BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2005-03 > 1110726892


From: "Jan Cortez" <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L]
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:14:52 -0500
References: <00e301c527d5$e608c960$3a281b41@D51XKD11>


Amen Angie! Bottom line is, its all about the researcher and putting forth
the info to assist them in their research.

I consider a shell site, one who puts on a pretty face, but, doesn't have a
link to anywhere.

Do we ever stop to think that many who visit our pages are new, or haven't
really explored the internet? They don't know where to find those links to
the Archives or elsewhere to find the info they want.

A good website gathers materials, if and where they can, and at the same
time linking to all the other valuable resources out there.

And what happens to the submitter when they don't receive an answer from the
County Coordinator, for whatever reason? Do they just walk away in disgust
and not submit materials that might be of some help to another researcher?
Or shouldn't they try the Archives or any other special project that might
have a coordinator available that would put that bit of info online, before
its lost.

I think both serve a very useful purpose, and if we can't see that, then
shame on us.

Jan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Angie Rayfield" <>


> My thought on it is that apparently SOMEONE thought the Archives was a
> valid place to put data -- it's specifically recognized in those same
> by-laws you keep quoting. Remember, "The USGenWeb Project shall also
> provide a "digital library" called The USGenWeb Project Archives."
> Well, to provide a digital library, someone's got to put something in
> it. And I don't see anything in the by-laws that specifies that the
> local site is "superior" to the Archives.
>
> The bylaws say "The purpose of this organization shall be to gather
> genealogical and historical information for free online access by
> researchers ." And "This purpose shall be accomplished by presenting
> websites which shall be central repositories of historical and
> genealogical research data, donated either by the website coordinator or
> other contributors." They DON'T say that all the data must go to the
> county, or to the Archives, or both. It says WEBSITE.
>
> Now, I'll be the first to admit that I've never put the first bit of
> data in the Archives, and I don't see myself starting now. If the
> Archives had never been created, then we'd all just plug along putting
> data on our individual sites. But the Archives are there, they're
> recognized as part of the project, and it's about time to put an end to
> the petty bickering about which is "better." Somehow, I never thought
> of providing links to data housed elsewhere in the project as being a
> "shell." We're all one project, and we should be pursuing one goal --
> gathering genealogical and historical information for free online access
> by researchers.
>
> Personally, I've never gotten a complaint from a researcher that they
> clicked a link on the county page and got data from the Archives instead
> of from the county page. I've never gotten a complaint that they
> clicked a link and found what they were looking for outside of the
> project, for that matter. As near as I can tell, the researcher
> couldn't care less about the nitpicking over where to put the data, and
> who's right, and who's better, and who is *really* important -- all they
> want is to find what they're looking for.
>
> The submitter is the only person who can decide what they would like
> done with their submission. The only time a CC or FM should worry is if
> they put the data somewhere other than where the submitter specifies,
> regardless of whether it's on the county page or in the Archives. And
> no CC or FM should be punished for putting the data where the submitter
> wants.
>
> The point is to get the data online. That's all the researchers care
> about, and they'll come back to any page that presents useful
> information in an organized manner. Even if all the data is housed on
> the county page, they're clicking on links to get to it (since I'm
> assuming no county with any amount of data to speak of is going to have
> it all on the front page). They don't care where the links go, as long
> as it takes them to what they're looking for.
>
> Angie
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>
>>But they arent. One is superior to the others. One is supported by the
>>bylaws. The archives have always done well without such
>>guidelines. Plus we
>>have the salient guidelines already......for years as it were.
>>
>>IMHO
>>
>>DonK
>>----- Original Message -----
>>
>>> This should not require a committee to get done. We're going to
>>> "committee" ourselves to death. This should be a simple matter of
>>> putting forth a motion saying, basically, that local sites, the
>>> Archives, or both are all equally valid data repositories.


This thread: