I don't even know why people are discussing it, what is right for one list, is not right for another! Surname lists are different animals to county lists, and can be overwhelmed. Each List Admin should just do what they feel is 'right' for their list, without other Admins knocking what they do. For goodness sake, don't we have enough without talking about other list admins doing the 'wrong' thing Lin -----Original Message----- From: listowners-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:listowners-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Linda Sent: 01 March 2012 18:35 To: LISTOWNERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [LO] Census questions Census questions won't be banned on my lists. They have relevance to genealogy research. I've been on lists where the Administrator takes themselves too seriously, banning this person, admonishing that person, cutting off discussions, and not allowing areas of genealogy research that don't fit their narrow views. I don't consider myself to be a "List Mother" who must constantly be on my "kids" to do everything exactly right. I am a "List Administrator" who will step in to keep my lists clean, on topic, and without extended needless discussions between individuals. It's an easy job. Why make it harder than it need be? Linda ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LISTOWNERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dan JM wrote: > Wont be out till April. > Spose I can wait to see what happens. Would probably be a good idea :)) > Would be nice if RW could fix how ( reply to all ) works, or even reply. It works exactly as it's supposed to: Reply goes to the sender only and Reply All goes to every address in the To and CC fields. It's not for Rootsweb to fix, but the sender to delete every address other than the list and/or sender of the mail to which a reply is being sent. > Most lists are quiet, some genealogy talks would be nice to see. It would certainly be nice to see some life instead of it appearing as though everyone has gone to talk to their ancestors in person. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk http://www.savethegurkhas.co.uk/

On my lists whether or not discussion of the 1940 census is permitted or squelched will depend upon the subject matter of the LIST, the other traffic ON the LIST, and the specific nature of the discussion. For instance, on a US County list discussion of the census (beyond a statement that it is available) would be limited to discussion of census entries/questions/data pertaining to the county. On a surname list there would need to be mention of the surname and then a thread could wonder off from there if it doesn't deviate from the subject matter too far or too long. That said, I wouldn't prohibit (in advance) any discussion on any of my lists -- and if a list is not otherwise busy I'm a bit more tolerant in that I just want to cheer that people are ALIVE out there and want to discuss almost ANYTHING related to genealogy. <g> Joan In a message dated 3/1/2012 1:38:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, romero89@earthlink.net writes: Census questions won't be banned on my lists. They have relevance to genealogy research. I've been on lists where the Administrator takes themselves too seriously, banning this person, admonishing that person, cutting off discussions, and not allowing areas of genealogy research that don't fit their narrow views. I don't consider myself to be a "List Mother" who must constantly be on my "kids" to do everything exactly right. I am a "List Administrator" who will step in to keep my lists clean, on topic, and without extended needless discussions between individuals. It's an easy job. Why make it harder than it need be? Linda

On 3/1/2012 12:35 PM, Linda wrote: > Census questions won't be banned on my lists. They have relevance to > genealogy research. Linda: For your lists, fine. If I were subscribed to one of them, I would be quite happy with you making the decision. The whole thing revolves around the question, "Does being 'relevant to genealogy research' make a discussion on topic for every list?" On my lists, the answer is "NO". It is not relevance to genealogy research in general that is important, it is connecting to the list topic. My subscribers have made it very clear that they like my approach. I have never had to ban anyone for making a stink about it, either. A parallel to all this is DNA. Most of us would agree that a thread about "which company is the best one to do DNA testing" would be *off* topic on the HARTWELL surname list. I believe most of us would also agree that a discussion about whether two 17th Century men named HARTWELL were brothers, with the evidence all coming from DNA, would be *on* topic for that list. Yet a few short years ago, some admins stated here on LO that any attempt to discuss even DNA evidence and conclusions, not just methods, would be grounds for banning. At first, that may even have been the majority opinion. I have always allowed such conversations as long as the dots were connected to get to the list topic. For example, this question would be *ON* topic for the Windsor County, Vermont list: "What is enumeration district 14-20 in Ludlow? It's just a dot on the map." (The answer, also *ON* topic, is Civilian Conservation Corps Camp SP-6.) This example question, however, would *NOT* be on topic: "Why does my browser time out when I click on any link to the census images?" (The answer will be that the Windsor County list is not the place to get a solution.) My original question here on LO was about how other admins would handle, not the first kind of question, but the second. Will you announce in advance how things should work? Will you let nature run its course? Are there creative options? I thought it would prove a rather boring kind of discussion, centered primarily on whether posting a new list rule would be useful. Silly me. Darrell

Census questions won't be banned on my lists. They have relevance to genealogy research. I've been on lists where the Administrator takes themselves too seriously, banning this person, admonishing that person, cutting off discussions, and not allowing areas of genealogy research that don't fit their narrow views. I don't consider myself to be a "List Mother" who must constantly be on my "kids" to do everything exactly right. I am a "List Administrator" who will step in to keep my lists clean, on topic, and without extended needless discussions between individuals. It's an easy job. Why make it harder than it need be? Linda

On 3/1/2012 11:47 AM, Charani wrote: ... >> Most lists are quiet, some genealogy talks would be nice to see. > > It would certainly be nice to see some life instead of it appearing as > though everyone has gone to talk to their ancestors in person. Charani: I have a couple of lists like that. I'm not going to worry about *them* on April 2. Darrell

On 3/1/2012 10:42 AM, Jim Loudon wrote: ... > Is anyone else troubled by the tone of recent posts? There was the thread > not so long ago shouting "SPAMMER, SPAMMER, I FOUND A SPAMMER!!!!! when it > turned out to be a legitmate subscriber, and now this, where an owner > wants to preemptively shut down a series of lists. > > Lighten up guys. > > jim Jim: Nobody suggested shutting down any list. Not only won't RW permit it, but that would be the very definition of counterproductive. You may be referring to moderation. Moderation *DOES NOT* shut down a list if the admin is competent and moderately diligent. It does not even affect the great majority of subscribers. It does take a lot of attention, to do it right, on a busy list. You cannot just moderate and then walk away. You have to keep a sharp eye on pending messages, to keep the conversation going. I suggested moderation as one *extreme* in a spectrum of possibilities. In most situations moderation is overkill and inappropriate -- except when things are already nearing a tipping point. Darrell

Darrell A. Martin wrote: > This is an illustration of exactly how people do not always > understand what is being asked, and things get out of hand. I > *KNOW* the answers to each of the questions. I am not at all > interested in reading the answers ... again ... but in a discussion > of how my fellow admins plan on dealing with the issue of the > questions being asked, probably repeatedly (if they plan on dealing > with the issue at all). If other list admins aren't understanding you, then maybe you ought to be clearer, and less tetchy when you are misunderstood. If you didn't want answers to your example questions, there was no need to include them. A simple "how are other admins planning on dealing with the possibly repeated questions about such things as enlarging images, etc, if at all" would probably have sufficed, or repeating the subject line in the body of the mail. Screaming at people not to write to you directly or address replies to you (when the list appears to be set for replies to go to both the list AND the sender) isn't going to help you either. Eventually admins will start ignoring you completely. So: "Will 1940 Census be OT on your lists?" No. Better? -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk http://www.savethegurkhas.co.uk/

Kevin Frye wrote: > I have made several postings to my site today and none go through.. except > one asking is subscribers have gotten my post. > > Any ideas? You haven't inadvertently banned yourself have you? Log in to your admin page then click on Privacy Options. The ban list will open up straight away. Have a quick scan down the list. If your address is there, highlight it and hit the delete key. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk http://www.savethegurkhas.co.uk/

Wont be out till April. Spose I can wait to see what happens. Would be nice if RW could fix how ( reply to all ) works, or even reply. We never used to get every one addresses in the To and CC lines. Most lists are quiet, some genealogy talks would be nice to see. Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charani" <charani.b@gmail.com> Cc: <listowners@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:17 AM Subject: Re: [LO] Will 1940 Census be OT on your lists?

Ditto. No pre-emption ________________________________ From: Nan <nstarjak@gmail.com> To: Listowners List <Listowners@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 5:55 AM Subject: Re: [LO] Will 1940 Census be OT on your lists? Ditto.  I see no need to do a pre-emptive ban of a valid genealogy topic  just in case a discussion *might* get out of hand.  That can happen to any topic.  If it does, I'll deal with it on a case-by-case basis, as with any other list issue. Nan On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:28 AM, JLA <jasche45133@gmail.com> wrote: > I hadn't even thought of it until you mentioned it. > > No it will not be off-topic. > > Joan Asche > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LISTOWNERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Ditto. I see no need to do a pre-emptive ban of a valid genealogy topic just in case a discussion *might* get out of hand. That can happen to any topic. If it does, I'll deal with it on a case-by-case basis, as with any other list issue. Nan On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:28 AM, JLA <jasche45133@gmail.com> wrote: > I hadn't even thought of it until you mentioned it. > > No it will not be off-topic. > > Joan Asche >

