About a month ago, Geni.com contacted me about their new blog concept. By now, you've already seen some of it. The past two Wednesdays, they've posted interviews. Posting interviews is one of the new things they do, they other is guests post. They were going to include guest posts and wanted me to do one.
I readily admit to being a bit surprised. After one article I wrote about users complaining about
changes Geni.com had made, I had a less than enjoyable email conversation with
their marketing director.
He claimed that my article contains certain inaccuracies, in response to which I pointed out that
those statements were based on information
posted on their own public statements, to which I had linked.
He maintained that the article
contains inaccuracies. He was telling me that the Geni.com blog posts were
inaccurate, and that I had to go by his privately communicated statements
instead. I told him that I would not do so.
I had taken the trouble to check official statements and cite
my sources. Citing sources shows that I am not making up things. Going by his private
statements instead of Geni.com's public ones would no longer show that, and would
rightly make readers question the accuracy of my article, so I would stick by
their public statements.
I did remind him that I do post updates to articles, and I would be willing to update in response to changed public statements, for example when the cited sources were updated. I offered to update the article after he corrected the blog posts the alleged inaccuracies are based on. He did not correct the cited blog posts, I did not change the article.
All that happened early in 2009, some 1½ years ago. I had written about
Geni.com before, for example when they introduced GEDCOM support in the middle
of 2008, and I've written about them again. I've certainly mentioned them in
other articles, but only one other article stands out as featuring
Geni.com, and that's How Geni beats We're Related, an
article in the series that introduced social genealogy metrics.
That article compared public statistics for FamilyLink's We're Related
application with those for Geni.com. It noted that the major difference between
the two is that Geni.com supports GEDCOM and We're Related does not (by the way,
it still does
not!), and that Geni.com is getting thrice as many as profiles per user.
So now I was being asked to do a guest post for their new blog. They did not offer any compensation, but they did not make any demands either. I was quick to reply by asking what they wanted, what they expected, what they were looking for. Could I could write anything I like? What kind of subjects do they want? What length? What level? Educational? Opinion? Funny?
They answered that they did not have particular topics in mind. I remarked that they were giving
me carte blanche, and they did not contradict that. They
agreed to my idea to write about Geni.com's Big Tree, and upon my request
provided some numbers to be used in the article.
Geni.com had not placed any restrictions on my article but had not said they would
accept everything
either, so as I was writing and the article took shape, I thought it prudent to ask whether they would
be willing to post a critical article that included mention of several competitors.
They answered, without hesitation or reservation, that one of the reasons they asked me to do a guest post is because I compare and contrast with other sites and do not hold back my opinion.
So, that was okay then, they do not object to me mentioning competitors, and do
not want me to hold back. They want me to give my own opinion, and are going to
publish it, even if it is critical of Geni.com. They gave me their assurances.
I presented the finished article early last week and asked for feedback on
any factual errors or inaccuracies. I write longer articles than most and the
Geni blog has never done long articles, so I had indicated how it might be
broken into three smaller parts, to be posted consecutively.
They fell silent for a week, and when I contacted them again, called it a great write-up
.
They did not complain about any errors or inaccuracies. They wrote that they appreciate all the feedback and perspective the article provides.
They were going to publish it.
They were going to publish it, but they were not going to publish it. They do not just think that it is great write-up, they even agree with it and are already making changes. Therefore, they are not going to publish it.
Well, not exactly. They were going to publish it, but they were not going to publish it. They do not just think that it is great write-up, they even agree with it and are already making changes. Therefore, they are not going to publish it.
That sounds odd, but that is what they told me. After reading the article, they had decided to not only introduce some new features that address some of the criticism but also to postpone publication of the article for about five weeks, so that it would be published after the introduction of the new features it had inspired, and now asked me to throw away this article and write a new one, as if I had never written the original article and as if those features were already in place before I wrote my article.
I did not expect them to agree so much with my article that they started making changes even before telling me how great the article is. I certainly did not expect them to tell me that my article is so great that they are already taking advantage of it, yet are not going to publish it, and then ask me to write a lesser article instead.
They already had one article for free, they told me it is a great write-up, that they appreciate the feedback and perspective. They even agree so much with it that they have begun making changes already. Yet they still tell me that they do not intend to post the article until after the changes it inspired are live, and are effectively demanding that I write another, dishonest article instead that pretends the original article never existed.
This does not seem right to me. If they really think the article is great,
they should be eager to post as soon as possible - and that is last week.
I do
consider it wonderful that they are improving things because of
the article. I do not think it is right for them to quickly change things based
on an article and
then refuse to publish it by telling you that they intend to delay publication
beyond those changes, so
that it is no longer accurate or relevant.
I do not enjoy receiving a
such a roundabout refusal to publish an article they are
already taking advantage of, and do not rejoice when that dishonesty is coupled that with
the effective demand to produce another article instead, once they've introduced
the changes the still unpublished original inspired, and do so as if the original article
never happened.
I had already told them that I considered the article ready to post. I now told them that the criticism was written already, and should be posted before those enhancements are introduced, even if it turns out that I am completely wrong because of to those improvements. Being wrong from time to time is the price you pay for daring to have an opinion.
I reminded them that I do post updates to articles, and would be happy to post an update to the article after the introduction of those enhancements. I remarked that I really do not like the idea of delaying the article past the introduction of the enhancements it inspired.
Just in case they wanted to delay for other reasons, I suggested that it would be fair to delay the enhancements as much as they delay the article, to keep the temporal sequence and time period between them intact, but a brief back-and-forth made it clear that there was only one reason for the delay; they did not want to publish my original criticism before introducing the enhancements they had planned now, they wanted to refuse publication by delaying it past the enhancements it inspired, at which point it would make little sense to publish it anymore, and were effectively demanding a new article as if the original article never existed.
I pointed out that simply posting the original article as-is shows how receptive Geni.com is to criticism nowadays. What's more, that when they introduce the new features later, that openly admitting that those new features are inspired by said criticism also shows the genealogical community that they actually listen to it.
The bottom line is that Geni.com says it is willing to post critical articles, but actually wants to undo the criticism and thus the article by taking the time to fix things first, and then not only wants you to throw away the original article to remain unpublished but also wants you to write another article as if those enhancements were already in place, and as if you never wrote the original article that inspired their enhancements.
I never give my copyright away. I stated quite clearly, early in the email
conversation that I retain copyright on all I write, and Geni.com still wanted
me to write an article. As I wrote the article as a guest post
for the Geni.com blog, and I even explicitly stated that I considered the article ready
to post, Geni.com obviously had my permission to post the finished article on their blog.
I have not withdrawn that permission. However, not only does the permission to
publish the article naturally end the moment they introduce any change that
makes the article dated, I also want to see the article published well before
whatever enhancements it inspired are introduced.
I will publish the article, Geniology later today. I will not post part 1 and then make you wait for part 2 and 3, but will publish all of it at once.
Copyright © Tamura Jones. All Rights reserved.