Admins run the lists they manage for RootsWeb differently, every list has its own personality in my opinion. I've run lists here for 12 years and for the most part enjoy it, I dislike it when turmoil breaks out and then put the whole list on moderation until things settle and many times keep the trouble maker on until they behave themselves long enough. (some have never come off :) ) I also moderate anyone with a computer virus sending links to the lists. If there is trouble I do moderate new subscribers for a day or two. Otherwise I leave them alone and they have to do something wrong to be moderated. Personally I don't feel that the RootsWeb's lists are meant to moderate everyone until they "prove" themselves. If I posted new on a list a had to wait on an admin to getting around to approving it...I'd leave. I have a couple of state lists and international lists besides my small surnames and just about everyday people join those lists and post within an hour. For the big ones many only stay for a few days until they have received their help. I'd have to live on my email to send them through and I guess approve each join so I could moderate them immediately. That's just not what it's about for me. I'm not saying your choice is wrong, but I do think it needs to be said to newbie's reading that moderation is not "the thing to do anyway" for many of us. Moderation to me is a tool to use when needed. If I'm supposed to police every address everyday I think I'd quit. Have a good one and enjoy your lists! Margy -----Original Message----- From: listowners-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:listowners-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Deloris Williams Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:10 PM To: listowners@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LO] An iffy address As a general rule, I put all new subscribers on moderation until they at least post a couple of legitimate messages. The address looks genuine, but even if it isn't, putting it on moderation is the thing to do anyway. Deloris Williams -------------------------------------------------- From: "Charani" <charani.b@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 6:43 AM To: <LISTOWNERS@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LO] An iffy address > I've had a subscription request to one of my lists from > hrh_princess_hannah@hotmail.co.uk which sounds a little suspicious but > may not be. > > I've done a check in the archives with no results. > > Anyone see this address before? Or just a new researcher with a not > so bright idea for an email address? > > S/he would be put on mod immediately as a precaution if no one has any > issues with him/her. > > -- > Charani (UK) > OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, > Greinton and Clutton, SOM > http://wsom-opc.org.uk > > > ------------------------------- > 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 ------------------------------- 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

On 2/7/2013 2:54 PM, mbousman wrote: [snip] > If there is trouble I do moderate new subscribers for a day or two. > Otherwise I leave them alone and they have to do something wrong to be > moderated. Personally I don't feel that the RootsWeb's lists are meant to > moderate everyone until they "prove" themselves. If I posted new on a list a > had to wait on an admin to getting around to approving it...I'd leave. I > have a couple of state lists and international lists besides my small > surnames and just about everyday people join those lists and post within an > hour. For the big ones many only stay for a few days until they have > received their help. I'd have to live on my email to send them through and > I guess approve each join so I could moderate them immediately. That's just > not what it's about for me. > > I'm not saying your choice is wrong, but I do think it needs to be said to > newbie's reading that moderation is not "the thing to do anyway" for many of > us. Moderation to me is a tool to use when needed. If I'm supposed to > police every address everyday I think I'd quit. > > Have a good one and enjoy your lists! > Margy Margy: Well said. Without questioning how other admins do things, I agree with you that moderation (whether of new subscribers or of whole lists) is not intended to be a regular, normal tool of list administration. It is like a fire extinguisher; where there is smoke and flame, sure, use it. But don't spray the stove before every use "just in case"!! I hasten to say that I have seen Charani's posts enough to suspect that with her caution, she combines diligence. Messages sent to *her* lists do not sit around for hours waiting for her to make time to check how things are going. For her, moderation and subscriber verification are tools to keep a list running smoothly -- not a way to sacrifice subscriber convenience on the altar of total security. If that is true, Charani, bless you! Don't change a thing. But for other lists, including a few to which I subscribe, the heavy, trembling hand of a fearful admin is all too evident. I sometimes wonder why I stay subscribed, except these lists have so little traffic that it is hardly a bother.... I am concerned that if our RootsWeb mailing lists do not provide **quick** responses, younger genealogists (say, anyone currently under 40) will write them off as useless -- archaic relics of a world before computers, run by old fuddy-duddies who have nightmares about the Internet sneaking in the window. It will be much worse if they turn out to be *RIGHT*. My grandmother began to hand off the family history to me when I was 19. She was a Vermont farm wife, with almost no experience of such new-fangled things as photocopiers, and no opportunity to visit a research library that I know of. For me, such things were second nature for almost three decades. The Newberry and Allen County Public libraries are within an easy drive; the Chicago NARA branch and a Mormon FHC would be within *bicycle* range, if it weren't for the arthritic hips and knees (and of course Chicago weather). I do not believe Grammie ever even used a microfilm reader. She did have a typewriter, and oh, could she write letters. Still, if she had expected me to do genealogy the same way she did, AT THE SAME PACE that was natural to her, I would probably have taken up some more exciting hobby, like stamp collecting. Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org (e.g.) provide nearly instantaneous results, if they have the data. Internet research is now the norm for me. Among other things, this means if I can't find a link to an image of a primary source in 15 minutes, I conclude none is available yet. If I subscribed to a RootsWeb list and posted a message, and did not see my post appear within an hour or two, I *might* wait. But then again (after doing the usual checks to ensure I was correctly subscribed) I might suspect a "heavy, trembling hand" was involved -- sigh -- and go find some other place to ask questions. Darrell

Darrell A. Martin wrote: > Well said. Without questioning how other admins do things, I agree with > you that moderation (whether of new subscribers or of whole lists) is > not intended to be a regular, normal tool of list administration. It is > like a fire extinguisher; where there is smoke and flame, sure, use it. > But don't spray the stove before every use "just in case"!! I think an element of personal experience also comes into it as well. > I hasten to say that I have seen Charani's posts enough to suspect that > with her caution, she combines diligence. Messages sent to *her* lists > do not sit around for hours waiting for her to make time to check how > things are going. For her, moderation and subscriber verification are > tools to keep a list running smoothly -- not a way to sacrifice > subscriber convenience on the altar of total security. If that is true, > Charani, bless you! Don't change a thing. Thank you for your kind words :)) I have the dubious advantage of being around a lot ot the time because half my family is disabled. If I am going to be out of any length of time, I'll take my laptop with me. I know my way of working won't suit the majority of admins, but it works for me and trouble is stopped almost before it starts and in some cases before it starts. The only ones that might wait longer than normal are those where I'm not sure what to do about them for some reason. None of my lists are run in full moderation as a matter of course. > I am concerned that if our RootsWeb mailing lists do not provide > **quick** responses, younger genealogists (say, anyone currently under > 40) will write them off as useless -- archaic relics of a world before > computers, run by old fuddy-duddies who have nightmares about the > Internet sneaking in the window. It will be much worse if they turn out > to be *RIGHT*. Many researchers of all ages now expect instant answers and I think a percentage do give up when they don't get those answers, when it means waiting until the next batch of images or transcripts is uploaded or - shock, horror - having to actually visit an archive! Genealogists and patience don't go together for the most part :)) -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk