The list administrator asked our opinion about whether to keep the gateway system, so I have tried to evaluate it. Nobody has said anything negative about this system, so let me be the first. I'm not trying to talk anyone into abondoning the system. I just offer some facts to weigh. Here are some reasons why people might not like it. 1) You can't tell who wrote the gatewayed email (not even your own) without opening it. They all come from "gc-gateway". It is fairly important to know who wrote the email. For example, if Pat Connors writes an email, I will always open it no matter what the subject is. 2) People seldom use even their first name at the end of a gatewayed message, so you don't know who wrote the message, which makes them definitely less personal. 3) Most of the time you don't know, and can't learn, the email address of the sender, so you can't answer privately. 4) You can read the gatewayed email, but the previous message is not included in it. It is therefore very often hard to understand the answer. When a subject has several respondents at once, you just can't tell to what the incoming email is responding. Even if there is only one respondent that day, you still can't tell what they were answering. This becomes even worse when the question was posted several days, weeks, or months earlier (as is often the case with message boards). This kind of confusion is avoided by using the message board the way it was intended; by visiting it. 5) Gatewaying forces you to go online and do some research if you want to understand many of the emails. 6) BUT, when I tried to do that twice in the past three days, the link to the online message took me to a screen advertising Ancestry instead of to the message board. I did learn that if I closed the browser window and clicked on the email link in the message a second time, that second time I would be taken to the correct place. Most people would not have tried it a second time. 7) The current system sometimes generates duplicate messages to the mailing list. 8) Gatewaying confuses a large number of the mailing list members. Sometimes they try to answer the question being posed on the message board, but they are only sending their answer to the mailing list members. The person who asked the question doesn't always see a helpful answer. 9) As one member complained, somedays there are a lot of these messages that have to be deleted. For those who check mail once a day, that is not a problem. For those whose computers alert them to the fact that there is an incoming email, checking to see what that mail is, then deleting it is not much of a problem. But, the large number of gatewayed messages on some days can mean checking many extra times. I suspect that some people find that to be annoying. 10) Unlike in past years, the mailing list Archives no longer shows who wrote most of the emails, because the ones that are gatewayed don't list a sender or their email address. They just list a "handle" of seemingly nonsense letters which usually makes it impossible to recognize the sender's name. That means that it will be harder or impossible to contact the sender when a genealogist finds an interesting message in the mailing list's Archives. That is a lot of negatives. You may think of others. Despite all of these negatives, a small percentage of list members are no doubt being helped, and a higher percentage don't want to miss the chance that a message board message might help. But, this can be resolved a different way. A line could be added at the bottom of each email from the mailing list that tells how to reach the message board. And an email reminder could be sent every two or three months to the mailing list suggesting that we check the message board. People who use a message board usually ask to be notified when someone replies to their message. So, it would not be harmful to the list member if they didn't read the message on the day it was written. I believe the negatives of gatewaying much outweigh the positives. However, the list administrator knows things about the mailing list and message board that few of us know. She knows how she would like things to operate, what would be easy and reasonable for her, and what would be best for the mailing list. I think she is in the best position to make the decision. I don't care one way or the other. I just tried to present an analysis of the situation. Cliff Lamere ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pat Connors wrote: >Side note from admin: I believe a couple of years ago, as a list, we >decided we wanted to be gatewayed to the message board. If a majority >of the list would like to change this, I am open to a discussion. >Thanks Cliff for the explanation. Also, if you don't want to read a >message, you can just delete it. > > > > >>taking place on a message board. It has been arranged so that this >>mailing list also receives the message board messages (they are >>"gatewayed" to the mailing list). >> >> >> > > >

Pat and Cliff, as well as others. did you notice a sudden but MAJOR change had been made to the gatewayed messages July 1st? It used to be simple message added to the message, not obstruse, but now this all of a sudden an unbelievable intruding message tacked on to the message, taking up anywhere from HALF to TWO-THIRDS of the message space. And DARE us to unsubscribe from the mailing lists if we don't like it. The new intruding portion is shown here below. Seeing is believing. > PRIVACY STATEMENT > http://www.thegenerationsnetwork.com/default.aspx?html=pp > > We do not sell, rent or otherwise distribute the personal information you provide us to third party advertisers. > > Don't want to receive this email anymore? No problem. It's easy to unsubscribe altogether or change your email preferences. > > Click here to unsubscribe from all message board alerts: > http://www.ancestry.com/unsubscribe/?eml=NYCHAUTA-L@rootsweb.com&md5=&mb=1 > > To change your preferences log in to My Ancestry and go to the 'my alerts' section. > http://www.ancestry.com/t9760/e2008070501515900495735373126/rd.ashx > > You can contact us at: The Generations Network, Inc., 360 West 4800 North, Provo, UT 84604, Attn: Customer Service. Cliff Lamere wrote: > The list administrator asked our opinion about whether to keep the > gateway system, so I have tried to evaluate it. Nobody has said > anything negative about this system, so let me be the first.

