There was discussion about this here, and right after reading that discussion, I found this blog post: http://wasgs.org/blog/2018/12/31/seattle-genealogical-society-tip-of-the-week-84/ It discussed a new link guide to genealogy on FB at https://socialmediagenealogy.com/genealogy-on-facebook-list/ And I wanted to add another way to use FB for genealogy that I've found useful: groups centered around tech sites such as DNA Painter, or software like Genome Mate Pro. Those FB groups are run by a core of experienced people who pin the posts most beginners will need, post timely announcements and answer gnarly questions. Still one more use is my local genealogy society, which posts good local stuff, our own society events and those our members might find useful from other local or national groups. We have a website (skcgs.org) and Twitter (@skcgs1) but I think Facebook is at least as effective as those, or our list (wa-skgs@rootsweb). As the listowner I try to post stuff there as well as on Twitter. I don't personally like Facebook very much and don't spend much time there, but I so see its use, and do not see it as a rival to my lists. Valorie -- http://about.me/valoriez

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 3:16 PM Keith Meintjes <kmeintjes@gmail.com> wrote: > Resending ... > > On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 2:00 PM Keith Meintjes <kmeintjes@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I'd like to get some feedback on using social media (SM) sites like > > Facebook vs. using discussion lists (DL) like Rootsweb for genealogy. > Why do you have to choose? I use both! All! > I am not particularly adept at either, but it seems to me that SM are not > > an archive, and they serve up to you what they choose to serve up to you. > > Can you find a posting two or three years later? Can you even search SM > for > > yesterday's posts made by someone you don't know? > You can't. All of social media is for the moment, which can be a strength and a weakness. You can use social media to point to the stable resource, and expand the information resources available to your readers there. Some will make the effort to subscribe to the lists, but it takes some work, because mail lists still seem like dark magic to many. > I guess I see people spending a lot of effort on transcriptions and then > > posting them on Facebook. In the long run, isn't this just wasted effort? > > > > Keith > I wouldn't post transcriptions on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter, but I would use them to point to the transcription on the web somewhere. Now that we have archives again, that means that our posts - including transcriptions - are on the web, and we can post a link to the archived post. We can also post on the Message Boards, including images, and write about that on the list(s), and also on SM. In my opinion if you've done the work, SM is the place to talk about it, and get more readership. Valorie PS: When I google for a piece of barely-remembered genealogical information, I often find my list posts, or even better the replies. :-)

Ah! That makes a lot of sense, on a lot of levels, including privacy. Well, that settles that! Thank you Malcolm. Darlene

On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 18:54:05 -0000, Darlene Dimitrie <dvhhemail.darlene@gmail.com> wrote: > Has anyone successfully changed the name for an existing member? The > list of members screen does not allow direct editing. You should have no expectation of being able to do so. That name is controlled by that subscriber's rootsweb account, not their subscription to your, or any other, list. If it needs to be changed, they have to do it themselves. Happy New Year, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk>

Has anyone successfully changed the name for an existing member? The list of members screen does not allow direct editing. I tried to do it by unsubscribing a member and then subscribing them again. They were unsubscribed/subscribed, but no name appeared. One exception was the personal email address I use for the list. When I re-subscribed it, I put in a shorter name; the original name reappeared. Anyone able to change the name successfully? Perhaps this feature is not available yet? Privacy concern? I use the name the member supplies when sending an email to the list, or the name they supply when requesting to be subscribed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Entering the name field is successful when subscribing a new member. I use the format: *membername <emailaddress@isp.com <emailaddress@isp.com>>*, one of the examples shown on the mass subscribe screen. We have approximately 800 members. About 300 of these have names attached. Not all email addresses use the person's name and some use a family member's name. There are a handful of members who do not put a name, even a first name, at the bottom of their posts and use a non-identifiable email address. We consider it a courtesy for posters to identify themselves, at minimum with a first name or a last name. ----------------------------------------------- Darlene Dimitrie DVHH Mailing List Administrator donauschwaben-villages@rootsweb.com

