Now *this* topic I care about. :) I am actually shocked that it took ancestry this long before they pulled this stunt. This is what I expected out of them when they first bought the domains and infrastructure from the rootsweb.com volunteer organization. The next step that I expected, but may or may not have happened yet, is that they would scrape a copy of all the data out of the rootsweb county pages and “add it” to their databases to “enhance” their data for their customers. If anyone is taking a vote, I vote that MNGen goes the same direction as IAGen to obtain their own hosting. Karen, what basic skill sets do the “minimum of two IT persons” need to have? * mail server admin * web server admin * account set up and deletion * be able to ssh and sftp I can do ssh, sftp, and can probably remember how to do account creation/password resets. But its probably been about 15 years since I did any web server (Apache “back in the day") administration and I’ve never been a mail admin. Another thought, would the IAGenWeb administrators be willing to take on MN and help us get set up? Just until we could find a couple more admins with the required skills? Just wondering if they’d be willing to help out the state immediately to the north or if they’d say “I’ve got too much to do already." Kathy > On Apr 2, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Karen De Groote via <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mike, > With all counties with loads of data online, the boards, Gravestone > Photo Project with over 1million entries plus all the other special > projects like Old Press, Civil and Great Wars, and History etc, I > believe the cost is 65 a month or a quarter. My big thing in doing > this isn't the cost, it would be finding an IT team like IAGenWeb has. > I am willing to donate as well but maybe we should look at a bona fide > organization like "Friends of IAGenWeb" a non-profit organization, > which funds the IAGenWeb project? It will take work to set it up so > maybe later down the line this would be a good idea for perpetuation? > Do we have any IT people in the MNGenWeb that could assist? We would > need a minimum of two IT persons, set up should be gradual and I am > not sure what the initial set up cost was, I can ask Mark. As far as > reliability, IAGenWeb has never gone down or been hacked. I know of > two instances where it was offline overnight for upgrades and one > instance of the server people having a hardware crash that really > didn't affect us except for uploading. I know the USGenWeb project > has space that would not cost but we did not have good luck with that > in MTGenWeb project. It would be better to have our own to control it > rather than be at the whims of others imho. > > Definitely something to think about as Ancestry again is causing difficulties. > Karen > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Mike Peterson via <[email protected]> wrote: >> Karen, >> from your Iowa experience, any idea on initial and maintenance costs, reliability, people power, etc.? >> Mike >> Clay Co >> >> From: Martha A Crosley Graham via >> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 6:30 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Rootsweb Heading >> >> Good Morning, >> I recently adopted St Louis County [and City] in Missouri as I have >> folks there. >> The Anc heading was not there on the 31 of March, today it is. I guess >> they did the tagging or whatever on the 1st of April. >> >> Another reason to get our own domain and get the heck offa RW. >> >> I am willing to contribute financially to a fund to get our own domain >> and set up a server. >> Martha >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Mike, With all counties with loads of data online, the boards, Gravestone Photo Project with over 1million entries plus all the other special projects like Old Press, Civil and Great Wars, and History etc, I believe the cost is 65 a month or a quarter. My big thing in doing this isn't the cost, it would be finding an IT team like IAGenWeb has. I am willing to donate as well but maybe we should look at a bona fide organization like "Friends of IAGenWeb" a non-profit organization, which funds the IAGenWeb project? It will take work to set it up so maybe later down the line this would be a good idea for perpetuation? Do we have any IT people in the MNGenWeb that could assist? We would need a minimum of two IT persons, set up should be gradual and I am not sure what the initial set up cost was, I can ask Mark. As far as reliability, IAGenWeb has never gone down or been hacked. I know of two instances where it was offline overnight for upgrades and one instance of the server people having a hardware crash that really didn't affect us except for uploading. I know the USGenWeb project has space that would not cost but we did not have good luck with that in MTGenWeb project. It would be better to have our own to control it rather than be at the whims of others imho. Definitely something to think about as Ancestry again is causing difficulties. Karen On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Mike Peterson via <[email protected]> wrote: > Karen, > from your Iowa experience, any idea on initial and maintenance costs, reliability, people power, etc.? > Mike > Clay Co > > From: Martha A Crosley Graham via > Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 6:30 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Rootsweb Heading > > Good Morning, > I recently adopted St Louis County [and City] in Missouri as I have > folks there. > The Anc heading was not there on the 31 of March, today it is. I guess > they did the tagging or whatever on the 1st of April. > > Another reason to get our own domain and get the heck offa RW. > > I am willing to contribute financially to a fund to get our own domain > and set up a server. > Martha > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I wonder if this was new yesterday? Yesterday I had a coordinator mention they were having issues with a double banner showing on their site - where it had USGenWeb on the left side of the banner but the banner was doubled. Tim On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Mike Peterson via <[email protected]> wrote: > Have you noticed the new Rootsweb heading that ancestry.com is putting on > top of our pages? It now contains a search box for ancestry. Personally I > think this will hurt as there are many people who don’t like ancestry.com, > they charge too much, etc. It was one thing we acknowledge they give us > free hosting, it’s another where we now are a portal for their site. This > search box heading is not on my other rootsweb sites (yet), just Minnesota. > At this time a disclaimer on outside links on our websites is a > recommendation, maybe with this blatant search box that should change. > Mike > Clay Co > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Exactly Lynn. I’m afraid many of our researchers will also do that. Although ancestry has made it pretty clear in their banner, there is still a search box there distracting our visitors. Perhaps it will help if we make our own site searches more prominent. Mike Clay Co From: Lynn Brandvold via Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 7:00 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Rootsweb Heading Mike, Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I hadn't noticed it before. I checked with my Dutchess Co. NY site and it has the same heading. Now that I think about it, I've run into this on other sites. When I've clicked in the search box thinking I was going to be searching that site, I was thrown into Rootsweb where I didn't want to be. Lynn Pennington & Red Lake Cos On 4/2/2015 6:54 AM, Mike (Dino) Peterson via wrote: > Have you noticed the new Rootsweb heading that ancestry.com is putting on top of our pages? It now contains a search box for ancestry. Personally I think this will hurt as there are many people who don’t like ancestry.com, they charge too much, etc. It was one thing we acknowledge they give us free hosting, it’s another where we now are a portal for their site. This search box heading is not on my other rootsweb sites (yet), just Minnesota. At this time a disclaimer on outside links on our websites is a recommendation, maybe with this blatant search box that should change. > Mike > Clay Co > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I had not noticed this until Mike mentions it here. I checked my other state county sites on RW. Yes, the same SEARCH link is there on the NDGenWeb county pages, too. Hopefully visiting county site researchers will IGNORE that ancestry search option (unless they totally want to go there.) The price the states pay for the free hosting on RW. <sigh> Linda Z. On 4/2/15, 7:54 AM, "Mike Peterson via (Dino)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Have you noticed the new Rootsweb heading that ancestry.com is putting on top > of our pages? It now contains a search box for ancestry. Personally I think > this will hurt as there are many people who don¹t like ancestry.com, they > charge too much, etc. It was one thing we acknowledge they give us free > hosting, it¹s another where we now are a portal for their site. This search > box heading is not on my other rootsweb sites (yet), just Minnesota. At this > time a disclaimer on outside links on our websites is a recommendation, maybe > with this blatant search box that should change. Mike Clay Co > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an > email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Mike, Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I hadn't noticed it before. I checked with my Dutchess Co. NY site and it has the same heading. Now that I think about it, I've run into this on other sites. When I've clicked in the search box thinking I was going to be searching that site, I was thrown into Rootsweb where I didn't want to be. Lynn Pennington & Red Lake Cos On 4/2/2015 6:54 AM, Mike (Dino) Peterson via wrote: > Have you noticed the new Rootsweb heading that ancestry.com is putting on top of our pages? It now contains a search box for ancestry. Personally I think this will hurt as there are many people who don’t like ancestry.com, they charge too much, etc. It was one thing we acknowledge they give us free hosting, it’s another where we now are a portal for their site. This search box heading is not on my other rootsweb sites (yet), just Minnesota. At this time a disclaimer on outside links on our websites is a recommendation, maybe with this blatant search box that should change. > Mike > Clay Co > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

sdgenweb.com has been on ixwebhosting since 2008 http://www.ixwebhosting.com/hosting-plans You can get by on the 3.95 a month plan (this is an introductory price; my domain currently costs 167.40 a year paid every other year). This includes your domain registration and mailing lists. The only time I was down, it was for a weekend when they physically moved all their servers from Kentucky to Ohio. Martha has cagenweb at hostmonster. On 4/2/2015 7:14 AM, Mike (Dino) Peterson via wrote: > Karen, > from your Iowa experience, any idea on initial and maintenance costs, reliability, people power, etc.? > Mike > Clay Co > > From: Martha A Crosley Graham via > Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 6:30 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Rootsweb Heading > > Good Morning, > I recently adopted St Louis County [and City] in Missouri as I have > folks there. > The Anc heading was not there on the 31 of March, today it is. I guess > they did the tagging or whatever on the 1st of April. > > Another reason to get our own domain and get the heck offa RW. > > I am willing to contribute financially to a fund to get our own domain > and set up a server. > Martha > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Karen, from your Iowa experience, any idea on initial and maintenance costs, reliability, people power, etc.? Mike Clay Co From: Martha A Crosley Graham via Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 6:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Rootsweb Heading Good Morning, I recently adopted St Louis County [and City] in Missouri as I have folks there. The Anc heading was not there on the 31 of March, today it is. I guess they did the tagging or whatever on the 1st of April. Another reason to get our own domain and get the heck offa RW. I am willing to contribute financially to a fund to get our own domain and set up a server. Martha ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Good Morning, I recently adopted St Louis County [and City] in Missouri as I have folks there. The Anc heading was not there on the 31 of March, today it is. I guess they did the tagging or whatever on the 1st of April. Another reason to get our own domain and get the heck offa RW. I am willing to contribute financially to a fund to get our own domain and set up a server. Martha

