After all this time I finally have had someone signup for access to the tree and has actually gone in and added some detail. The problem I am having is with the two settings,
Limit access to related people (set to on)
Max relationship privacy path length (3)
The user's root person is set to her grandfather. She wants to edit her grandfather's, grandson's wife. The grandson would be three "away" from the grandfather, would the wife be 4 away, and is the path length determined by her own ID or that of her root person?
Either way, I tried to change the (3) value to 6 and even though I change the value and saved it, the value remained at 3???
Other than removing the "limit access to related people" option, how else do I manage a user?
I checked the wiki and it didn't say anything about whether the path is from the user or their root or anything about why I was unable to change the path length?
Thanks!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Almost none of the developers use relationship privacy, both because we prequalify users for access and we know the burden that the calculations put on the server resources. Even in the smallest gedcoms, it can be quite slow to present a page and end up frustrating the user.
That said, I think it relates to the INDI and not a root person. But of course, the best way to test it, and the length - 3 generations, would be to create a user ID for yourself, or a sibling, set the relationship privacy controls and test it, changing the root ID after you determine the distance you can go set in the other fashion. BTW, All my GEDCOM and ROOT ID's are set to the same number, but I'm not sure what difference it makes in viewing, and we don't use relationship privacy.
-Stephen
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Thanks…but would still like to know why I can't change the value from 3 to something else. likewise, how does it count the generations….
from her to her mom to her grandfather to his son and then his son and then his son's wife? is that considered the same generation, or 5 or 6 generations apart? I thought setting it to 6 would make the person accessible worse case, but couldn't change the value to 6?
Thanks
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
You set relationship privacy in Two (2) places, in the GEDCOM Privacy Config and in the INDI Account settings.
If you have the Master set to 3, you will not be able to set an INDI for greater than that level. Have you checked there as to the master GEDCOM setting?
AFAIK, you'll need to test the generations settings to determine the extent, but I think its purely levels, 3 peopla apart, by generation. As I said, I don't know of a single developer who uses this feature, mostly due to speed issues, and no need for it.
Stephen
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I didn't test it further. Didn't know it would be a resource issue. Not knowing how it is coded I wouldn't know it would be such a drain to implement that feature. Perhaps features like that should have warnings to go with them. likewise, couldn't the "?" info thingie be modified to state the value needs to be set in two places? If it said where else I needed to change the value, half of my question would have been answered. The wiki doesn't say in that section that you need to check the value in the other section as well. Thanks
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Lew
WIKI's are only as good as the information contributed. Per your suggestion, I have modified the WIKI to better explain these settings, as well as corrected a few misspelled words in the process.
I have nearly 80,000 INDI's and the 'hit' on the resources is much larger when calculating privacy restrictions than for a GEDCOM of a few hundred or even a couple thousand persons. There are existing plenty of posts in the HELP forum in reference to this issue, and heated discussions and recommendations that an admin not exceed a level 4 setting. Not sure where a warning would go, even if appropriate, but certainly we would welcome your suggestions.
Glad to hear you have acquired a new user who has begun contributing.
-Stephen
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
After all this time I finally have had someone signup for access to the tree and has actually gone in and added some detail. The problem I am having is with the two settings,
Limit access to related people (set to on)
Max relationship privacy path length (3)
The user's root person is set to her grandfather. She wants to edit her grandfather's, grandson's wife. The grandson would be three "away" from the grandfather, would the wife be 4 away, and is the path length determined by her own ID or that of her root person?
Either way, I tried to change the (3) value to 6 and even though I change the value and saved it, the value remained at 3???
Other than removing the "limit access to related people" option, how else do I manage a user?
I checked the wiki and it didn't say anything about whether the path is from the user or their root or anything about why I was unable to change the path length?
Thanks!
Almost none of the developers use relationship privacy, both because we prequalify users for access and we know the burden that the calculations put on the server resources. Even in the smallest gedcoms, it can be quite slow to present a page and end up frustrating the user.
That said, I think it relates to the INDI and not a root person. But of course, the best way to test it, and the length - 3 generations, would be to create a user ID for yourself, or a sibling, set the relationship privacy controls and test it, changing the root ID after you determine the distance you can go set in the other fashion. BTW, All my GEDCOM and ROOT ID's are set to the same number, but I'm not sure what difference it makes in viewing, and we don't use relationship privacy.
-Stephen
Thanks…but would still like to know why I can't change the value from 3 to something else. likewise, how does it count the generations….
from her to her mom to her grandfather to his son and then his son and then his son's wife? is that considered the same generation, or 5 or 6 generations apart? I thought setting it to 6 would make the person accessible worse case, but couldn't change the value to 6?
Thanks
You set relationship privacy in Two (2) places, in the GEDCOM Privacy Config and in the INDI Account settings.
If you have the Master set to 3, you will not be able to set an INDI for greater than that level. Have you checked there as to the master GEDCOM setting?
AFAIK, you'll need to test the generations settings to determine the extent, but I think its purely levels, 3 peopla apart, by generation. As I said, I don't know of a single developer who uses this feature, mostly due to speed issues, and no need for it.
Stephen
I didn't test it further. Didn't know it would be a resource issue. Not knowing how it is coded I wouldn't know it would be such a drain to implement that feature. Perhaps features like that should have warnings to go with them. likewise, couldn't the "?" info thingie be modified to state the value needs to be set in two places? If it said where else I needed to change the value, half of my question would have been answered. The wiki doesn't say in that section that you need to check the value in the other section as well. Thanks
Lew
WIKI's are only as good as the information contributed. Per your suggestion, I have modified the WIKI to better explain these settings, as well as corrected a few misspelled words in the process.
I have nearly 80,000 INDI's and the 'hit' on the resources is much larger when calculating privacy restrictions than for a GEDCOM of a few hundred or even a couple thousand persons. There are existing plenty of posts in the HELP forum in reference to this issue, and heated discussions and recommendations that an admin not exceed a level 4 setting. Not sure where a warning would go, even if appropriate, but certainly we would welcome your suggestions.
Glad to hear you have acquired a new user who has begun contributing.
-Stephen