This is also similar with the Rogers Rodgers and Roger... Plus Tom had a mess of various other Roger type lists. So many lists when the variable could be one list. Dan M On Thu, Jan 3, 2019, 7:59 AM Joan Young via LISTOWNERS < listowners@rootsweb.com wrote: > > A lot of this issue with never used lists dates back to the time RootsWeb > decided (seemed like a good idea at the time) to begin creating lists for > surname variants. Other list services were doing it so it seemed like > RootsWeb was losing customers because people searching for MAYER who didn't > realize that MOYER, MAYER, MEYER, MEIER were all covered under the original > MYERS list. Sure, the list description said they were all included in the > single list but many people never read the list description. It is actually > easier and more productive to include all spelling variants of a surname in > a single list. But then there is a issue of what constitutes a variant and > what is an actual completely different surname with no reason they would be > discussed on the same list---BORDEN and BORTON for example are unrelated. > But I do believe surname lists are the most difficult and most apt to be > unused or abandoned. I think there should be a functioning list for every > country, state, county, and us > eful topics such as DNA or working with genealogy software/family trees. > > > > I also think times change and resources change and many people have turned > to social media and/or message boards than email lists. So it isn't easy to > find the best solutions. > > > > > > Joan Young > jyoung6180@aol.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anne Mitchell <annerootsweb@gmail.com> > To: Lynne <lklein@mindspring.com> > Cc: Listowners list for Rootsweb list admins and moderators < > listowners@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2019 10:50 am > Subject: [LO] Re: About inactive mailing list on RootsWeb > > If there is a list that someone really wants to be reactivated and can make > a decent case, I am willing to do it. > > But I am not going to reinstate the orphaned list. I can see no reason to > have that many lists running. Most lists are just spam collectors. > > Anne > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:27 PM Lynne <lklein@mindspring.com> wrote: > > > Anne, in July you told us that "The link for adopting websites is not > > operational at the moment. Right now I am recruiting people who are > > subscribed to individual lists." That led me to believe that you meant > the > > link to adopt lists, rather than websites, and that the link would be > > working at some time in the future. So now that's not the plan? > > > > Happy New Year to you! > > > > Lynne > > > > > > > > Anne Mitchell <annerootsweb@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >When we started rewriting/fixing the software, we had about 35,000 > lists. > > >Only about 40% of those have admins with verified email addresses. And > I > > >have a strong suspicion that many lists that have a verified email are > not > > >being watched and maintained. > > > > > > > > >Lists with admins with verified owners are still active regardless of > > their > > >volume. > > > > > > > > > > > >Lists that do not have admins with verified email addresses will be > marked > > >inactive. Not all of them have been as of yet, but they will be. The > > >archive will continue to be available, but there is no one to manage > them. > > >It also cuts down on the amount of spam that flows through the system > and > > >we have to catch and process if we cut down the number of mailing lists > we > > >maintain. > > > > > > > > >Mailing lists cost more than other pieces of RootsWeb to run and require > > >human intervention on a regular basis. Usage has been at low level > both > > >in emails sent and archive views for many years, dating back to before > the > > >system was upgraded, taken down etc. > > > > > > > > >I am trying to find the right number of lists to keep and ways to get > more > > >views to the archives which might drive usage. But there are many other > > >avenues that beginning and seasoned genealogists investigate these days > > >before trying a mailing list. > > > > > > > > >We will continue to work to find the right balance for RootsWeb Mailing > > >Lists. > > > > > > > > >Happy New Year. > > > > > > > > >Anne > > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/listowners@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/listowners@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

