"Max relationship privacy path len...
Brought to you by:
canajun2eh,
yalnifj
Menu
▾
▴
This parameter is set to 1 and the "Limit access to related people" is checked. Why is it that these users are able to Edit very far removed DEAD relatives? I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind this working. I'm trying to set things up so that users can only edit very close relatives, alive or dead.
Whilst everyone is free to configure their sites however they choose, I do find this desire to restrict everything bizarre.
Last week, I managed to contact a 10th cousin (we have a common ancestor born 1636). We've exchanged info, sent scans of certificates, etc.
With even vaguely restrictive privacy on my site, this would never have happened and we would both be poorer for it.
I don't know about your country, but in most, your legal rights to privacy die with you. Almost every genealogical fact is a matter of public record.
But back to your original question. On the privacy configuration page, there is a setting for "Show dead peole", which defaults to "Show to public". What value do you have for this?
It is set to: "Show to Public".
This has nothing to do with privacy. All I'm trying to do is minimize autherized users form editing Dead (or living) peoples information they have no business editing. If they want to make a change, they can contact the admin. I realize that edits will have to be approved by the admin anyway, but why allow this to happen in the first place. I guess we have different ways of looking at managing this info.
Why allow on-line editing at all?
"Limit access to related people" settings in the GEDCOM config are the defaults.There are also individual settings in each user profile/account. If you have set up the GEDCOM config settings after creating users you will need to go back to each user and change their setting as well.
Something to remember - if you use a high number (anything over 3) for the limit it WILL slow down access to your data considerable because of the number of access checks that must be performed.
Sounds like you must have a huge number of users doing regular editing? Personally I find the trade-off of the complexity of limiting by relationship steps far worse than the occasional slip-up I need to reject. Then there is the opportunity to explain to the user why I've rejected their entry, which is, for me, a valuable part of the user-education process, one that NEVER ends :-)