I have developed several personal guidelines for ignoring sites I don't want. I tell it to ignore these sites, but they keep coming back. What is the sense of having the ignore function if it isn't permanent?
Probably the managers are spawning of new trees by Save as for some reason. I have one manager that I counted up to 75 different trees with new dates all the time. Now I have not seen any new trees lately so something has happened. If MH has informed him/her or the manager have finaly stopped spawning of new trees or not used MH lately, I dont know.
One of my criteria is the age of the "tree" with the smart match. I believe many people start a tree then quit. If the tree isn't maintained, it probably isn't very valuable. The manager was probably not that interested in accuracy, either. Good or bad, that's my criteria.
Many sites had their last update 5 or more years ago. I tell the program to ignore and it still comes back. Another criteria is that many sites display almost nothing but "private" for their data. I'm not particularly interested in wasting time on those sites, either. I don't think the dates of a tree should override my decision on whether to take time with a sites S's
IF and I say IF the tree data was accurate then sure maintain the tree and all is good.
I think the user was trying to say that if a discrepencyis discovered, and the user is "gone into the cyberspace" the data is NOT good and the tree is INVALID or at least has elemnts that should be changed.
There is a vast difference between an accurate tree and having THAT data available as opposed to a tree with errors that just get perpetuated and APPEAR to be vindicated just becuse many users have adopted the tree.
Ron, you said, 'I think the user was trying to say that if a discrepancy is discovered, and the user is "gone into the cyberspace" the data is NOT good and the tree is INVALID or at least has elements that should be changed.'
I agree, and that is why I suggested to MH that they allow comments to be 'stuck onto' trees by other members.
I'm not sure if I read your post correctly (I'm from Sweden). If there are discrepencis between an old tree and a new one, what says that the error is in the old tree? I have many cases where I find new errors in trees compared with my data which I entered long time ago and I know that there are no new research data. What I do know is that there are some old research litterature scaned, where new research has proved it wrong, which many people use since they only want to access free books and dont want to spend money on the new research litterature. How do I know that the data is resently entered in the tree? The manager became member of MH after I entered my data.
Also there is new litterature that rest on old research where there now are new findings, so you really need to check out the sources. This was highlighted in a swedish genealogy forum where someone refered to a resently published book and a researcher pointed out that that book rested on old research.
Why is an old tree not updated? Maybe because it is fully researsched and without faults.
"I contend that if a tree is published and subsequent to that publishing date the user ceases to be financial, thus CANNOT be contacted for "discussion and or (deiting) (amendment of data??)" then that tree is not valid.
MY have the view that it WAS valid and the data does not change simply because the user is non financial."
I must categorically agree with My Heritage.
But I have suggested to them (and at least they said it is a good idea) that other MH members may be able to leave a "COMMENT" in a tree.
Another well-known genealogy program allows this, with a big green pencil icon and the name of the member inserting the comment.
The issue I raised was not whethr the tree was or was not "valid". It is an issue of having to spend hours or days going thru 5,000 smart matches that have varying degrees of validity to me. Especially the sites where all (most) of the data is <private>. The program says I can mark a site to ignore, now and future, smart matches from a site, and can reset the ignore if I chose.
If a site is updated for deaths and births, the date is updated. This makes my point!!! Ignores could be permanent unless rreset by the user, and a reset could be dependent on how old the data is. I should be able to make my own decisions on how to expedite the construction of my site!!!
The software has changed - I used to be able to test the <private> data in a match because hovering the cursor over the stars would show which data (names/dates) matched and which didn't for <private> as well as public data. However the software has been 'upgraded' and hovering now produces no result. This makes me very reluctant to accept suggested matches and suggests a trend towards automated confirmation (e.g. any matches with five stars) which would destroy the credibility of matching.
Why are the data marked <private> in the first place? Were the managers just too lazy to untick the "alive" box?