A lot of this issue with never used lists dates back to the time RootsWeb decided (seemed like a good idea at the time) to begin creating lists for surname variants. Other list services were doing it so it seemed like RootsWeb was losing customers because people searching for MAYER who didn't realize that MOYER, MAYER, MEYER, MEIER were all covered under the original MYERS list. Sure, the list description said they were all included in the single list but many people never read the list description. It is actually easier and more productive to include all spelling variants of a surname in a single list. But then there is a issue of what constitutes a variant and what is an actual completely different surname with no reason they would be discussed on the same list---BORDEN and BORTON for example are unrelated. But I do believe surname lists are the most difficult and most apt to be unused or abandoned. I think there should be a functioning list for every country, state, county, and useful topics such as DNA or working with genealogy software/family trees. I also think times change and resources change and many people have turned to social media and/or message boards than email lists. So it isn't easy to find the best solutions. Joan Young jyoung6180@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Anne Mitchell <annerootsweb@gmail.com> To: Lynne <lklein@mindspring.com> Cc: Listowners list for Rootsweb list admins and moderators <listowners@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2019 10:50 am Subject: [LO] Re: About inactive mailing list on RootsWeb If there is a list that someone really wants to be reactivated and can make a decent case, I am willing to do it. But I am not going to reinstate the orphaned list. I can see no reason to have that many lists running. Most lists are just spam collectors. Anne On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:27 PM Lynne <lklein@mindspring.com> wrote: > Anne, in July you told us that "The link for adopting websites is not > operational at the moment. Right now I am recruiting people who are > subscribed to individual lists." That led me to believe that you meant the > link to adopt lists, rather than websites, and that the link would be > working at some time in the future. So now that's not the plan? > > Happy New Year to you! > > Lynne > > > > Anne Mitchell <annerootsweb@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >When we started rewriting/fixing the software, we had about 35,000 lists. > >Only about 40% of those have admins with verified email addresses. And I > >have a strong suspicion that many lists that have a verified email are not > >being watched and maintained. > > > > > >Lists with admins with verified owners are still active regardless of > their > >volume. > > > > > > > >Lists that do not have admins with verified email addresses will be marked > >inactive. Not all of them have been as of yet, but they will be. The > >archive will continue to be available, but there is no one to manage them. > >It also cuts down on the amount of spam that flows through the system and > >we have to catch and process if we cut down the number of mailing lists we > >maintain. > > > > > >Mailing lists cost more than other pieces of RootsWeb to run and require > >human intervention on a regular basis. Usage has been at low level both > >in emails sent and archive views for many years, dating back to before the > >system was upgraded, taken down etc. > > > > > >I am trying to find the right number of lists to keep and ways to get more > >views to the archives which might drive usage. But there are many other > >avenues that beginning and seasoned genealogists investigate these days > >before trying a mailing list. > > > > > >We will continue to work to find the right balance for RootsWeb Mailing > >Lists. > > > > > >Happy New Year. > > > > > >Anne > _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/listowners@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

If there is a list that someone really wants to be reactivated and can make a decent case, I am willing to do it. But I am not going to reinstate the orphaned list. I can see no reason to have that many lists running. Most lists are just spam collectors. Anne On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:27 PM Lynne <lklein@mindspring.com> wrote: > Anne, in July you told us that "The link for adopting websites is not > operational at the moment. Right now I am recruiting people who are > subscribed to individual lists." That led me to believe that you meant the > link to adopt lists, rather than websites, and that the link would be > working at some time in the future. So now that's not the plan? > > Happy New Year to you! > > Lynne > > > > Anne Mitchell <annerootsweb@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >When we started rewriting/fixing the software, we had about 35,000 lists. > >Only about 40% of those have admins with verified email addresses. And I > >have a strong suspicion that many lists that have a verified email are not > >being watched and maintained. > > > > > >Lists with admins with verified owners are still active regardless of > their > >volume. > > > > > > > >Lists that do not have admins with verified email addresses will be marked > >inactive. Not all of them have been as of yet, but they will be. The > >archive will continue to be available, but there is no one to manage them. > >It also cuts down on the amount of spam that flows through the system and > >we have to catch and process if we cut down the number of mailing lists we > >maintain. > > > > > >Mailing lists cost more than other pieces of RootsWeb to run and require > >human intervention on a regular basis. Usage has been at low level both > >in emails sent and archive views for many years, dating back to before the > >system was upgraded, taken down etc. > > > > > >I am trying to find the right number of lists to keep and ways to get more > >views to the archives which might drive usage. But there are many other > >avenues that beginning and seasoned genealogists investigate these days > >before trying a mailing list. > > > > > >We will continue to work to find the right balance for RootsWeb Mailing > >Lists. > > > > > >Happy New Year. > > > > > >Anne >

There is no comparison to equal Rootsweb when it is active, and being used to its fullest capacity with the listers, getting in and using and making their lists work for them, BUT with the onset of Social Media it has been bandied around in most groups is it the way to go forward, well you have to have to have a leader, of those groups like on Rootsweb with a fairly sound grounding of the history etc of genealogy, which most of us have earnt over the years. But with Social Media 1- no archives are kept, you have to scroll through a million miles of mindless mis information to find anything of any use to your research. 2- the whip hand is in the control of Facebook, and they seem to encounter more problems than rootsweb on a daily basis and if your message does not conform to their ideals, it is removed. 3- there is really no way of controlling the mail from anyone who wishes to join a gen group on Social Media and that leaves a lot of postings you do not encounter on roots web 4- you cannot search with Google to find postings for genealogy on social media ( there is a new setting in place that is widening this search avenue) 5-Members are asked to exercise politeness but it is not always exercised and by the time an admin of the page arrives the argument is beyond control and those responsible for the dilemma have usually done a runner ( no moderate on these groups) 6- Those that have wanted to branch out into Social Media have already done so, so my advice is stick with Rootsweb and use your own initiative in regards to social media Cheers from Cara -----Original Message----- From: Keith Meintjes Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 10:06 AM To: Listowners list for Rootsweb list admins and moderators Subject: [LO] Re: Social Media vs Rootsweb? Resending ... On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 2:00 PM Keith Meintjes <kmeintjes@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to get some feedback on using social media (SM) sites like > Facebook vs. using discussion lists (DL) like Rootsweb for genealogy. > > I am not particularly adept at either, but it seems to me that SM are not > an archive, and they serve up to you what they choose to serve up to you. > Can you find a posting two or three years later? Can you even search SM > for > yesterday's posts made by someone you don't know? > > I guess I see people spending a lot of effort on transcriptions and then > posting them on Facebook. In the long run, isn't this just wasted effort? > > Keith > > -- > +1.248.891.6434 > Michigan, USA (Eastern Time) > -- +1.248.891.6434 Michigan, USA (Eastern Time) _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/listowners@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Anne, in July you told us that "The link for adopting websites is not operational at the moment. Right now I am recruiting people who are subscribed to individual lists." That led me to believe that you meant the link to adopt lists, rather than websites, and that the link would be working at some time in the future. So now that's not the plan? Happy New Year to you! Lynne Anne Mitchell <annerootsweb@gmail.com> wrote: > >When we started rewriting/fixing the software, we had about 35,000 lists. >Only about 40% of those have admins with verified email addresses. And I >have a strong suspicion that many lists that have a verified email are not >being watched and maintained. > > >Lists with admins with verified owners are still active regardless of their >volume. > > > >Lists that do not have admins with verified email addresses will be marked >inactive. Not all of them have been as of yet, but they will be. The >archive will continue to be available, but there is no one to manage them. >It also cuts down on the amount of spam that flows through the system and >we have to catch and process if we cut down the number of mailing lists we >maintain. > > >Mailing lists cost more than other pieces of RootsWeb to run and require >human intervention on a regular basis. Usage has been at low level both >in emails sent and archive views for many years, dating back to before the >system was upgraded, taken down etc. > > >I am trying to find the right number of lists to keep and ways to get more >views to the archives which might drive usage. But there are many other >avenues that beginning and seasoned genealogists investigate these days >before trying a mailing list. > > >We will continue to work to find the right balance for RootsWeb Mailing >Lists. > > >Happy New Year. > > >Anne