On all of my “What’s New” pages, I subscribe to changedetection.com . It tells me when changes occur on the website. I think you are right Tim. It appears from the changedetection log that they were having difficulties getting the banner installed the way they wanted it. It looks like they were messing around on 30th and 31st and got it in place on the 1st. Mike Clay Co From: Timothy Stowell via Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 6:06 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Denise Wells Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Rootsweb Heading I wonder if this was new yesterday? Yesterday I had a coordinator mention they were having issues with a double banner showing on their site - where it had USGenWeb on the left side of the banner but the banner was doubled. Tim On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Mike Peterson via <[email protected]> wrote: > Have you noticed the new Rootsweb heading that ancestry.com is putting on > top of our pages? It now contains a search box for ancestry. Personally I > think this will hurt as there are many people who don’t like ancestry.com, > they charge too much, etc. It was one thing we acknowledge they give us > free hosting, it’s another where we now are a portal for their site. This > search box heading is not on my other rootsweb sites (yet), just Minnesota. > At this time a disclaimer on outside links on our websites is a > recommendation, maybe with this blatant search box that should change. > Mike > Clay Co > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Have you noticed the new Rootsweb heading that ancestry.com is putting on top of our pages? It now contains a search box for ancestry. Personally I think this will hurt as there are many people who don’t like ancestry.com, they charge too much, etc. It was one thing we acknowledge they give us free hosting, it’s another where we now are a portal for their site. This search box heading is not on my other rootsweb sites (yet), just Minnesota. At this time a disclaimer on outside links on our websites is a recommendation, maybe with this blatant search box that should change. Mike Clay Co

Karen - your response does clarify. To summarize: * Linking an image to the MNGenWeb page is *forbidden* unless that image is an officially approved logo. * Since no banner has an officially approved logo in it, no banner can be linked to the MNGenWeb page. But that's the whole point of having a banner - something prominent to point to the next level up in this case and link to it. Many CCs used the old Pennau banner in that way. * USGenWeb guidelines state: "The USGenWeb Project logo must not be altered in any way (size, colors, etc.) Inclusion of the logo in a banner is not considered to be an alteration." The same rule applies to the state logos, one would presume. * Since Keith's banners have elements of the logo in it without having a complete logo image as a part of it, they contain an impermissibly altered logo. Therefore, it is forbidden to use those banners anywhere within the MnGenWeb family of websites. So it appears to me that the use of a banner that includes a whole logo is permitted and it can be linked to the MNGenWeb page. It seems to me that the solution is for Keith (if he would be so kind) to create a new banner that includes a complete logo, say on the left edge, with artistic elements in the rest of the banner. There will be plenty of blank canvas since all the text will be gone. I for one would like to see a loon and a pink lady's slipper in there somewhere. :) John P.S. On the logos page: http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/logo.htm Text should be added to the reformatted Pennau logo section stating that it is forbidden to link the image to the MnGenWeb page. On Mar 31, 2015, at 10:35, Karen De Groote via wrote: > Another good question John, let me clarify. There are three aspects > to this situation. > 1. USGenWeb requirements state we must all have a link to the state > project on our index pages. > 2. We voted in an official MNGenWeb logo, hence IF you use a logo, it > must be the official one. We made that rule as a collective. You > cannot link the banner to the state pages on the index page as that > turns it in to the logo. > 3. Some people use a text link to the state pages which is fine under > current rules. Can you use a text link and then the banner solely for > decoration? I don't think so. The banner that matches the official > logo contains the part of the official logo which would create a > misuse of the official logo itself on the index page but I will leave > it to the SCs to comment on using a banner that was not voted on when > we voted on the logo, as decoration in absence of a logo and a simple > text link to the state. > > Using a banner instead of the official logo on our pages confuses our > visitors and makes the branding of our project more difficult. I > think after all the work that was done and the voting everyone partook > in that we would all be proud of our official logo and use it. I hope > that clears up the confusion and not makes the waters any more muddy. > > Karen > ASC MNGenWeb > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015, John Van Essen via <[email protected]> wrote: >> Karen, >> >> In your original email of March 19, item #8 implied that the use of a >> logo was optional - "If you use a logo ...". >> >> So now you are saying the official logo *must* be on the index page - >> "our official logo needs to be there as well". Or does that apply >> only if there's a banner? It seems ambiguous. >> >> And where is this requirement regarding the state logo to be found? >> It's not on the USGenWeb Guidelines page, and as far as I know, >> MNGenWeb has no Bylaws, so I'm wondering who is making these rules. >> >> Anyway, I left the banner as is and added a logo in the About section >> where I explained what MNGenWeb is. Seems appropriate there. :) >> >> John >> >> >> On Mar 30, 2015, at 07:55, Karen De Groote wrote: >> >>> Great question John. When we all voted for the official logo, that >>> became the official logo. Banners are just that, banners. Now there >>> is no problem with decorating with banners, even on the index page but >>> our official logo needs to be there as well. Kermit reworked the old >>> Pennau banner to be in compliance with the name so we can use itd. It >>> does not contain the official logo. Keith chose to add a banner to >>> the logos page that DOES incorporate the official logo, however we did >>> not vote to have a banner as an official logo so it is still a banner >>> not a logo. >>> >>> I hope that makes sense and I imagine Shirley and Tim will explain >>> maybe a bit better. Thanks for the question. >>> Karen >>> ASC MNGenWeb >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015, John Van Essen via <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 19:55, Karen De Groote via wrote: >>>> >>>>> The leadership team will begin reviewing their counties at the end of >>>>> this 10 day period for the basic requirements ... >>>> >>>> Okay - so that period is up! I have a question about the logo rules. >>>> >>>>> 8. All county sites must provide a link to the state site. ... >>>>> Here is the page with our official logo >>>>> and the acceptable banner that can be used on other pages that are NOT >>>>> the index page: http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/logo.htm. >>>>> This is an area that we have problems with in this project. Some are >>>>> using the old logo and some are using the the new BANNER on the index >>>>> page for a logo rather than the official logo. ... >>>> >>>> So by "old logo" you are referring to the Pennau banner with Minnesota >>>> spelled out, which is not in compliance with USGenWeb rules for state >>>> logos. By "new BANNER", you are referring to the re-formatted Pennau >>>> banner on the above page, also not suitable as a logo. >>>> >>>> Since the Gulsvig banner on the Logo Sets page: >>>> >>>> http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/MNGenWeb%20Logo%20Sets.html >>>> >>>> incorporates the official logo and was not specifically forbidden >>>> and the use of a logo is *optional*, I have chosen to replace the >>>> old Pennau logo with the exact same-size Gulsvig banner, and still >>>> linking it to the MNGenWeb page. >>>> >>>> So I'm looking for affirmation that what I have here is acceptable: >>>> >>>> http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mncrowwi/ >>>> >>>> It looks swell! >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> John Van Essen, Crow Wing county

The April roll-call begins tomorrow. Please send your check-ins for the roll-call to [email protected] I will reply to each check-in sent to that email address so you will know it was received. Thanks! Shirley

Mike, The link you provided is to the temporary state page that has been discontinued. The state page is at http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/ and the logo page at http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/logo.htm shows the corrected banner with MNGenWeb spelled correctly. Shirley On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Mike Peterson via <[email protected]> wrote: > On all my pages I have the current logo which contains a link to the state > page. On my main page, I also have the banner Kermit designed ( the Kermit > designed banner on this page - > https://sites.google.com/site/mngenproject/how-to-volunteer/adopt-a-county/logo-contest-1/logo-contest-banners > – is not the latest as it doesn’t have the word The in it ). On the banner > I have on my main page, it contains a link to the state page. As I > understand the below, I should remove the link from the banner but I can > still display the banner. > Mike > Clay Co > > From: Karen De Groote via > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 8:35 AM > To: List MNGenWeb > Subject: Re: [MNGEN] USGenWeb Requirements > > Another good question John, let me clarify. There are three aspects > to this situation. > 1. USGenWeb requirements state we must all have a link to the state > project on our index pages. > 2. We voted in an official MNGenWeb logo, hence IF you use a logo, it > must be the official one. We made that rule as a collective. You > cannot link the banner to the state pages on the index page as that > turns it in to the logo. > 3. Some people use a text link to the state pages which is fine under > current rules. Can you use a text link and then the banner solely for > decoration? I don't think so. The banner that matches the official > logo contains the part of the official logo which would create a > misuse of the official logo itself on the index page but I will leave > it to the SCs to comment on using a banner that was not voted on when > we voted on the logo, as decoration in absence of a logo and a simple > text link to the state. > > Using a banner instead of the official logo on our pages confuses our > visitors and makes the branding of our project more difficult. I > think after all the work that was done and the voting everyone partook > in that we would all be proud of our official logo and use it. I hope > that clears up the confusion and not makes the waters any more muddy. > > Karen > ASC MNGenWeb > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:12 AM, John Van Essen via <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Karen, > > > > In your original email of March 19, item #8 implied that the use of a > > logo was optional - "If you use a logo ...". > > > > So now you are saying the official logo *must* be on the index page - > > "our official logo needs to be there as well". Or does that apply > > only if there's a banner? It seems ambiguous. > > > > And where is this requirement regarding the state logo to be found? > > It's not on the USGenWeb Guidelines page, and as far as I know, > > MNGenWeb has no Bylaws, so I'm wondering who is making these rules. > > > > Anyway, I left the banner as is and added a logo in the About section > > where I explained what MNGenWeb is. Seems appropriate there. :) > > > > John > > > > > > On Mar 30, 2015, at 07:55, Karen De Groote wrote: > > > >> Great question John. When we all voted for the official logo, that > >> became the official logo. Banners are just that, banners. Now there > >> is no problem with decorating with banners, even on the index page but > >> our official logo needs to be there as well. Kermit reworked the old > >> Pennau banner to be in compliance with the name so we can use itd. It > >> does not contain the official logo. Keith chose to add a banner to > >> the logos page that DOES incorporate the official logo, however we did > >> not vote to have a banner as an official logo so it is still a banner > >> not a logo. > >> > >> I hope that makes sense and I imagine Shirley and Tim will explain > >> maybe a bit better. Thanks for the question. > >> Karen > >> ASC MNGenWeb > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:19 AM, John Van Essen via <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 19:55, Karen De Groote via wrote: > >>> > >>>> The leadership team will begin reviewing their counties at the end of > >>>> this 10 day period for the basic requirements ... > >>> > >>> Okay - so that period is up! I have a question about the logo rules. > >>> > >>>> 8. All county sites must provide a link to the state site. ... > >>>> Here is the page with our official logo > >>>> and the acceptable banner that can be used on other pages that are NOT > >>>> the index page: http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/logo.htm. > >>>> This is an area that we have problems with in this project. Some are > >>>> using the old logo and some are using the the new BANNER on the index > >>>> page for a logo rather than the official logo. ... > >>> > >>> So by "old logo" you are referring to the Pennau banner with Minnesota > >>> spelled out, which is not in compliance with USGenWeb rules for state > >>> logos. By "new BANNER", you are referring to the re-formatted Pennau > >>> banner on the above page, also not suitable as a logo. > >>> > >>> Since the Kittleson banner on the Logo Sets page: > >>> > >>> http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/MNGenWeb%20Logo%20Sets.html > >>> > >>> incorporates the official logo and was not specifically forbidden > >>> and the use of a logo is *optional*, I have chosen to replace the > >>> old Pennau logo with the exact same-size Kittleson banner, and still > >>> linking it to the MNGenWeb page. > >>> > >>> So I'm looking for affirmation that what I have here is acceptable: > >>> > >>> http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mncrowwi/ > >>> > >>> It looks swell! > >>> > >>> Thanks. > >>> > >>> John Van Essen, Crow Wing county > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] 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 > [email protected] 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 > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

On all my pages I have the current logo which contains a link to the state page. On my main page, I also have the banner Kermit designed ( the Kermit designed banner on this page - https://sites.google.com/site/mngenproject/how-to-volunteer/adopt-a-county/logo-contest-1/logo-contest-banners – is not the latest as it doesn’t have the word The in it ). On the banner I have on my main page, it contains a link to the state page. As I understand the below, I should remove the link from the banner but I can still display the banner. Mike Clay Co From: Karen De Groote via Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 8:35 AM To: List MNGenWeb Subject: Re: [MNGEN] USGenWeb Requirements Another good question John, let me clarify. There are three aspects to this situation. 1. USGenWeb requirements state we must all have a link to the state project on our index pages. 2. We voted in an official MNGenWeb logo, hence IF you use a logo, it must be the official one. We made that rule as a collective. You cannot link the banner to the state pages on the index page as that turns it in to the logo. 3. Some people use a text link to the state pages which is fine under current rules. Can you use a text link and then the banner solely for decoration? I don't think so. The banner that matches the official logo contains the part of the official logo which would create a misuse of the official logo itself on the index page but I will leave it to the SCs to comment on using a banner that was not voted on when we voted on the logo, as decoration in absence of a logo and a simple text link to the state. Using a banner instead of the official logo on our pages confuses our visitors and makes the branding of our project more difficult. I think after all the work that was done and the voting everyone partook in that we would all be proud of our official logo and use it. I hope that clears up the confusion and not makes the waters any more muddy. Karen ASC MNGenWeb On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:12 AM, John Van Essen via <[email protected]> wrote: > Karen, > > In your original email of March 19, item #8 implied that the use of a > logo was optional - "If you use a logo ...". > > So now you are saying the official logo *must* be