I think its time for myheritage to lift their heads from the sand and relailse that some site managers have not got enough brains to publish their data and overwrite the old. So they just keep adding another tree.
I think it boils down to insecurity that their hard work may be lost. Now wouls that be a shame for some.
But for those of us trying to get on with things the useless habit of having Mytree01 and mytree02 and my tree0111, is just a nonsense and I would like to see the system changes such that a manger can have only one tree version.
I agree that we are entitled to have various trees depicting different "branches" but what I objsect to is multiple versions of the same tree.
I too would like to see an end to multiple trees. Some are done on a monthly basis so a new one is added each month. I have been marking the new ones as "Ignore this tree" when they come up, but that is time consuming too. We don't need to confirm over and over because someone is too lazy or ignorant to work with one tree.
I agree with you. Seems to be a case of laziness or fear, but having multiple-multiple trees is not in anyone's best interest. I doubt even the manager can keep them straight, so most, I am guessing, go dormant after awhile.
Certainly there is a problem. One manager with whom I regularly exchange matches has eight trees and another has maybe six. So if they each have a match with my tree I have fourteen 'transactions' to make rather than two. And until Family Tree Builder and the web sites are synchronised (rolll on the day!) I will be matching in BOTH so that is twentyeight transactions. No wonder matching is a slow process.
I can see value in there being an extra tree, a Master Tree, in each family site. Synchronised to the trees that currently can exist and which in the better sites might each concentrate on an individual branch of the family or families. Or with the ability of the site manager to click on the name of the tree(s) she wants the match to be with. SmartMatching only to be between Master Trees.
Then I would have one match (with each family site) instead of anywhere from one to eight.
It would probably make it easier for managers to manipulate 'people' between their trees. I would be happy I think for matches to be between master trees, and then I could move people around so that I had a tree for my mother's line, my father's line, and the same for my wife's family lines. And put the people I have a record for who are a bit remote for any individual tree, only in the master tree in case their information is useful later in one of the individual trees. We all have some of these people.