When we started rewriting/fixing the software, we had about 35,000 lists. Only about 40% of those have admins with verified email addresses. And I have a strong suspicion that many lists that have a verified email are not being watched and maintained. Lists with admins with verified owners are still active regardless of their volume. Lists that do not have admins with verified email addresses will be marked inactive. Not all of them have been as of yet, but they will be. The archive will continue to be available, but there is no one to manage them. It also cuts down on the amount of spam that flows through the system and we have to catch and process if we cut down the number of mailing lists we maintain. Mailing lists cost more than other pieces of RootsWeb to run and require human intervention on a regular basis. Usage has been at low level both in emails sent and archive views for many years, dating back to before the system was upgraded, taken down etc. I am trying to find the right number of lists to keep and ways to get more views to the archives which might drive usage. But there are many other avenues that beginning and seasoned genealogists investigate these days before trying a mailing list. We will continue to work to find the right balance for RootsWeb Mailing Lists. Happy New Year. Anne

Answers to your questions: When the archives are sanitized and restored, will the keyword search function be available? -- You can search by keywords in restored archives. Is any work to restore full function to World Connect being done? -- Lots of work has been done and we should have a new version for WC users to test sometime this month. (Jan 2019) Will the PML be restored? -- Never. When Ancestry acquired RootsWeb we were informed that if we had paid Rootsweb for a mailing list we were entitled to three FreePages. I've used two. How do I get my third one? -- This agreement has long since gone away and we are not giving out new FreePages and have no plans to do so in the future. There are lots of sites that will give you web hosting for free or for a small price. Or if you can send me the email with that agreement and some kind of proof that you paid for mailing list, I'd be willing to have a discussion. Anne On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:08 PM Joel Pate <patej@nettally.com> wrote: > To all who are working to restore Rootsweb functions-Thank you for your > efforts. > > To all, I wish you a very Happy and fruitful New Year. > > I have been a listowner since June 1998. That is 20 years and 6 months > ago. About 4 years BA. Before Acquisition by Ancestry. A while back (in > 2018) I signed up for a new administrative page. Learning how to navigate > it has been challenging. Being a subscriber to list owners has been > helpful. I was pleased to see addresses for all 200 plus subscribers, over > 800 banned addresses, and date browsable archives dating back 20 years and > 6 months were available > > Questions: > ➢ When the archives are sanitized and restored, will the key word search > function be available? > ➢ Is any work to restore full function to World Connect being done? > ➢ Will the PML be restored? > ➢ When Ancestry acquired Rootsweb we were informed that if we had paid > Rootsweb for a mailing list we were entitled to three FreePages. I’ve > used two. How do I get my third one? > > Joel > > Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/listowners@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

Messages have been coming thru fine the past several days from what I have seen... Rick B On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 5:26 PM Mike Flannigan <mikeflan@att.net> wrote: > > I suspect you already know this, but the lists > are down again. > > > Mike > > > On 12/31/2018 8:40 PM, Mike Flannigan wrote: > > > > I think the lists are down again > > This is a test. > > > > Mike > > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/listowners@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

Why would you want to do that? In any case, not something we can do as far as I know. You'll need to ask Anne. Lynne DABF <dabf@att.net> wrote: >I need instructions on how to turn the archive feature off of my mailing >list. > >Thanks, DABF >

Anne has certainly not said that un-adminned lists would be deleted. She did say that they're still working on getting the page with lists available for adoption back up and running. Hard to adopt a list if you don't know which lists are available. Lynne Jim Jackson <listsitter@charter.net> wrote: > >Does this mean there will be no list of Lists available for adoption? All >un-adminned lists will be deleted? > >Jim > >As to what make the lists in active - no takers for admin despite >announcements. > >David Samuelsen

