Well said, Karen. Shirley On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Karen De Groote <[email protected]> wrote: > Nancy, > If we have rules and a site is not brought in to compliance with the > rules within a certain time period, the CC can be fired through > delinking. Meaning the state site no longer lists that site as the > official county site. It is not necessary to pursue a password > because our sites are our own and as a member of the organization we > are given the right of identifying ourselves as USGenWeb and MTGenWeb > counties. Once a site is delinked they must remove both of those > designations. There is no nagging involved. In another GenWeb > organization I am involved with, we have much more stringent rules of > performance. > > I am sorry to hear that you feel one new item in six months is > excessive. It could be a photo, or an obit or something not too > taxing although we all would love to add full transcriptions of > something. Every tidbit helps make our sites better. I realize that > Teton has amazing data and might not need to add transcriptions of > anything but there are always little things that freshen our sites. > > I agree that broken links should be attended to as a first but "also" > order. Everyone can download Xenu, which is a free link checker. It > will save your eyes as well as time and tell you what links may have > gone bad over time. This enables you to quickly find and correct > broken links. I usually print out my report and then mark it off when > it has been changed and uploaded. Xenu makes it simple for me. > > I don't think anyone wants to upset a fellow CC and I hope everyone > will be looking at the every 6 months rules as a positive and they > will take pride in their site. I know this discussion and rule has > definitely got me fired up again. I was getting lazy. > > Best Regards, > Karen > > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Nancy Thornton <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I vote no on the 6 months requirement. > > Nancy > > Teton County > > Reason: While I believe that our polices should have an update > > requirement, I believe 6 months is too high a goal, especially after > > viewing a sample of our websites today. One county hasn't seen any work > in > > nine years, and even our state page has bad links and out of date info. > > > > So once a year is better, I think. > > > > Added to that, we don't have a penalty for not checking for bad links, > > except maybe nagging. What good is that? The other option is to put that > > site in a fishbowl, point out the problems. Do we want the trouble of > > getting the password and taking over the site? > > > > I urge our discussion to focus on a formal way of pointing out the bad > > links and urging the webmasters to fix them, the goal being "current" > > rather than "new stuff". This is genealogy, after all. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 vote yes! Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 13, 2014, at 9:42 PM, Shirley Cullum <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well said, Karen. > > Shirley > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Karen De Groote <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Nancy, >> If we have rules and a site is not brought in to compliance with the >> rules within a certain time period, the CC can be fired through >> delinking. Meaning the state site no longer lists that site as the >> official county site. It is not necessary to pursue a password >> because our sites are our own and as a member of the organization we >> are given the right of identifying ourselves as USGenWeb and MTGenWeb >> counties. Once a site is delinked they must remove both of those >> designations. There is no nagging involved. In another GenWeb >> organization I am involved with, we have much more stringent rules of >> performance. >> >> I am sorry to hear that you feel one new item in six months is >> excessive. It could be a photo, or an obit or something not too >> taxing although we all would love to add full transcriptions of >> something. Every tidbit helps make our sites better. I realize that >> Teton has amazing data and might not need to add transcriptions of >> anything but there are always little things that freshen our sites. >> >> I agree that broken links should be attended to as a first but "also" >> order. Everyone can download Xenu, which is a free link checker. It >> will save your eyes as well as time and tell you what links may have >> gone bad over time. This enables you to quickly find and correct >> broken links. I usually print out my report and then mark it off when >> it has been changed and uploaded. Xenu makes it simple for me. >> >> I don't think anyone wants to upset a fellow CC and I hope everyone >> will be looking at the every 6 months rules as a positive and they >> will take pride in their site. I know this discussion and rule has >> definitely got me fired up again. I was getting lazy. >> >> Best Regards, >> Karen >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Nancy Thornton <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> I vote no on the 6 months requirement. >>> Nancy >>> Teton County >>> Reason: While I believe that our polices should have an update >>> requirement, I believe 6 months is too high a goal, especially after >>> viewing a sample of our websites today. One county hasn't seen any work >> in >>> nine years, and even our state page has bad links and out of date info. >>> >>> So once a year is better, I think. >>> >>> Added to that, we don't have a penalty for not checking for bad links, >>> except maybe nagging. What good is that? The other option is to put that >>> site in a fishbowl, point out the problems. Do we want the trouble of >>> getting the password and taking over the site? >>> >>> I urge our discussion to focus on a formal way of pointing out the bad >>> links and urging the webmasters to fix them, the goal being "current" >>> rather than "new stuff". This is genealogy, after all. >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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