APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2008-01 > 1201210809


From: "treviawbeverly" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] The Membership Game Plus Feedback
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:01:53 -0600
References: <6716912.1201202112019.JavaMail.teamon@b106.teamon.com><cb99706a0801241204te71766cy718cc61351cd1807@mail.gmail.com>


If anyone has been keeping record, Houston just received their APG
Quarterly .. or at least I did. So now off to read that
famous article.....

Trevia Wooster Beverly
Houston, Texas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary Louise Fitzpatrick" <>
To: <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [APG] The Membership Game Plus Feedback


> Yes, I would if it were going to be that irksome to me if the job were
done
> incorrectly the first time. How long does it take someone to email you a
> sample of their past work.
>
> If, on the other hand, I wasn't under a time constraint or whatever and
> didn't need this record and its citation done perfectly on the first go
> 'round, I probably wouldn't - knowing I might have to go back to the
> individual who did the work and get further clarification.
>
> I think if this person you dealt with really was that clueless about
> citations and then didn't send the needed information after your second
> request, one of two things would have happened if you had asked for a work
> sample - the sample never would have been sent (which means you wouldn't
> have contracted for the job) or the sample would have made it clear this
> researcher was clueless.
>
> I in no way want to start another little firefight here and have hesitated
> to mention this before - it seems like there are enough "professional
> genealogy" issues on the table at this point. However, I take the leap.
> Twice in the year I have been hired by clients who had each had a
> considerable amount of work done by two different CGs within the past 5
> years - work with which each client was extremely dissatisfied.
Initially,
> my assumption was (or at least the first time it happened) that the
client
> was a fussy Gussy and hard to please and I was very hesitant to become
> involved. However, when I saw the report done by the first CG, I had to
> agree with the client. The report was written well enough, though the
> citation was a little dicey. However, the research was not on what the
> client had asked for, nor what the CG said he/she was going to do at the
> beginning of the report. The second situation was a similar one.
>
> These two clients were frankly avoiding researchers with credentials. One
> of them - who has a professional degree himself - said that in his work,
he
> found that often people get the letters after their names and figure they
> have it made and can sit back - even though the profession required
> continuing education, etc. On the other hand, those who don't have the
> letters, scramble a little harder because they have to prove themselves.
> And please, listers, let's not get into the pros and cons of that comment!
> I am just mentioning what his point of view was as to genealogists with
> letters after their names.
>
> Very wisely, at the beginning of their relationship with me, each client
> asked me to do just a very short project until they could see the quality
of
> work I came up with. These clients are aware they could have refused to
pay
> their CG the fee due until the work contracted for was done or they could
> file a complaint, but they are both very busy people who just want to get
> some research done, not spend time filing complaints.
>
> I really, really, really don't want to get into peripheral issues by
> mentioning the above. I am just trying to reinforce my point that having
> levels of membership in APG may not solve anything and may just complicate
> an organization that seems to be functioning well. As I said in my
previous
> email, will having some higher level of APG membership guarantee quality
of
> work - no, not always! And we already have other organizations that
provide
> the certifications that try do this. Perhaps the two CGs referred to above
> were each having a bad day - or a bad couple of weeks! Who knows?
>
> Why not try the simple route? If it is going to matter that much to you,
> ask for a sample of work ahead of time. APG, strongly suggest that
> potential clients ask for a sample from anyone they are considering
hiring -
> and always, if possible, consider at least two or three - at least!
>
> What's wrong with going with simple solutions first?
>
> Mary Louise Fitzpatrick
> Member, Association of Professional Genealogists
>
> On Jan 24, 2008 11:15 AM, <> wrote:
>
> > Would you really ask for a sample of work when asking someone to get at
> > copy of a record for you? It's about the simplest task we can ask of
each
> > other. And, yes, I did "gently" ask her for the citation and she didn't
> > really get why I would want it and did not follow through with the
citation.
> >
> > Peggy
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Peggy Baldwin MLS
> > Family Passages LLC
> > www.family-passages.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mary Louise Fitzpatrick <>
> > Sent: January 24, 2008 10:56:37 AM GMT
> > To:
> > Cc:
> > Subject: Re: [APG] The Membership Game Plus Feedback
> >
> > On 23 Jan 2008 Peggy Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > I don't think that it is accurate to make the statement that, " If
> > complaints to APG are minimal, I'd say the current system works." My own
> > experience would tell me that this is not true. I hired a person an APG
> > member to get a record from an archive . . . but it came with an
> > insufficient source citation.
> >
> >
> > It seems to me there would be simpler solutions to the problem presented
> > above, including before hiring a member, asking to have a sample of work
> > emailed to you so you could review it.
> >
> > Is it possible this member (being human) just made a mistake? Did you
get
> > back to him/her and gently point out what you saw as the insufficiency
and
> > listen to the explanation. It could be a learning experience for both
of
> > you. If we enact all these suggestions for various levels of membership
> > in
> > APG, does it mean if one is at the most exalted level, one will never
make
> > a
> > mistake (i.e., one will exist in a perfect world?).
> >
> > I don't mean to sound belittling of some of the suggestions that have
been
> > made. It appears a great deal of thought and even agony has gone into
> > them.
> > However, I think simple solutions should always be tried first and -
from
> > my
> > very small perspective - it does seem like APG will be shooting itself -
> > and
> > its future - in the foot by following some of the suggestions made. A
> > great
> > deal of the commentary has centered around being able to identify the
> > quality of a member's work. There are other organizations that already
do
> > a
> > wonderful job in accomplishing this in a formal fashion. When looking
to
> > assess the quality of an APG member's work, as mentioned above, why not
> > just
> > ask for a sample, review it, make your own decision - problem solved.
APG
> > could even post on its website the recommendation to those seeking to
hire
> > a
> > professional - get samples of work from all those you are considering
> > hiring, review the samples, make your decision. While this wouldn't
> > address
> > every last research situation, it would certainly give the majority of
> > potential clients a better idea of the quality of the work they would be
> > getting.
> >
> > Mary Louise Fitzpatrick
> > Member, Association of Professional Genealogists
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2008 7:52 AM, <> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not suggesting a feedback system. I'm suggesting that if we had
> > > different levels of membership that acknowledge a more professional
> > attitude
> > > -- about education, involvement in the field, etc. that we might have
a
> > > better chance of finding our colleagues who will do the best work.
> > > Certification takes many, many hours of work -- I know because I'm in
> > the
> > > middle of it. I'll get there one of these years, but in the meantime
it
> > > would be good to have some method of differentiating between the
people
> > who
> > > are working at a professional level and those who aren't. The APG
> > standards
> > > would indicate members should be, but as my previous experience has
> > shown,
> > > that isn't always the case.
> > >
> > > Peggy
> > >
> > > -----------------------------
> > > Peggy Baldwin MLS
> > > Family Passages LLC
> > > www.family-passages.com
> > >
> > >
> > > Bonnie responds:
> > >
> > > A feedback system - positive, negative, neutral comments - on the
> > > performance of a member would be a helpful tool; however, I think it
> > would
> > > be expensive to set up and maintain, and there could be legal
> > > ramifications,
> > > since negative feedback could affect a member's livelihood.
> > >
> > > Bonnie Dunphy Kohler
> > > Member, APG, South Florida
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > > -------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes
> > in
> > > the subject and the body of the message
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.10/1241 - Release Date:
01/24/2008 9:58 AM
>


This thread: