At 11:27 AM 4/15/03 -0500, you wrote: >This response is regarding Tim's posting about the "alleged" competition >between the GAGenWeb Archives and the County pages. Again - a misunderstanding - what I said was that there had been a competition for quite some time - between the various Archives groups - since that was the subject under discussion. I didn't 'allege' there was competition between the GaGenWeb Archives and the County pages. >Linda Lewis, the National Archives Manager, asked that I share this with >all of you, lest anyone have a misunderstanding regarding the archives. > >I think all of you know by now that I try very hard not to be involved in >the messages which are accusatory in nature. I feel that the Archives and >the County Pages are team players in GAGenWeb and that we should treat each >other with respect and cooperate whenever we can. I never like to >embarrass anyone on this List for any reason. Unfortunately having been a victim myself of some Archives individual tactics - I do have first hand knowledge of abuses, by some individuals. >I have repeatedly asked that anyone who has any problem with the Archives, >give me the complete information, and I will follow up. When I don't >receive pertinent information on something that is said within an e-mail, >then I assume there is no basis for the complaint or allegation. Linda >Lewis has stated the same thing many times. If something is done that is >wrong, then she wants to hear about it as well. Unfortunately that was not done - until the complaints went to a more public forum - the State Coordinators list - sad but true and 4 years after the fact. >The main reason I have not answered each allegation that has been made in >recent weeks against the Archives is that we've rehashed the same >discussion numerous times. There has not been any concrete evidence to >support any of the comments made against the Archives. All of you CCs who >understand and work with the Archives, already know the system and its >benefits. Those CCs who do not want to have any part at all with the >Archives are certainly free to do so and I respect your reasons. > >The Guidelines state this: >#13 > b) The site has not been updated with genealogical data within nine (9) >months. (Some consideration may be given to sites for counties less than >100 years old. > >Also, new links to GAGenWeb Archives files, pertaining to the county in >question, may be considered an update.) >http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/guidelines.htm As the National Bylaws state - county sites must be the primary depository for data for the county and not a collection of links - this guideline needs to be modified to come into compliance with the National Bylaws. >The more people working to get information on-line for Georgia the more >researchers will be helped. And to me that is always the bottom line --- >how can we help researchers the most? Well for one thing - stop data mining. And that goes both ways. Personally the Archives are there for folks who don't want to wait on the CC to format the data to be put on-line, while the CC should put the data they contribute to the web site first and secondly to the Archives, if they so choose. What folks shouldn't do (the Archives or the CCs) - is duplicate each others work - by means of re-inventing the wheel. If the CC's or their contributors don't elect to give it to the Archives the Archives should stay away from that data. If the Archives contributors don't elect to give it to the CCs for the county sites - just link to the items if you find them useful. Some have talked of deep linking versus to the main county TOC for the Archives - the problem there being that if I had a section for marriages it would be dumb to have persons go to the TOC, then to marriages when they can go there directly. Again, just one person's opinion. Tim