to everyone with a smart match on the concensus page - a small message of course something like "Fred Nurke's date of birth is definitely 1977, not 1974 - see Qld BDM reg 1234".
This would greatly assist everyone to get the most accurate trees possible, even if only a few people take advantage of it.
I go to the smart match overview page on the website. I select the "People" tab, which takes a while to load. I then click on the "view matches" button for a person, which takes a while to load. I review the matches to delete or confirm them, which reloads the page, which takes a while, then review the "concensus" panel - great option, by the way - and copy or edit as appropriate, and click "save changes", which reloads that page, which takes a while. Then I have to reload the smart match page, which takes a whlie ... and start the whole thing over again.
(1)- It would be so much quicker to have a button on the "concensus" page (and the smart match page that shows all matches to a tree) that would go straight to the next match, without having to reload the smart matches overview page.
(2)- I'd like to set an option so that I automatically went to the "people" page without having to load the smart match page of trees first. It annoys me that there is no way to avoid the wasted time/download.
(3)- This is probably not possible, but it would be good to avoid the repeated refreshing of a page. By this, I mean can it be done that I could confirm or reject, copy and edit, etc, and then click a "refresh" button which does the whole lot at once, rather than having to spend more time waiting for the page to download than it does to review and make the changes?
By the way, I have a fast conmputer and high speed broadband, so I don't know how people with a slower system can afford the time it must take!