23 million connected (3M more in less than one year)

Question

From the Connection Finder today :

23,003,209 people are connected to each other on our global family tree.

It was less than one year ago, July 31st 2020, when we passed the 20 million milestone. Steady annual growth of over 15%!

Kudos to all connectors!

Comments

 - with a 'main' tally of - -
Our tree includes 27,422,996 profiles (8,415,411 with DNA test connections) edited by 824,342 genealogists from around the world.
 - about 2 hrs later - - - thanks Bernard Vatant

---

Thanks for highlighting these numbers, Bernard and John! We'll mention this in the newsletter.

Answer 1

Thanks for this, Bernard. Just goes to show how dedicated our members are to making WikiTree the best it can be. Kudos to our wonderful community!

Answer 2

Just an off the wall observation that this post brings to mind.....

     We can clearly see our G2G rankings and make certain inferences. Combine that ranking with the confirmation date and other inferences can be made. For example, I signed on in 2013 and have just hit the G2G6 Mach 5 level.....what does that say to you? 

     Another ranking, of sorts, is the contribution number. Inferences can be made from that (with again the confirmation date adding additional insights).

     We regularly see forum posts celebrating individuals who have hit Pilot or Astronaut levels etc... on the forum. And we see posts like this one celebrating the aggregate number of new profiles created & connected.

     Who are the individuals who have created & connected all those profiles? Why are we not celebrating them as we celebrate G2G milestones?

     For example, you all can see my contribution number. But, can you tell me how many profiles I've created & connected?  Maybe I just created 10 profiles and spent the rest of the time making edits....who knows?

     Please understand that I am not saying this out of any egotistical desire for awards etc... I'm merely observing what (to me) is a lopsided appreciation/knowledge of who is active in the forum versus who is active in actually creating the tree. 

     As a researcher, I regularly use all those data points to "consider the source" when I analyze either G2G discussions or when viewing profiles created by others. For example, If John Doe, with 1 year here and 100 contributions, says X on G2G: but Jane Doe, with 5 years and 10,000 contributions says Y----which source do I consider more solid?

     With ONLY raw contribution counts, the example above could be analyzed completely incorrectly if John Doe had actually created & connected 100 profiles (completely sourced etc....of, course!) and Jane Doe had only created & connected 10 and just made 9,990 typo corrections......

     I wish we could figure out a way to not only acknowledge  those individuals who made these numbers happen to bring their work more in balance with G2G acknowledgements but to help all the rest of us recognize that "when E. F. Hutton speaks"..........

Comments

Did you know that you can do a text search in WikiTree+ with a query like "creator_Andreola-1"?

I'm not asking for more types of recognition - but it's sometimes interesting to see.

---

Thanks Eva! I did not know that. I guess that just makes the point that I can see your G2G status instantly but have to go searching for your actual (EXTRAORDINARY NUMBER!!!!!!) of profiles created....

---

Nick, you are speaking of things I've never thought about. When something speaks or writes, here in this forum like anywhere else I just try to listen and figure if it makes sense or not. Whatever credentials backing the discourse I rarely check.

[edited] And for example just noticed because you mention it the astronaut pilot etc mentions after our names here. You won't believe me if I say I never noticed them before, but it's the truth. Should I take a minute to figure what they mean, or continue to ignore them?

---

Bernard, I guess its just a flaw in my personality  but I'm always "considering the source". 

You have to do you! 

For me, knowing that Eva is not only a G2G Pilot, has 130K contribs, but is a LEVEL 12 Creator would cause me to listen to what she has to say over someone like me that is only a G2G Mach 5, with 130K contribs, but is only a LEVEL 8 Creator etc....I would put more value in her opinion/experience level than mine.....just my quirk I guess 

---

Nick, I totally get what you are saying here. I have wondered if there was a way to figure out how many profiles I have created.  Apparently there is a way to run a report on wikitree+ but I have never been able to make sense of that function.  The system certainly knows which profiles you have created when it issues your suggestions report!

