Of course on the other hand, if the group felt that the acquisition of such data would be interesting I could do that (as I say this I wonder what I may have committed myself to in that the group is very large). On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Elizabeth Kipp wrote: > > I just checked in on some that I have done to see my name and email > address (which I agreed to because I felt it would be handy for people as > some of the data was not transcribable). I could give a good guess > that might help them - the page number in particular. I am quite cautious > not to put a number unless I am quite certain. I think the data has been > up about a week now (I am a new transcriber) and I have not received any > emails to date (no spam on that account actually as it is a secondary > account - my husband gets all the spam!). This account gets a lot of spam > (about ten a day) but the IP does do a good job of the first cleaning as > my spamblock (which I check periodically) gets probably 100 a day! > > I wonder if spammers would bother doing searches to acquire email > addresses. You can do it just as easily by random searches on the web. > > I actually liked the way you put the message - it would encourage people > to ask if the data entered includes * or _. I think I will keep a list of > how many and from where in a database that I can submit if anyone would > like it. > > On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Peter Dauncey wrote: > > > The message says 'This person *may* be doing research related to this name' > > [my highlighting], so I don't think it's really misleading. My own > > submissions are a mixture of one-name studies and whole pages, and I did > > contemplate having separate IDs with different privacy settings, but decided > > against it. The frequency of e-mails is increasing, but it's still no more > > than once or twice a month, and if there's no personal connection (as is > > usually the case) it takes very little time to send a standard reply saying > > so. This has nearly always generated a follow-up message from the other > > party, which without exception has been friendly, polite and full of > > praise/gratitude for the project. > > > > In short, I think my privacy settings have resulted in positive feedback > > rather than spam, but of course it's a personal choice. > > > > Peter Dauncey > > South London, UK > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Loraine <Lol_barnes@lineone.net> > > To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 12:37 AM > > Subject: RE: Submitter details privacy-setting > > > > Given that there are loads of opportunities for unscrupulous individuals to > > 'lift' email addresses and use them for the purposes of sending spam I felt > > it was correct to remain anonymous. I don't think there was a reveal my name > > option when I joined. I do feel that the remark 'this person may be doing > > research related to this name' is misleading, as whilst it applies to those > > who send in results of their own private researches, surely they are a tiny > > part of the transcribed index, and therefore the chances of clicking on > > someone who IS doing research related to a particular name is small. Maybe > > this message should not appear. > > > > Loraine > > > > From: "Tony Hall" <tonyh185@hotair.demon.co.uk> > > To: <FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com> > > Subject: Submitter details privacy-setting > > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:11:40 -0000 > > > > When I signed up as a transcriber a few weeks ago, I wasn't sure what > > Privacy setting to use. I opted for "Show my email address and invite > > correspondence on the entries I have submitted", thinking that there > > could be 2 reasons why someone might want to contact a transcriber other > > than with a correction - either they were seeking clarification of an > > entry (say a certificate request failed and they come back and ask me to > > re-check the transcription), or the transcriber is interested in the > > entries themselves. In my case, the latter does not apply, but I still > > chose that Privacy setting thinking that it was the most helpful with > > the former reason in mind. > > > > However, I have noticed that the "Transcriber Details" page against my > > entries says "Note that this person may be doing research relating to > > this entry." That is much more explicit than I expected, and is > > misleading in my case. I am therefore inclined to change my setting to > > "Reveal my name but not my email address". What do others think? > > -- > > Tony Hall > > > > > > ============================== > > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > > > > > -- Elizabeth (Blake) Kipp mailto:kippeeb@magma.ca

My husband relates no increase in spam either. I should mention though if one searched my full name as stated on the pages, I wouldn't be found so is different in my case as identification is mostly in my husband's name. There is a lot of anonymity in that possibly. I have used my other email address as I keep this one for mailing lists principally. > > I think the data has been > > up about a week now (I am a new transcriber) and I have not received any > > emails to date (no spam on that account actually as it is a secondary > > account - my husband gets all the spam!). -- Elizabeth (Blake) Kipp mailto:kippeeb@magma.ca webpage: http://www.magma.ca/~kippeeb/