APG-L Archives

From: "Mills" <>
Subject: [APG] Opinions, product tests, and conferences
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 21:02:51 -0600

Chad, Charles, Everett, Jan, Maralyn, Mic, Michael, Myra, Nancy (in alpha order <g>)--

Your ideas are *superb*. I see some real possibilities in your suggestions and refinements of each other's comments -- and suspect that our incoming officers have seen a lot of merit there, too. In the meanwhile, you've definitely given me building materials for my own "project." Do keep it up throughout the spring <vbg>.

On the subject of "defining standards," some of you know this, some may not know it: the Board for Certification launched that initiative some time ago and the completed manuscript should be going to press this winter (at a major genealogical publishing house). The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual will *not* be a set of regulations for BCG applications -- that's a separate work that is being revised and expanded. The Standards Manual, which will define basic levels of quality for all types of genealogical activities (including abstracting and publishing), should be practical for all professionals and all hobbyists who care about quality -- should be a major step forward for our field. While many APG members are not yet certified (something else we need to work on <gdr>) the standards that the BCG board members have defined for the manual are the same ones that APG members teach and practice.

The suggestions several of you have made for an anonymous panel would resolve my own qualms about perceived conflicts of interests. The concept of anonymous reviews is controversial for some people -- but the grumbles that BCG gets about the anonymity of its judges are relatively minor and the system does seem to be the only workable one.

Nancy's concern about the time spent on an adequate review of any product is well justified. If any type of plan were initiated, I would hope that it would be a fee-based testing program of the UL type that Bill discussed -- with adequate charges to the companies to compensate the panel of product reviewers. (When I say "adequate," I mean: "Let's be realistic! We'd better take whatever time commitment we estimate and multiply it by a factor of at least 3 to 5-- per reviewer!) I have always been amazed that BCG has managed to find volunteer portfolio reviewers of the quality it insists upon, considering that the reviews regularly entail one to three days of time. Even if commercial product reviews and seals were to focus only upon reliable and thorough documentation, description, and coverage (as opposed to accuracy of fact, which everyone seems to agree could never be attested), the time commitment for each evaluator would likely be the same as with BCG. It's regrettable enoug!
h that professionals are asked to donate that many billable hours- - time and time again -- to helping others earn professional certification. *If* a testing program for *commercial products* is added to our field, that service should be realistically timed and priced from the onset.

Finally, my hat's off to Jan for bringing up an even more important need in our field :

<"Now, if we could get more colleges to start offering BS programs with a major in genealogy, maybe we would mature as a science.... ;).>

*That* goal would enable us to mature in *many* ways!

Elizabeth Shown Mills

This thread:

• [APG] Opinions, product tests, and conferences by "Mills" <>

  • Re: [APG] Opinions, product tests, and conferences by <>