In a message dated 9/1/2006 9:54:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, LadyGenes@comcast.net writes: If anyone knows of a good link that one could go to to read about copyright laws or infringements post one? I would like to put a link on my announcement boards in case someone has a question. Thank you in advance, Valeria Valeria- You don't really need it because all of that info is included in the AUP but I like Pat Asher's copyright FAQ page: http://freepages.computers.rootsweb.com/~pasher/copyrtfaq.htm Joan

If anyone knows of a good link that one could go to to read about copyright laws or infringements post one? I would like to put a link on my announcement boards in case someone has a question. Thank you in advance, Valeria

In a message dated 8/31/2006 7:56:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, Davis@dmea.osd.mil writes: Then the message boards wanted to incorporate the idea that some locality web sites offered which was Lookups. The problem is how to do this, so a classification of LOOKUP was created. Now we have forgotten or some newbies never knew what this term meant or how this term was used and how it works or maybe now we just want to redefine it. James- This wasn't how the classification of LOOKUP came to be. We originally had suites of 7 GenConnect boards--one board for queries and the remaining 6 for data types--Bios, Bibles, Deeds, Wills, Obits, and Pensions. Then a research group asked the GenConnect programmer/developer if they could have a special suite of test boards with some other classifications/board categories that they specifically asked for--The Fox surname research group. One of the board types they asked for was Lookup and I'm sure they had their own reasons for requesting a Lookup board. When the current boards were designed and the classifications were being discussed it was decided by the Product Manager at the time that the board types currently in existence, including the one group of test boards that had additional classifications, would be what was carried through onto the new boards. Joan

In a message dated 8/31/2006 6:38:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, mdtaffet@mailbox.syr.edu writes: Jackie, Clearly there is more than one opinion on what LOOKUP means. I always thought, and several others concurred, that LOOKUP was reserved for those who were offering to do lookups for others from some source available to them. In other words, this would be BEFORE any lookup was ever done. Joan has a different interpretation which you have quoted below. Teri's interpretation is probably more in line with what I thought to be the case. -- Mary It is this very diversity of opinion that is the reason I don't think LOOKUP should be a classification AT ALL. Other data type categories are specific data TYPES and LOOKUP is very vague. And a query is always a query--so LOOKUP just doesn't fit. Joan

Jackie, Clearly there is more than one opinion on what LOOKUP means. I always thought, and several others concurred, that LOOKUP was reserved for those who were offering to do lookups for others from some source available to them. In other words, this would be BEFORE any lookup was ever done. Joan has a different interpretation which you have quoted below. Teri's interpretation is probably more in line with what I thought to be the case. -- Mary On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Jackie Wilson Goddard wrote: > Teri, > > I truly beg to differ. As Joan said in an earlier post in this thread (to be specific: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/BOARDS-ADMINS/2006-08/1156871165 ) > "LOOKUP has a limited usage for replies to queries that quote data from a variety of sources." > > 1. These posts are "replies to queries". > 2. They "quote data". > 3. The data is from "a variety of sources". > > If LOOKUP is not "the results of doing lookups", what is your definition? > > Jackie

Hi folks, I have been watching the developments of boards from the beginning. First there were collections of messages on specialized web pages, then boards were developed to allow groupings, threads, and more global indexing and all messages were Queries. One of the grouping types was like data types on specialized data storage areas. Then to facilitate the aggregation of data, Classifications were created where data miners could store their mined data for all the rest of us to see. So we got classifications such as Obits, Cemteries or Tombstones, Census data or other types of data. These were only to post data not ask questions or give responses. IMHO Board facilitators should be watching for this and changing the classification of all messages that are not strictly single type data posts taken from specified source materiels to the classification of Query. Then the message boards wanted to incorporate the idea that some locality web sites offered which was Lookups. The problem is how to do this, so a classification of LOOKUP was created. Now we have forgotten or some newbies never knew what this term meant or how this term was used and how it works or maybe now we just want to redefine it. I think LOOKUP is just another data classification and the data is "Sources that someone has offered to do lookups in." When you ask for a lookup or give a response to a lookup request it should be a Query. This way the data set of sources being offered for searches under the classification of LOOKUP is not overwhelmed in an advanced search with the subsequent queries about the data. If you want to research this I have all the copies of RootsWeb Review back to June 1998 and I am sure buried in all these documents may be found references to LOOKUP. James R. Davis, Sacramento, CA

