SOMERS wrote: > I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about. I have NOT received an > invitation, yet went onto the site and purchased some family research > information. The site administrators did not send me an email rejecting > my enquiry, nor rejecting my money spent purchasing credits which I then > duly spent to their benefit !! > > If the administrators wanted a site to be tested 'by invitation only', > surely they would have set it up in such a way that the 'invitees' were > given a 'user password' therefore preventing Jo Public from entering the > test site. > > > "will be noted"........... > and then what I wonder? They are taking action :)) It's a great pity people are impatient and have absolutely no respect for anyone or anything. It's the "me, me" society again.

> SOMERS wrote: >> I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about. I have NOT received an >> invitation, yet went onto the site and purchased some family research >> information. The site administrators did not send me an email rejecting >> my enquiry, nor rejecting my money spent purchasing credits which I then >> duly spent to their benefit !! >> >> If the administrators wanted a site to be tested 'by invitation only', >> surely they would have set it up in such a way that the 'invitees' were >> given a 'user password' therefore preventing Jo Public from entering the >> test site. >> >> >> "will be noted"........... >> and then what I wonder? > > They are taking action :)) > > It's a great pity people are impatient and have absolutely no respect > for anyone or anything. It's the "me, me" society again. So who is going to have "action taken" against them: people who posted the link, or all the people who are then able to use the link?? The people who posted may not have got the link "legitimately", but are sharing it - yes of course they may get information from people who then use the link, but also they may not, and are just helping others! Are the people who got the link and used it, going to be asked where they got it - which in any case could be from a number of sources!!? Once the census was online, access was going to happen. I agree with SOMERS that either the site be made a lot harder to access from the start, or it should be happy to accept access and payments arising from access! Genies and bottles!!

I never did like "exclusive clubs"...knowledge is to be shared not hoarded....obviously with a Beta they did not want immediate global access as when they did it with the 1901 census their infrastructure crashed and could not cope with the demand....this way the demand builds up gradually and helps them test the loads on their servers. Had it been "abused" then they would not have extended the Beta period....besides which the only way they could "police" the "uninvited" would be by barring the IP address and that would be a nightmare to set up and also very counterproductive. As per usual i have detected a transcription error on my surname and have reported it...since they only allow surname or address searches it took a while to "play" with the many variations and this time it was a new one...I am sure they will forgive my sins in return for the correction...after all it is the season of forgiveness.... -------- Original Message -------- > >> SOMERS wrote: >> >>> I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about. I have NOT received an >>> invitation, yet went onto the site and purchased some family research >>> information. The site administrators did not send me an email rejecting >>> my enquiry, nor rejecting my money spent purchasing credits which I then >>> duly spent to their benefit !! >>> >>> If the administrators wanted a site to be tested 'by invitation only', >>> surely they would have set it up in such a way that the 'invitees' were >>> given a 'user password' therefore preventing Jo Public from entering the >>> test site. >>> >>> >>> "will be noted"........... >>> and then what I wonder? >>> >> They are taking action :)) >> >> It's a great pity people are impatient and have absolutely no respect >> for anyone or anything. It's the "me, me" society again. >> > > So who is going to have "action taken" against them: people who posted the > link, or all the people who are then able to use the link?? The people who > posted may not have got the link "legitimately", but are sharing it - yes of > course they may get information from people who then use the link, but also > they may not, and are just helping others! Are the people who got the link > and used it, going to be asked where they got it - which in any case could > be from a number of sources!!? > > Once the census was online, access was going to happen. I agree with SOMERS > that either the site be made a lot harder to access from the start, or it > should be happy to accept access and payments arising from access! Genies > and bottles!! > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > E-mail message checked by Internet Security (6.0.0.386) > Database version: 5.11400 > http://www.pctools.com/uk/internet-security/ > > E-mail message checked by Internet Security (6.0.0.386) Database version: 5.11410 http://www.pctools.com/uk/internet-security/