on the index page - > "our official logo needs to be there as well". Or does that apply > only if there's a banner? It seems ambiguous. > > And where is this requirement regarding the state logo to be found? > It's not on the USGenWeb Guidelines page, and as far as I know, > MNGenWeb has no Bylaws, so I'm wondering who is making these rules. > > Anyway, I left the banner as is and added a logo in the About section > where I explained what MNGenWeb is. Seems appropriate there. :) > > John > > > On Mar 30, 2015, at 07:55, Karen De Groote wrote: > >> Great question John. When we all voted for the official logo, that >> became the official logo. Banners are just that, banners. Now there >> is no problem with decorating with banners, even on the index page but >> our official logo needs to be there as well. Kermit reworked the old >> Pennau banner to be in compliance with the name so we can use itd. It >> does not contain the official logo. Keith chose to add a banner to >> the logos page that DOES incorporate the official logo, however we did >> not vote to have a banner as an official logo so it is still a banner >> not a logo. >> >> I hope that makes sense and I imagine Shirley and Tim will explain >> maybe a bit better. Thanks for the question. >> Karen >> ASC MNGenWeb >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:19 AM, John Van Essen via <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 19:55, Karen De Groote via wrote: >>> >>>> The leadership team will begin reviewing their counties at the end of >>>> this 10 day period for the basic requirements ... >>> >>> Okay - so that period is up! I have a question about the logo rules. >>> >>>> 8. All county sites must provide a link to the state site. ... >>>> Here is the page with our official logo >>>> and the acceptable banner that can be used on other pages that are NOT >>>> the index page: http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/logo.htm. >>>> This is an area that we have problems with in this project. Some are >>>> using the old logo and some are using the the new BANNER on the index >>>> page for a logo rather than the official logo. ... >>> >>> So by "old logo" you are referring to the Pennau banner with Minnesota >>> spelled out, which is not in compliance with USGenWeb rules for state >>> logos. By "new BANNER", you are referring to the re-formatted Pennau >>> banner on the above page, also not suitable as a logo. >>> >>> Since the Kittleson banner on the Logo Sets page: >>> >>> http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/MNGenWeb%20Logo%20Sets.html >>> >>> incorporates the official logo and was not specifically forbidden >>> and the use of a logo is *optional*, I have chosen to replace the >>> old Pennau logo with the exact same-size Kittleson banner, and still >>> linking it to the MNGenWeb page. >>> >>> So I'm looking for affirmation that what I have here is acceptable: >>> >>> http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mncrowwi/ >>> >>> It looks swell! >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> John Van Essen, Crow Wing county > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Another good question John, let me clarify. There are three aspects to this situation. 1. USGenWeb requirements state we must all have a link to the state project on our index pages. 2. We voted in an official MNGenWeb logo, hence IF you use a logo, it must be the official one. We made that rule as a collective. You cannot link the banner to the state pages on the index page as that turns it in to the logo. 3. Some people use a text link to the state pages which is fine under current rules. Can you use a text link and then the banner solely for decoration? I don't think so. The banner that matches the official logo contains the part of the official logo which would create a misuse of the official logo itself on the index page but I will leave it to the SCs to comment on using a banner that was not voted on when we voted on the logo, as decoration in absence of a logo and a simple text link to the state. Using a banner instead of the official logo on our pages confuses our visitors and makes the branding of our project more difficult. I think after all the work that was done and the voting everyone partook in that we would all be proud of our official logo and use it. I hope that clears up the confusion and not makes the waters any more muddy. Karen ASC MNGenWeb On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:12 AM, John Van Essen via <[email protected]> wrote: > Karen, > > In your original email of March 19, item #8 implied that the use of a > logo was optional - "If you use a logo ...". > > So now you are saying the official logo *must* be on the index page - > "our official logo needs to be there as well". Or does that apply > only if there's a banner? It seems ambiguous. > > And where is this requirement regarding the state logo to be found? > It's not on the USGenWeb Guidelines page, and as far as I know, > MNGenWeb has no Bylaws, so I'm wondering who is making these rules. > > Anyway, I left the banner as is and added a logo in the About section > where I explained what MNGenWeb is. Seems appropriate there. :) > > John > > > On Mar 30, 2015, at 07:55, Karen De Groote wrote: > >> Great question John. When we all voted for the official logo, that >> became the official logo. Banners are just that, banners. Now there >> is no problem with decorating with banners, even on the index page but >> our official logo needs to be there as well. Kermit reworked the old >> Pennau banner to be in compliance with the name so we can use itd. It >> does not contain the official logo. Keith chose to add a banner to >> the logos page that DOES incorporate the official logo, however we did >> not vote to have a banner as an official logo so it is still a banner >> not a logo. >> >> I hope that makes sense and I imagine Shirley and Tim will explain >> maybe a bit better. Thanks for the question. >> Karen >> ASC MNGenWeb >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:19 AM, John Van Essen via <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 19:55, Karen De Groote via wrote: >>> >>>> The leadership team will begin reviewing their counties at the end of >>>> this 10 day period for the basic requirements ... >>> >>> Okay - so that period is up! I have a question about the logo rules. >>> >>>> 8. All county sites must provide a link to the state site. ... >>>> Here is the page with our official logo >>>> and the acceptable banner that can be used on other pages that are NOT >>>> the index page: http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/logo.htm. >>>> This is an area that we have problems with in this project. Some are >>>> using the old logo and some are using the the new BANNER on the index >>>> page for a logo rather than the official logo. ... >>> >>> So by "old logo" you are referring to the Pennau banner with Minnesota >>> spelled out, which is not in compliance with USGenWeb rules for state >>> logos. By "new BANNER", you are referring to the re-formatted Pennau >>> banner on the above page, also not suitable as a logo. >>> >>> Since the Kittleson banner on the Logo Sets page: >>> >>> http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/MNGenWeb%20Logo%20Sets.html >>> >>> incorporates the official logo and was not specifically forbidden >>> and the use of a logo is *optional*, I have chosen to replace the >>> old Pennau logo with the exact same-size Kittleson banner, and still >>> linking it to the MNGenWeb page. >>> >>> So I'm looking for affirmation that what I have here is acceptable: >>> >>> http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mncrowwi/ >>> >>> It looks swell! >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> John Van Essen, Crow Wing county > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Karen, In your original email of March 19, item #8 implied that the use of a logo was optional - "If you use a logo ...". So now you are saying the official logo *must* be on the index page - "our official logo needs to be there as well". Or does that apply only if there's a banner? It seems ambiguous. And where is this requirement regarding the state logo to be found? It's not on the USGenWeb Guidelines page, and as far as I know, MNGenWeb has no Bylaws, so I'm wondering who is making these rules. Anyway, I left the banner as is and added a logo in the About section where I explained what MNGenWeb is. Seems appropriate there. :) John On Mar 30, 2015, at 07:55, Karen De Groote wrote: > Great question John. When we all voted for the official logo, that > became the official logo. Banners are just that, banners. Now there > is no problem with decorating with banners, even on the index page but > our official logo needs to be there as well. Kermit reworked the old > Pennau banner to be in compliance with the name so we can use itd. It > does not contain the official logo. Keith chose to add a banner to > the logos page that DOES incorporate the official logo, however we did > not vote to have a banner as an official logo so it is still a banner > not a logo. > > I hope that makes sense and I imagine Shirley and Tim will explain > maybe a bit better. Thanks for the question. > Karen > ASC MNGenWeb > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:19 AM, John Van Essen via <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mar 19, 2015, at 19:55, Karen De Groote via wrote: >> >>> The leadership team will begin reviewing their counties at the end of >>> this 10 day period for the basic requirements ... >> >> Okay - so that period is up! I have a question about the logo rules. >> >>> 8. All county sites must provide a link to the state site. ... >>> Here is the page with our official logo >>> and the acceptable banner that can be used on other pages that are NOT >>> the index page: http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/logo.htm. >>> This is an area that we have problems with in this project. Some are >>> using the old logo and some are using the the new BANNER on the index >>> page for a logo rather than the official logo. ... >> >> So by "old logo" you are referring to the Pennau banner with Minnesota >> spelled out, which is not in compliance with USGenWeb rules for state >> logos. By "new BANNER", you are referring to the re-formatted Pennau >> banner on the above page, also not suitable as a logo. >> >> Since the Kittleson banner on the Logo Sets page: >> >> http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/MNGenWeb%20Logo%20Sets.html >> >> incorporates the official logo and was not specifically forbidden >> and the use of a logo is *optional*, I have chosen to replace the >> old Pennau logo with the exact same-size Kittleson banner, and still >> linking it to the MNGenWeb page. >> >> So I'm looking for affirmation that what I have here is acceptable: >> >> http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mncrowwi/ >> >> It looks swell! >> >> Thanks. >> >> John Van Essen, Crow Wing county

I doubt I can explain it better than to say that while it looks nice it is a banner, not the official logo that our fellow coordinators voted on. Since I like the old style we've had for nearly 18 years I used both it and the new logo on my counties front door. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mnwilkin/ http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mnyellow/ Tim On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Karen De Groote via <[email protected]> wrote: > Great question John. When we all voted for the official logo, that > became the official logo. Banners are just that, banners. Now there > is no problem with decorating with banners, even on the index page but > our official logo needs to be there as well. Kermit reworked the old > Pennau banner to be in compliance with the name so we can use itd. It > does not contain the official logo. Keith chose to add a banner to > the logos page that DOES incorporate the official logo, however we did > not vote to have a banner as an official logo so it is still a banner > not a logo. > > I hope that makes sense and I imagine Shirley and Tim will explain > maybe a bit better. Thanks for the question. > Karen > ASC MNGenWeb > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:19 AM, John Van Essen via <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Mar 19, 2015, at 19:55, Karen De Groote via wrote: > > > >> The leadership team will begin reviewing their counties at the end of > >> this 10 day period for the basic requirements ... > > > > Okay - so that period is up! I have a question about the logo rules. > > > >> 8. All county sites must provide a link to the state site. ... > >> Here is the page with our official logo > >> and the acceptable banner that can be used on other pages that are NOT > >> the index page: http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/logo.htm. > >> This is an area that we have problems with in this project. Some are > >> using the old logo and some are using the the new BANNER on the index > >> page for a logo rather than the official logo. ... > > > > So by "old logo" you are referring to the Pennau banner with Minnesota > > spelled out, which is not in compliance with USGenWeb rules for state > > logos. By "new BANNER", you are referring to the re-formatted Pennau > > banner on the above page, also not suitable as a logo. > > > > Since the Kittleson banner on the Logo Sets page: > > > > http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/MNGenWeb%20Logo%20Sets.html > > > > incorporates the official logo and was not specifically forbidden > > and the use of a logo is *optional*, I have chosen to replace the > > old Pennau logo with the exact same-size Kittleson banner, and still > > linking it to the MNGenWeb page. > > > > So I'm looking for affirmation that what I have here is acceptable: > > > > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mncrowwi/ > > > > It looks swell! > > > > Thanks. > > > > John Van Essen, Crow Wing county > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] 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 > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Great question John. When we all voted for the official logo, that became the official logo. Banners are just that, banners. Now there is no problem with decorating with banners, even on the index page but our official logo needs to be there as well. Kermit reworked the old Pennau banner to be in compliance with the name so we can use itd. It does not contain the official logo. Keith chose to add a banner to the logos page that DOES incorporate the official logo, however we did not vote to have a banner as an official logo so it is still a banner not a logo. I hope that makes sense and I imagine Shirley and Tim will explain maybe a bit better. Thanks for the question. Karen ASC MNGenWeb On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:19 AM, John Van Essen via <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 19, 2015, at 19:55, Karen De Groote via wrote: > >> The leadership team will begin reviewing their counties at the end of >> this 10 day period for the basic requirements ... > > Okay - so that period is up! I have a question about the logo rules. > >> 8. All county sites must provide a link to the state site. ... >> Here is the page with our official logo >> and the acceptable banner that can be used on other pages that are NOT >> the index page: http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/logo.htm. >> This is an area that we have problems with in this project. Some are >> using the old logo and some are using the the new BANNER on the index >> page for a logo rather than the official logo. ... > > So by "old logo" you are referring to the Pennau banner with Minnesota > spelled out, which is not in compliance with USGenWeb rules for state > logos. By "new BANNER", you are referring to the re-formatted Pennau > banner on the above page, also not suitable as a logo. > > Since the Kittleson banner on the Logo Sets page: > > http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/MNGenWeb%20Logo%20Sets.html > > incorporates the official logo and was not specifically forbidden > and the use of a logo is *optional*, I have chosen to replace the > old Pennau logo with the exact same-size Kittleson banner, and still > linking it to the MNGenWeb page. > > So I'm looking for affirmation that what I have here is acceptable: > > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mncrowwi/ > > It looks swell! > > Thanks. > > John Van Essen, Crow Wing county > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Mar 19, 2015, at 19:55, Karen De Groote via wrote: > The leadership team will begin reviewing their counties at the end of > this 10 day period for the basic requirements ... Okay - so that period is up! I have a question about the logo rules. > 8. All county sites must provide a link to the state site. ... > Here is the page with our official logo > and the acceptable banner that can be used on other pages that are NOT > the index page: http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/logo.htm. > This is an area that we have problems with in this project. Some are > using the old logo and some are using the the new BANNER on the index > page for a logo rather than the official logo. ... So by "old logo" you are referring to the Pennau banner with Minnesota spelled out, which is not in compliance with USGenWeb rules for state logos. By "new BANNER", you are referring to the re-formatted Pennau banner on the above page, also not suitable as a logo. Since the Kittleson banner on the Logo Sets page: http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mngenweb/MNGenWeb%20Logo%20Sets.html incorporates the official logo and was not specifically forbidden and the use of a logo is *optional*, I have chosen to replace the old Pennau logo with the exact same-size Kittleson banner, and still linking it to the MNGenWeb page. So I'm looking for affirmation that what I have here is acceptable: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mncrowwi/ It looks swell! Thanks. John Van Essen, Crow Wing county