I agree with Mary, LOOKUP is a classification used to offer Lookups. Then a researcher, by limiting there search to the Lookup classification, could quickly determine what sources were being offered for lookups either on a surname board or a locality board and then request help from the appropiate person. I suppose the looked up response would automatically carry the same classification as the message it was responding to, but maybe there are cases when this would not be advisable. Otherwise why not post a query with a title "LOOKUP REQUEST: Source title" and see what response you might get. However now that I think of it why couldn't this request be classified LOOKUP? So now how about a query like this? LOOKUP OBIT: Need to find obit for Sally Jones who died 1/25/06. How do you classify this? <grin> Since this seems to be so confusing I would suggest having better instructions places somewhere readily available <grin> for those who will bother to read them. James R. Davis, Sacramento, CA -----Original Message----- From: boards-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:boards-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mary D. Taffet Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:37 PM To: boards-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BAd] What's the Point of the Classification Feature? Jackie, Clearly there is more than one opinion on what LOOKUP means. I always thought, and several others concurred, that LOOKUP was reserved for those who were offering to do lookups for others from some source available to them. In other words, this would be BEFORE any lookup was ever done. Joan has a different interpretation which you have quoted below. Teri's interpretation is probably more in line with what I thought to be the case. -- Mary On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Jackie Wilson Goddard wrote: > Teri, > > I truly beg to differ. As Joan said in an earlier post in this thread (to be specific: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/BOARDS-ADMINS/2006-08/1156871165 > ) "LOOKUP has a limited usage for replies to queries that quote data from a variety of sources." > > 1. These posts are "replies to queries". > 2. They "quote data". > 3. The data is from "a variety of sources". > > If LOOKUP is not "the results of doing lookups", what is your definition? > > Jackie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BOARDS-ADMINS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Teri, I truly beg to differ. As Joan said in an earlier post in this thread (to be specific: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/BOARDS-ADMINS/2006-08/1156871165 ) "LOOKUP has a limited usage for replies to queries that quote data from a variety of sources." 1. These posts are "replies to queries". 2. They "quote data". 3. The data is from "a variety of sources". If LOOKUP is not "the results of doing lookups", what is your definition? Jackie On Wed Aug 30 13:26 , 'Teri Pettit' <pettit@adobe.com> sent: >But that volunteer is misusing the classification. It is not meant for the results of doing lookups. > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: boards-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com on behalf of JYoung6180@aol.com >Sent: Wed 8/30/2006 11:07 AM >To: jaws64@comlinkusa.net; boards-admins@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [BAd] What's the Point of the Classification Feature? > > >In a message dated 8/30/2006 1:54:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, >jaws64@comlinkusa.net writes: > >If the name of the classification was simply changed to "volunteers" it >would create misclassified posts. > >I have a prolific lookup volunteer on one board who posts everything she >finds on an individual in one message - one week she made 27 posts of lookup >information, but her average is 10-12 *per week*. As you can see, I use this >classification frequently and would be opposed to **ANY** change whatsoever. > >Jackie > > > >There was talk during board testing sometime back about renaming this >classification LOOKUP REQUESTS but I'm not exactly sure what that classification >would encompass either--requests for lookups in specific publications and >resources I think. I still feel those are better left as queries because that is >what they are. > >Joan > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BOARDS-ADMINS-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 BOARDS-ADMINS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ---- Msg sent via Lightning Jack Webmail - http://www.nex-tech.com/