---

"but I have never been able to make sense of that function" LOL! Don't feel like the Lone Ranger! I struggle with it, and have RARE successes 

You are (like Eva) an example of someone who deserves some recognition for making the numbers shown on this post actually happen...Mad Respect to you both! You'd be a LEVEL 13 Creator!

---

I just figured it out! It's actually really easy, the hard part is finding Wikitree+ in the first place!

https://wikitree.sdms.si/default.htm?report=srch1&Query=creator

In the box labeled "text" enter your wikitree ID after the word creator with an underscore in between....

creator_Andreola-1 for example

Thanks to Eva for pointing this out.

So far, out of the few names I have checked, Sir William Arbuthnot of Kittybrewster has the most with more than 20,000 profiles created.

---

  I just think that Sir William should somehow get some props for that. Shouldn't there be something like an announcement on G2G when he goes from Level 20 to Level 21? Something that we could all pay our respects and give our appreciation on? Why is it just the number of posts that get the acclamations?

---

An important reason why we have (1) G2G points and (2) statistics for contributions is that the software adopted for use here is configured to track those numbers.

I believe that adding tracking for things like profile creation would require new programming -- and I believe we have wish-list items for our techies that are far higher priority than adding a new metric for member activity. Features like these often turn out to be more complicated to program than we think they should be. As an illustration of that, when I tried WikiTree+ search for created by [myself], I found that the first profile I supposedly created is one that I did not create (although I did edit it in 2017, eight years after someone else created it).

Note that WikiTree does track thank yous as another measure of how valuable a member is.

---

After you run your report on # profiles created, you can click on "Bio Check" to see profiles that are unsourced or have other issues.

---

Is all this discussion completely off-topic re. the post title, or is it just me?

@Nick You have to do you! What does that mean?

For the record, beyond language (english only interface), a barrier I've several times heard to adoption of WikiTree by (serious) French genealogists is all this bling-blang of badges, kudos, thanks, ranking and other considered kindergarten rewards, which enforce them in the cliché les Américains sont de grands enfants.

---

 - in context - -

Bernard, I guess its just a flaw in my personality  but I'm always "considering the source". 

You have to do you!  - - should read =
You have to (always "considering the source". ) .. Do you ?

- - thanks folks - john.a

---

 - Ellen Smith - thanks for the comment = As an illustration of that, when I tried WikiTree+ search for created by [myself], I found that the first profile I supposedly created is one that I did not create (although I did edit it in 2017, eight years after someone else created it). = -

- ? are you now the PM of it and does it appear on your 'watchList' - - ja

 - = Added = - have looked at the WT+ report , and the 'phrase' is =  Managed by and , WikiTree ID: (member-101) = so this is the PM , looking at the current watchlist - - There is no creator that I can see in the selections list -

however , there is a created date 'stamp' on each Profile , and the Changes tab has both as the 'first' entry at its footer list -  - so it should not be to hard to design (Ales ?) - -  cheers - ja

 - = more =

 - Earlier , this year , I took on some Venn Profiles [Henry Venn ] , and added this 'tag'  = Venn-40 created 31 Oct 2014 = to honour [[Knowles-1375|Peter's]] work - - it would save looking at changes , now that we have the new 'hover technology'- - -

---

John, thanks, could not figure the syntax (not a native speaker, is this an excuse?).

So ... do I consider sources? Of course I consider sources, but people are not really sources, or maybe they are secondary sources if you like. And someone who is generally right might be wrong once, and the more she is doing, the more chances she has to be wrong.

In Normandy, where I was born, people have the reputation not to speak much, and never answer "yes" or "no", but "maybe", and there is a local proverb saying moins qu'on en dit moins qu'on s'trompe (the less you say, the less you go wrong)

---

I spend most of my time turning the contributions of members with large numbers of creations (and small) from near-empty unsourced, unlocated, and sometimes undated, husks into solid accurate profiles.  In my experience here, numbers mean very little.