I made a post on that subject which was well received Some were not aware and it reminded others to check the "To" field before sending Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 02/01/2019 21:16, Lynne wrote: > I miss that setting, too, Mary. We'll just have to remind our listers to post to the list. > > Lynne

No way that I can see, Jim. Think you'll need to let Anne know about the problem. Lynne Jim Jackson <listsitter@charter.net> wrote: > >I noticed, when clicking on "B" for the list of "B" surname lists, that the >last name given is "Birdwell" with no visible means of going to the next >page. Does anyone know how to get past "Birdwell"? ("Boone" for example) > > > >Jim

I miss that setting, too, Mary. We'll just have to remind our listers to post to the list. Lynne >On 12/28/2018 3:40 PM, Mary Russell wrote: >> OMG. I have to tell them to reply to the list instead of the sender. Hard to remember to do that. Change is often a step back. Thanks for the answer. >> Mary >>

No, it wasn't Mike's ISP. The lists were down all weekend. Some posts sent over the weekend were returned: "delivery temporarily suspended - Connection refused." Some posts made yesterday were delivered today. Lynne W David Samuelsen <dsam52@sampubco.com> wrote: > >Mike, > >It's your ISP. ATT is notorious for repeated problems. > >Not in my lists, they are on holiday schedule - fewer posts. Now I am >seeing uplick this morning. > >David Samuelsen

Hi Keith My 2p's worth In a nutshell there is no comparison Facebook groups are totally unregulated, as far as the organisation of them are concerned, no groups for some counties/places, several for another, all run by people who may or may not know how to run a group, communicate & can bar or exclude anyone for any reason they see fit Mostly an interested person needs to join a group (if accepted) to be able to not only post but also to search that particular groups archives There is no facility for searching across all groups on facebook for previous posts, neither is there an easy way to save a specific post, even if you are the poster We are at the whim of facebook who can change rules and regulations re posting or joining groups, and also at the whim of facebook in remaining on facebook, once locked out its a hell of a job to get back on again, and if you do its likely to be under a new identity and therefore you will lose all previous "friends", groups you have joined, posts and photos, if you have the unhappy experience of being locked out (very often for no reason at all) your previous posts will be blocked and so are not available to others or you Should you have a problem with anyone on facebook, admin or other group member, you have no way to talk to facebook or discuss it in any way Not all posts to any group you are a member of will be made available to you, you are in the hands of facebook as to what they want you to see, rather than what you want to see Compare that to Rootsweb lists, lists are fairly well organised, not very often do you find more than one list covering an area By and large posters in lists are more knowledgeable, and should you transgress the rules, a friendly ticking off is all that is usually required And you will rarely see a swearword on rootsweb lists, something seen every day on facebook All posts are archived, and can be searched for across all lists and will also be found by google searches The previous Rootsweb archives were better as there was a point of contact (email address of the poster), albeit the email address may have changed over the years, and the search was far better, but thats progress for you ;-) As far as transcriptions are concerned, IMHO it is almost pointless to post them to facebook, some of those in the group you are posting in may see your post, but it very quickly drops down the posting list Whereas posting transcriptions to a Rootsweb list, will store that transcript for anyone to find in the future, and again will come up in a google search if using the right keyword or name contained in that transcription About the only good thing about facebook, is that you can post an image but as a means for serious and ongoing research, no not a great facility Actually that ended up more like 10p's worth ;-) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 01/01/2019 23:06, Keith Meintjes wrote: > Resending ... > > On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 2:00 PM Keith Meintjes <kmeintjes@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'd like to get some feedback on using social media (SM) sites like >> Facebook vs. using discussion lists (DL) like Rootsweb for genealogy. >> >> I am not particularly adept at either, but it seems to me that SM are not >> an archive, and they serve up to you what they choose to serve up to you. >> Can you find a posting two or three years later? Can you even search SM for >> yesterday's posts made by someone you don't know? >> >> I guess I see people spending a lot of effort on transcriptions and then >> posting them on Facebook. In the long run, isn't this just wasted effort? >> >> Keith