Let's stop picking this apart, analyzing it, and most of all talking about me in the third party then go on to something more worthwhile. For the record, I am the Board/List Admin you are all talking about, and following are the facts of what happened without the speculation: 1. "Poster A" posted to the board with some entirely appropriate and worthwhile information in it. 2. "Poster B" posted a reply to it, including some additional information worthwhile information. 3. "A" took exception to the information "B" posted, saying it was inacurate, but also questioned B's intelligence and made a few other inappropriate comments about her as well. 4. I got the moderation request for A's reply (see #3) as list Admin, and rejected it from being posted to the list, and told him why. 5. I then went to the board to read it in detail, then decided to remove "A's" first reply due to inflammatory and inappropriate comments, and thought it was then over. 6. "A" subsequently sent two more posts to the board, both replying to "B" and also laced with snide comments toward her, but this time against me as well, since I was trying to "prevent his freedom of speech" in not allowing an exchange of insults on the board. 7. "A" then replied to my rejection of the original post (see #4) and wrote to me personally, with words I will not mention on a public list, but calling me a coward for removing his posts. He also wanted to know who my boss is so he could complain about me and have all of my lists and board taken away from me as incompetent, and he is going to talk to his lawyer as well. 8. "A" then went to the Board Admins message board and started the string that is now still going on, despite the fact he is not a Board Admin that I know of. He asked for the means to file a complaint, against me and I am the one who replied to him with the location of the Help Desk. . . . .and it still goes on here ad nauseum, and needs to come to an end, IMHO. Those are the facts of the situation without all the guessing, speculation, opinions, or anything else. You can all stop guessing and talking about me in the third person now. NOW THEN, with all of the things going on right now that are FAR more worthy of our time and concern, can we let this subject drop? David E. Cann Bradford List/Board Admin -----Original Message----- From: boards-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:boards-admins-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Steven Stymiest Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:10 PM To: boards-admins@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BAd] administrator of the Bradford board I think this is what was going on, as the person stated she was criticizing and attacking someones web site on a Rootsweb board. That should be taken to a personal level and never ever on a board or list in public. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: <boards-admins@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [BAd] administrator of the Bradford board > > In a message dated 8/30/2006 5:06:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > wizardnc@comporium.net writes: > > The administrator is in charge. You cannot criticize other people or any > thing on the Rootsweb system. If you want to do that you must do it > privately between yourself and the person you have a problem with, not > publicly. I'd tell you the same thing on any one of my 100 + boards and > lists. Just because you are subscribed to a board or list, does not give > you the right to set your own rules. > > Steve > > > > Boards are different animals than lists and they have a different set of > rules. While the admin is king (pretty much) on his lists the same isn't > true > of boards. > > For instance--I can't decide on a US county message board that ONLY the > USGenWeb coordinator can post information for the county and those holding > other > resources are not permitted--if I manage a county board that board has to > be > available for all who wish to post legitimate (relevant) posts to the > board. > > It depends on what you mean by criticizing whether or not it might be > appropriate on a board or not. For instance--two researchers can disagree > on what > various evidence indicates and that is permissable on a board. You can > even > post items you might not like about WorldConnect or Ancestry on the > WorldConnect Suggestions Board or the Ancestry Site Comments Board. > > What can't happen on a board is personal attacks and personalities, but > certainly polite disagreement and criticism is permitted. > > Joan

I think this is what was going on, as the person stated she was criticizing and attacking someones web site on a Rootsweb board. That should be taken to a personal level and never ever on a board or list in public. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: <boards-admins@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [BAd] administrator of the Bradford board > > In a message dated 8/30/2006 5:06:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > wizardnc@comporium.net writes: > > The administrator is in charge. You cannot criticize other people or any > thing on the Rootsweb system. If you want to do that you must do it > privately between yourself and the person you have a problem with, not > publicly. I'd tell you the same thing on any one of my 100 + boards and > lists. Just because you are subscribed to a board or list, does not give > you the right to set your own rules. > > Steve > > > > Boards are different animals than lists and they have a different set of > rules. While the admin is king (pretty much) on his lists the same isn't > true > of boards. > > For instance--I can't decide on a US county message board that ONLY the > USGenWeb coordinator can post information for the county and those holding > other > resources are not permitted--if I manage a county board that board has to > be > available for all who wish to post legitimate (relevant) posts to the > board. > > It depends on what you mean by criticizing whether or not it might be > appropriate on a board or not. For instance--two researchers can disagree > on what > various evidence indicates and that is permissable on a board. You can > even > post items you might not like about WorldConnect or Ancestry on the > WorldConnect Suggestions Board or the Ancestry Site Comments Board. > > What can't happen on a board is personal attacks and personalities, but > certainly polite disagreement and criticism is permitted. > > Joan > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BOARDS-ADMINS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Here's a message from way back in 2005, which was moved from the Nix board to the "Announcements of DNA Projects" sometime this week, apparently by staff since the board has no admin. http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/ZIH.2ACEAE/841 What would be the rationale for moving that post (whole thread actually)? Ann Turner

On Wednesday 30 August 2006 4:49 pm, Mary D. Taffet wrote: > Fellow admins, > > I am generally very tolerant of DNA-project-related messages placed on > the message boards that I admin as long as there is no mention of a > specific lab or dollar amounts, and no link for a specific testing > company (so as not to fall into the commercial category). > > There is a message right now that does not include any of those items I > look for in determining appropriateness, but it does include specific > test names. Would those of you who are tolerant of rule-abiding DNA > messages allow the following to stay on one of the boards you admin: > > <http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/jQEBAIB/136> > > -- Thanks, > Mary Yes. Although he has an error of fact -- maternal DNA will not help in any surname studies. MtDNA comes through the female line only, all the way back to the "daughters of Eve," and Eve (or Lucy) herself. Valorie

On Thursday, August 31, 2006, 12:49:44 AM, Mary wrote: M> Would those of you who are tolerant of rule-abiding DNA M> messages allow the following to stay on one of the boards you admin: Mary, I would have no problem with this at all. I cannot imagine that the tests are specific to one lab and even if they are, there is no mention of a lab/service as far as I can see and the average board user would not know of any such specific, so I'd be quite happy to let it stand. I don't see it as a commercial advert at all. -- Cheers, Anne ___________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

At 8/30/2006 07:49 PM, "Mary D. Taffet" <mdtaffet@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote: >I am generally very tolerant of DNA-project-related messages placed on >the message boards that I admin as long as there is no mention of a >specific lab or dollar amounts, and no link for a specific testing >company (so as not to fall into the commercial category). > >There is a message right now that does not include any of those items I >look for in determining appropriateness, but it does include specific >test names. Would those of you who are tolerant of rule-abiding DNA >messages allow the following to stay on one of the boards you admin: > > <http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/jQEBAIB/136> > >-- Thanks, > Mary Mary, The post seems appropriate for the board. I would allow the specific test names. Rel@ively, Patrice

In a message dated 8/30/2006 7:14:14 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, mdtaffet@mailbox.syr.edu writes: I should have clarified that I was concerned about the mentioning of specific DNA tests (i.e. 67 marker test, etc.). ------------------ There is nothing commercial about naming the various types of tests available. There are no fees stated nor any particular company named. It's a very well constructed post that gives information clearly without offending the AUP in any way, as far as I can see. As I said before, I'd certainly leave it. In fact, I wouldn't have ever questioned it in the first place. Sharon Dulcich

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/BF.2ADIAE/1200.1.1 Message Board Post: Yeah, I heard about the Juno mistake :o) I'll try again later on, thanks for the answer.

Nelda, When I meant test names, I didn't mean surnames. I mean names of specific DNA tests. I realize now that my statement was ambiguous; I should have clarified that I was concerned about the mentioning of specific DNA tests (i.e. 67 marker test, etc.). -- Thanks, Mary On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Nelda Percival wrote: > Hi, > Being a yDNA surname admin myself, I see nothing wrong with it. Y DNA tests > are for specific surnames, and the person just lists the different spellings > for that particular surname. Now I did see an error in information about the > mtDNA test but that is not here or there.. > > Personally, it follows all the rules... no company named no moneies > mentioned... I'd say a nice informative message.. > > Nelda > List and Board Admin and YDNA surname group admin... > > Nelda's websites - > http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/ > yDNA tests for Hurst, Beatty, Gilpin, Graves; all direct male relatives

At 5:49 PM -0600 8-30-06, Mary D. Taffet <mdtaffet@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote: <snip> >There is a message right now that does not include any of those items I >look for in determining appropriateness, but it does include specific >test names. Would those of you who are tolerant of rule-abiding DNA >messages allow the following to stay on one of the boards you admin: > > <http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/jQEBAIB/136> You bet! Great post, IMHO. Slán, Mo! -- <http://xri.net/=mobang>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/BF.2ADIAE/1200.1 Message Board Post: juno is still around. Try again in a few days and if the admin address continues to bounce contact board staff at: messageboards@rootsweb.com . Joan

Hi Mary, There are about 8 or better testing houses, each one offers a set of different tests. These tests go by various names, but the most common terms for the tests are the number of markers (the place on the dna string that is tested). So, although it is used as a name for a test the real name would be ySTR test for 67 markers.. a big mouthful and not commonly used...each company has some markers they test in common and then they have thier own markers that they discouvered and haven't released the info to yet... 67 marker test does not tell the common person that the test is a Y-STR Test of 67 markers (for males only)... we who are into DNA testing know what it means and what companies offer these markers... it is not a copyrighted term to a particular company... Nelda Nelda's websites - http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/ yDNA tests for Hurst, Beatty, Gilpin, Graves; all direct male relatives