On 3/1/2012 4:17 AM, Charani wrote: > Darrell A. Martin wrote: > >> This is an illustration of exactly how people do not always >> understand what is being asked, and things get out of hand. I >> *KNOW* the answers to each of the questions. I am not at all >> interested in reading the answers ... again ... but in a discussion >> of how my fellow admins plan on dealing with the issue of the >> questions being asked, probably repeatedly (if they plan on dealing >> with the issue at all). > > If other list admins aren't understanding you, then maybe you ought to > be clearer, and less tetchy when you are misunderstood. Charani: That is fair enough, and I will for my part try to do better. > If you didn't want answers to your example questions, there was no > need to include them. Posting example questions is neither pointless nor a desire to get answers -- necessarily. If I did not make it clear enough that they were *only* examples, the onus is on me; but the approach still seems valid, on reflection. > A simple "how are other admins planning on dealing with the possibly > repeated questions about such things as enlarging images, etc, if at > all" would probably have sufficed, or repeating the subject line in > the body of the mail. It might have been better, I agree. Or I might have had to explain myself.... > Screaming at people not to write to you directly or address replies to > you (when the list appears to be set for replies to go to both the > list AND the sender) isn't going to help you either. Honestly, where does THIS come from? Was I testy? OK, perhaps. Nolo contendere. But I do not think my post was screaming. And I did not so much as mention how people responded to me. I have no problem with either private or list replies. It is not an issue for me. > Eventually > admins will start ignoring you completely. I hope not, but that is the prerogative of each of my fellow subscribers to LO. > So: > > "Will 1940 Census be OT on your lists?" > > No. > > Better? If that is your answer, then it is neither better nor worse. It is your answer. That is useful information, and I thank you for it. Darrell

I hadn't even thought of it until you mentioned it. No it will not be off-topic. Joan Asche On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Darrell A. Martin <darrellm@sprynet.com> wrote: > Greetings: > > I am contemplating "banning" conversations about the 1940 Census on my > surname and county lists. Not about what is seen *ON* the census (the > contents), that would be silly! I'm talking about > >  - How do I get access? >  - Is NARA better than Ancestry.com? >  - Why doesn't it open?? >  - How can I make it bigger on screen? >  - Why is it so slow?!??!@#$% > > I am going to post links to the NARA. I *may* pre-emptively post the > E.D. information for each county. I waffle back and forth between just > letting things go on one hand, and moderating each list for a short > while on the other, with lots of options in between. > > The middle ground is probably something like announcing the temporary > rule and then watching like a hawk to see which lists get out of hand. > The simplest, but the most work, is using moderation. > > What do the rest of you think about this? > > Darrell

I see a post in the archives for 1 Mar. Have you solved your problem? A there is also one for 29 Feb, 28 Feb, 27 Feb. so is everything okay now? Joan On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Kevin Frye <frye@pstel.net> wrote: > I have made several postings to my site today and none go through.. except > one asking is subscribers have gotten my post. > > Any ideas? > > Kevin > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LISTOWNERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Darrell A. Martin wrote: > Greetings: > > I am contemplating "banning" conversations about the 1940 Census on my > surname and county lists. Not about what is seen *ON* the census (the > contents), that would be silly! I'm talking about > > - How do I get access? > - Is NARA better than Ancestry.com? > - Why doesn't it open?? > - How can I make it bigger on screen? > - Why is it so slow?!??!@#$% No, I won't be banning it, nor moderating any of my lists wholesale. Yes, there could be questions like those you are using as an example. Yes, it will be slow. Yes, there will be those who in their excitement fluff things, don't read things properly, get impatient *but* it WILL run it's course. It will all settle down. For every person who asks a question about the 1940, there's likely a dozen more who won't ask but will appreciate the answers. Then again, I'm not the type of admin who'll jump at the first mention of a subject that's borderline, or even totally off topic, screaming "OFF TOPIC!! OFF TOPIC!!" and slamming the list onto mod to make sure. If a subject does go on too long, I will gently (and hopefully with humour) remind people there IS a topic which governs the list. It's usually enough. End of the day though, how any admin runs his or her list is up to them. If they know their membership, they'll know how to deal with it. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk http://www.savethegurkhas.co.uk/

Hi Darrell What monumental calamity will occur if you allow posts on the 1940 census on their lists about their places and methods of finding their ancestors I must be missing something as I thought that was what the lists are for Are quantity of posts so great as to cause a problem with a few more? Once a question is asked, then answered they may help several subscribers at the same time and may not get asked again Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Greetings: > > I am contemplating "banning" conversations about the 1940 Census on my > surname and county lists. Not about what is seen *ON* the census (the > contents), that would be silly! I'm talking about > > - How do I get access? > - Is NARA better than Ancestry.com? > - Why doesn't it open?? > - How can I make it bigger on screen? > - Why is it so slow?!??!@#$% > > I am going to post links to the NARA. I *may* pre-emptively post the > E.D. information for each county. I waffle back and forth between just > letting things go on one hand, and moderating each list for a short > while on the other, with lots of options in between. > > The middle ground is probably something like announcing the temporary > rule and then watching like a hawk to see which lists get out of hand. > The simplest, but the most work, is using moderation. > > What do the rest of you think about this? > > Darrell

I made this from the list page by removing -admin ANDERSONVILLE@rootsweb.com Go into your admin section for the list. Check pending for anything hung up. Browse the ANDERSONVILLE archives see if your posts are going though

Sorry folks. I didnt mean to send my today in history to this site earlier. Ive tried to send it to my site several times today ... ( Yes the ht )ANDERSONVILLE@rootsweb.com but its not working.Very frustrating. Kevin

I have made several postings to my site today and none go through.. except one asking is subscribers have gotten my post. Any ideas? Kevin