APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 1999-12 > 0944573807


From: <>
Subject: [APG] RE: APG Consumer Digest
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 08:36:47 EST


In a message dated 12/6/99 1:02:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

<< If only there was a way for these articles to be incorporated
into a Web site where they could be read by the masses. Hmm. I guess I'm
thinking we need the Consumer Report, Better Business Bureau and Reader's
Digest for Genealogists. Now, how about that acronym?

====================================================
A web site dedicated to errors and ommissions on these CDs, where anyone
could submit what they found wrong for everyone, including the producers,
to see, I think would be a good idea. >>

Myra,
I'm not trying to disagree, but I do have two concerns...
1) The web-site is all well and good, but if the public doesn't know
about it, then it doesn't do them or us any good. A lot of public relations
and marketing work has to be done to make that happen. As has been pointed
out, lots of things have been ranted and raved about on newsgroups, there are
articles on the NGS site, etc., that noone reads. Many of the novice
genealogists, aren't web-familiar, either. They just buy FTM X and end up
online from there. Needless to say, FTM Online doesn't have messages about
how undocumented their WFTs are, nor do they link to the NGS articles that
discuss it.

2) You're talking about a place where people "post the problems they
find". That makes it very objective, and subject to the individual's opinion
as to what is wrong with the product. Given the amount of discussion as to
whether or not Broderbund was using proper disclosure, I would feel *very*
uncomfortable with something that subjective. Now, once the "Seal" idea gets
going, and there is a list of all products that have recieved or been
rejected for the "seal", then we're talking objective, consistent standards.

This thread: