Hi Darlene, You wrote: "I'm not sure if this would work because we don't have volunteers to do 1 county in a lot of states much less a volunteer for a cluster of counties. I think ALHN needs more work and more volunteers for this to be a viable option for us." Although it's going against what I wrote in my first message, working from the top down IS a good idea because empty states get filled with fewer volunteers and data gets added more quickly. Hence, Joyce's idea is a good one. However, and here is where I jump the fence, I agree with you because ALHN does need more volunteers. But where is one to find them? I've looked through most of the project's states and see that there just aren't that many volunteers. So, what needs to happen? In my opinion, top down should most, if not all, the states adopted. Working a state isn't much different than working a single county, believe it or not. I guess what I'm really saying is use what you have (volunteers) and spread them out to an effective use, work the states and THEN go after volunteers again by publicizing. Colleen -----Original Message----- >From: Darlene Anderson <darlene-anderson@hughes.net> >Sent: Nov 8, 2013 8:31 AM >To: alhn-general@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [ALHN-GENERAL] thoughts on clusters > >Hi Colleen, > >Would you please clarify for me what you believe my opinion is? I just want to be sure we're on the same page with the cluster idea so that there are not any misconceptions about what I said. Thanks! > >Make it a Great Genealogy Day! > >Darlene Anderson, Vice-President >American Local History Network >http://www.alhn.org/ >State Coordinator for South Carolina-ALHN >And Kentucky-ALHN! > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alhn-general-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:alhn-general-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Joyce Gaston Reece >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:05 AM >To: ALHN-GENERAL >Subject: [ALHN-GENERAL] thoughts on clusters > >I see where Joyce and Darlene are headed with her opinions. > >A project I once belonged to had a problem enlisting volunteers and decided to work from the top down -- volunteers will adopt entire states as opposed to individual counties, in an effort to get all the states adopted. Definitely that's a cluster idea. That idea, however, didn't work. > >I gave up long ago trying to get volunteers to work on Alaska. Though I still have borough/census area pages up, I decided to forego volunteers and do the work myself. It isn't for everyone, but when you talk about clustering... in my lowly opinion, working the state overall is simpler than working individual counties. I'm not alone in my belief here as there is another state whose manager declares names in the million and has done the work alone. > >So, it's six of one / half dozen of another. > >I will add one thing -- as successful as ALHN is, I believe ALHN is sort of on the fringe of that other, well-established project. The only way to defeat 'that other project' is to out-do them, pure and simple. Build ALHN so much that the traffic comes this way and not the other -- it's uploading fresher data and out-trafficking the peer project. > >I had a point to make here and in this missive somewhere; I hope I made it. > >Colleen > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Darlene Anderson <darlene-anderson@hughes.net> >>Sent: Nov 7, 2013 3:58 PM >>To: alhn-board@rootsweb.com >>Subject: Re: [ALHN-BOARD] thought >> >>I'm not sure if this would work because we don't have volunteers to do 1 county in a lot of states much less a volunteer for a cluster of counties. I think ALHN needs more work and more volunteers for this to be a viable option for us. Maybe if enough folks see that ALHN is changing we can increase the county site volunteers. This is my hope anyway. And from these volunteers, we can encourage them to take on more than 1 county to create the cluster. For example, in Middle Tennessee, I volunteered for Hickman and Maury and I could volunteer for Williamson and Dickson (not volunteering yet though) and this would be a cluster. >> >>I don't know that we need an additional person to manage the cluster. Maybe what we need to do first is write an article for the county cluster project explaining what it is. Have a county coordinator maintain the web sites and then ask for volunteers to help with transcribing documents, taking photographs, and so on. Maybe a county transcriber, county indexer (there are tons of books not indexed). We could pick up folks to volunteer for something other than doing web sites. >> >>Joyce, I think the idea might work. Just needs planning, ideas and so on. My 2 cents worth. >> >>Make it a Great Genealogy Day! >>Darlene Anderson, Vice-President >>American Local History Network >>http://www.alhn.org/ >>State Coordinator for South Carolina-ALHN And Kentucky-ALHN! >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: alhn-board-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:alhn-board-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Joyce Gaston Reece >>Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 5:16 PM >>To: ALHN-BOARD R/W >>Subject: [ALHN-BOARD] thought >> >>I ve been bouncing around a thought for awhile and thought to see what you all thought. >> >>Rather than confine our state coordinators to seeking county sites we offer regional sites. That may or may not work for all state coordinators. But I know that here in southeast Tennessee it is a huge mistake to confine research to one county. IE, we have one community now in McMinn that was in three other counties first. The families in the area show in records for all 4 counties. Early county lines in east TN were constantly changing. We could offer clusters of counties???? Or at least plant the idea as an option?? >> >> >>Joyce Gaston Reece,President >>American Local History Network >>www.alhn.org >> >Joyce Gaston Reece,President >American Local History Network >www.alhn.org > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ALHN-GENERAL-request@rootsweb.com 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 ALHN-GENERAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Colleen, You wrote, " I guess what I'm really saying is use what you have (volunteers) and spread them out to an effective use, work the states and THEN go after volunteers again by publicizing." I couldn't agree with you more. Great idea, and I hope this will actually happen with ALHN. Make it a Great Genealogy Day! Darlene Anderson, Vice-President American Local History Network http://www.alhn.org/ State Coordinator for South Carolina-ALHN And Kentucky-ALHN! -----Original Message----- From: alhn-general-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:alhn-general-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Colleen Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:28 PM To: alhn-general@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ALHN-GENERAL] thoughts on clusters Hi Darlene, You wrote: "I'm not sure if this would work because we don't have volunteers to do 1 county in a lot of states much less a volunteer for a cluster of counties. I think ALHN needs more work and more volunteers for this to be a viable option for us." Although it's going against what I wrote in my first message, working from the top down IS a good idea because empty states get filled with fewer volunteers and data gets added more quickly. Hence, Joyce's idea is a good one. However, and here is where I jump the fence, I agree with you because ALHN does need more volunteers. But where is one to find them? I've looked through most of the project's states and see that there just aren't that many volunteers. So, what needs to happen? In my opinion, top down should most, if not all, the states adopted. Working a state isn't much different than working a single county, believe it or not. I guess what I'm really saying is use what you have (volunteers) and spread them out to an effective use, work the states and THEN go after volunteers again by publicizing. Colleen -----Original Message----- >From: Darlene Anderson <darlene-anderson@hughes.net> >Sent: Nov 8, 2013 8:31 AM >To: alhn-general@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [ALHN-GENERAL] thoughts on clusters > >Hi Colleen, > >Would you please clarify for me what you believe my opinion is? I just want to be sure we're on the same page with the cluster idea so that there are not any misconceptions about what I said. Thanks! > >Make it a Great Genealogy Day! > >Darlene Anderson, Vice-President >American Local History Network >http://www.alhn.org/ >State Coordinator for South Carolina-ALHN And Kentucky-ALHN! > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alhn-general-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:alhn-general-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Joyce Gaston Reece >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:05 AM >To: ALHN-GENERAL >Subject: [ALHN-GENERAL] thoughts on clusters > >I see where Joyce and Darlene are headed with her opinions. > >A project I once belonged to had a problem enlisting volunteers and decided to work from the top down -- volunteers will adopt entire states as opposed to individual counties, in an effort to get all the states adopted. Definitely that's a cluster idea. That idea, however, didn't work. > >I gave up long ago trying to get volunteers to work on Alaska. Though I still have borough/census area pages up, I decided to forego volunteers and do the work myself. It isn't for everyone, but when you talk about clustering... in my lowly opinion, working the state overall is simpler than working individual counties. I'm not alone in my belief here as there is another state whose manager declares names in the million and has done the work alone. > >So, it's six of one / half dozen of another. > >I will add one thing -- as successful as ALHN is, I believe ALHN is sort of on the fringe of that other, well-established project. The only way to defeat 'that other project' is to out-do them, pure and simple. Build ALHN so much that the traffic comes this way and not the other -- it's uploading fresher data and out-trafficking the peer project. > >I had a point to make here and in this missive somewhere; I hope I made it. > >Colleen > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Darlene Anderson <darlene-anderson@hughes.net> >>Sent: Nov 7, 2013 3:58 PM >>To: alhn-board@rootsweb.com >>Subject: Re: [ALHN-BOARD] thought >> >>I'm not sure if this would work because we don't have volunteers to do 1 county in a lot of states much less a volunteer for a cluster of counties. I think ALHN needs more work and more volunteers for this to be a viable option for us. Maybe if enough folks see that ALHN is changing we can increase the county site volunteers. This is my hope anyway. And from these volunteers, we can encourage them to take on more than 1 county to create the cluster. For example, in Middle Tennessee, I volunteered for Hickman and Maury and I could volunteer for Williamson and Dickson (not volunteering yet though) and this would be a cluster. >> >>I don't know that we need an additional person to manage the cluster. Maybe what we need to do first is write an article for the county cluster project explaining what it is. Have a county coordinator maintain the web sites and then ask for volunteers to help with transcribing documents, taking photographs, and so on. Maybe a county transcriber, county indexer (there are tons of books not indexed). We could pick up folks to volunteer for something other than doing web sites. >> >>Joyce, I think the idea might work. Just needs planning, ideas and so on. My 2 cents worth. >> >>Make it a Great Genealogy Day! >>Darlene Anderson, Vice-President >>American Local History Network >>http://www.alhn.org/ >>State Coordinator for South Carolina-ALHN And Kentucky-ALHN! >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: alhn-board-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:alhn-board-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Joyce Gaston Reece >>Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 5:16 PM >>To: ALHN-BOARD R/W >>Subject: [ALHN-BOARD] thought >> >>I ve been bouncing around a thought for awhile and thought to see what you all thought. >> >>Rather than confine our state coordinators to seeking county sites we offer regional sites. That may or may not work for all state coordinators. But I know that here in southeast Tennessee it is a huge mistake to confine research to one county. IE, we have one community now in McMinn that was in three other counties first. The families in the area show in records for all 4 counties. Early county lines in east TN were constantly changing. We could offer clusters of counties???? Or at least plant the idea as an option?? >> >> >>Joyce Gaston Reece,President >>American Local History Network >>www.alhn.org >> >Joyce Gaston Reece,President >American Local History Network >www.alhn.org > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ALHN-GENERAL-request@rootsweb.com 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 ALHN-GENERAL-request@rootsweb.com 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 ALHN-GENERAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

One of the agenda items for the current meeting is discussing how to get more volunteers. Barbara Hutchinson has been appointed volunteer committee chairperson. The focus of this group is to act as a buffer to recruit more volunteers and to help them with getting web space, answering questions and offering advice and ideas. As a matter of fact it comes up on the agenda for tomorrow morning. Colleen, if you would like to volunteer for this committee your input and help would be very appreciated. On the agenda following this item is 'marketing alhn'. After 12 years of existence I still have people tell me that they've never heard of ALHN. ALHN has done a very poor job of getting it's name to mainstream genealogy researchers. Everyone should know about it. So just how we achieve this is the subject of this discussion. IMO, one thing we really have to do is to get volunteers to 'CARE' again. Some of us are complacent and haven't updated our sites in years. When I've been to a site and thoroughly researched it I have no reason to return if nothing new is ever posted. We are the American Local History Network. Our goal is to get historical and genealogical data to the public. It doesn't take a lot of effort to update a site and add new data every couple of months. Joyce Gaston Reece,President American Local History Network www.alhn.org -----Original Message----- From: Colleen Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:27 PM To: alhn-general@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ALHN-GENERAL] thoughts on clusters Hi Darlene, You wrote: "I'm not sure if this would work because we don't have volunteers to do 1 county in a lot of states much less a volunteer for a cluster of counties. I think ALHN needs more work and more volunteers for this to be a viable option for us." Although it's going against what I wrote in my first message, working from the top down IS a good idea because empty states get filled with fewer volunteers and data gets added more quickly. Hence, Joyce's idea is a good one. However, and here is where I jump the fence, I agree with you because ALHN does need more volunteers. But where is one to find them? I've looked through most of the project's states and see that there just aren't that many volunteers. So, what needs to happen? In my opinion, top down should most, if not all, the states adopted. Working a state isn't much different than working a single county, believe it or not. I guess what I'm really saying is use what you have (volunteers) and spread them out to an effective use, work the states and THEN go after volunteers again by publicizing. Colleen -----Original Message----- >From: Darlene Anderson <darlene-anderson@hughes.net> >Sent: Nov 8, 2013 8:31 AM >To: alhn-general@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [ALHN-GENERAL] thoughts on clusters > >Hi Colleen, > >Would you please clarify for me what you believe my opinion is? I just want >to be sure we're on the same page with the cluster idea so that there are >not any misconceptions about what I said. Thanks! > >Make it a Great Genealogy Day! > >Darlene Anderson, Vice-President >American Local History Network >http://www.alhn.org/ >State Coordinator for South Carolina-ALHN >And Kentucky-ALHN! > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alhn-general-bounces@rootsweb.com >[mailto:alhn-general-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Joyce Gaston Reece >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:05 AM >To: ALHN-GENERAL >Subject: [ALHN-GENERAL] thoughts on clusters > >I see where Joyce and Darlene are headed with her opinions. > >A project I once belonged to had a problem enlisting volunteers and decided >to work from the top down -- volunteers will adopt entire states as opposed >to individual counties, in an effort to get all the states adopted. >Definitely that's a cluster idea. That idea, however, didn't work. > >I gave up long ago trying to get volunteers to work on Alaska. Though I >still have borough/census area pages up, I decided to forego volunteers and >do the work myself. It isn't for everyone, but when you talk about >clustering... in my lowly opinion, working the state overall is simpler >than working individual counties. I'm not alone in my belief here as there >is another state whose manager declares names in the million and has done >the work alone. > >So, it's six of one / half dozen of another. > >I will add one thing -- as successful as ALHN is, I believe ALHN is sort >of on the fringe of that other, well-established project. The only way to >defeat 'that other project' is to out-do them, pure and simple. Build ALHN >so much that the traffic comes this way and not the other -- it's uploading >fresher data and out-trafficking the peer project. > >I had a point to make here and in this missive somewhere; I hope I made it. > >Colleen > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Darlene Anderson <darlene-anderson@hughes.net> >>Sent: Nov 7, 2013 3:58 PM >>To: alhn-board@rootsweb.com >>Subject: Re: [ALHN-BOARD] thought >> >>I'm not sure if this would work because we don't have volunteers to do 1 >>county in a lot of states much less a volunteer for a cluster of counties. >>I think ALHN needs more work and more volunteers for this to be a viable >>option for us. Maybe if enough folks see that ALHN is changing we can >>increase the county site volunteers. This is my hope anyway. And from >>these volunteers, we can encourage them to take on more than 1 county to >>create the cluster. For example, in Middle Tennessee, I volunteered for >>Hickman and Maury and I could volunteer for Williamson and Dickson (not >>volunteering yet though) and this would be a cluster. >> >>I don't know that we need an additional person to manage the cluster. >>Maybe what we need to do first is write an article for the county cluster >>project explaining what it is. Have a county coordinator maintain the web >>sites and then ask for volunteers to help with transcribing documents, >>taking photographs, and so on. Maybe a county transcriber, county indexer >>(there are tons of books not indexed). We could pick up folks to volunteer >>for something other than doing web sites. >> >>Joyce, I think the idea might work. Just needs planning, ideas and so on. >>My 2 cents worth. >> >>Make it a Great Genealogy Day! >>Darlene Anderson, Vice-President >>American Local History Network >>http://www.alhn.org/ >>State Coordinator for South Carolina-ALHN And Kentucky-ALHN! >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: alhn-board-bounces@rootsweb.com >>[mailto:alhn-board-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Joyce Gaston Reece >>Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 5:16 PM >>To: ALHN-BOARD R/W >>Subject: [ALHN-BOARD] thought >> >>I ve been bouncing around a thought for awhile and thought to see what >>you all thought. >> >>Rather than confine our state coordinators to seeking county sites we >>offer regional sites. That may or may not work for all state >>coordinators. But I know that here in southeast Tennessee it is a huge >>mistake to confine research to one county. IE, we have one community now >>in McMinn that was in three other counties first. The families in the >>area show in records for all 4 counties. Early county lines in east TN >>were constantly changing. We could offer clusters of counties???? Or at >>least plant the idea as an option?? >> >> >>Joyce Gaston Reece,President >>American Local History Network >>www.alhn.org >> >Joyce Gaston Reece,President >American Local History Network >www.alhn.org > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >ALHN-GENERAL-request@rootsweb.com 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 >ALHN-GENERAL-request@rootsweb.com 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 ALHN-GENERAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message