Cliff: As you have noted when I botched replying to a query last winter, I am technologically challenged. So reason number 8 voices my concerns. I could not figure out what I was doing wrong even after you had tried to explain it to me. So I did not bother to try to respond again even though I had data on point for that particular query. Oh, well! For the last few days, I have been corresponding back and forth with another list member regarding how to figure out where his ancestors lived prior to settling in Rensselaer County, NY after the Rev. War. No doubt this conversation is boring most list members to death, but then just maybe someone else might find it useful. Everyone has a delete button, which I feel they should all learn to use. Leslie Cliff Lamere wrote: > The list administrator asked our opinion about whether to keep the > gateway system, so I have tried to evaluate it. Nobody has said > anything negative about this system, so let me be the first. > > I'm not trying to talk anyone into abondoning the system. I just offer > some facts to weigh. Here are some reasons why people might not like it. > > 1) You can't tell who wrote the gatewayed email (not even your own) > without opening it. They all come from "gc-gateway". It is fairly > important to know who wrote the email. For example, if Pat Connors > writes an email, I will always open it no matter what the subject is. > > 2) People seldom use even their first name at the end of a gatewayed > message, so you don't know who wrote the message, which makes them > definitely less personal. > > 3) Most of the time you don't know, and can't learn, the email address > of the sender, so you can't answer privately. > > 4) You can read the gatewayed email, but the previous message is not > included in it. It is therefore very often hard to understand the > answer. When a subject has several respondents at once, you just can't > tell to what the incoming email is responding. Even if there is only > one respondent that day, you still can't tell what they were answering. > This becomes even worse when the question was posted several days, > weeks, or months earlier (as is often the case with message boards). > This kind of confusion is avoided by using the message board the way it > was intended; by visiting it. > > 5) Gatewaying forces you to go online and do some research if you want > to understand many of the emails. > > 6) BUT, when I tried to do that twice in the past three days, the link > to the online message took me to a screen advertising Ancestry instead > of to the message board. I did learn that if I closed the browser > window and clicked on the email link in the message a second time, that > second time I would be taken to the correct place. Most people would > not have tried it a second time. > > 7) The current system sometimes generates duplicate messages to the > mailing list. > > 8) Gatewaying confuses a large number of the mailing list members. > Sometimes they try to answer the question being posed on the message > board, but they are only sending their answer to the mailing list > members. The person who asked the question doesn't always see a helpful > answer. > > 9) As one member complained, somedays there are a lot of these messages > that have to be deleted. For those who check mail once a day, that is > not a problem. For those whose computers alert them to the fact that > there is an incoming email, checking to see what that mail is, then > deleting it is not much of a problem. But, the large number of > gatewayed messages on some days can mean checking many extra times. I > suspect that some people find that to be annoying. > > 10) Unlike in past years, the mailing list Archives no longer shows who > wrote most of the emails, because the ones that are gatewayed don't list > a sender or their email address. They just list a "handle" of seemingly > nonsense letters which usually makes it impossible to recognize the > sender's name. That means that it will be harder or impossible to > contact the sender when a genealogist finds an interesting message in > the mailing list's Archives. > > That is a lot of negatives. You may think of others. > > Despite all of these negatives, a small percentage of list members are > no doubt being helped, and a higher percentage don't want to miss the > chance that a message board message might help. But, this can be > resolved a different way. A line could be added at the bottom of each > email from the mailing list that tells how to reach the message board. > And an email reminder could be sent every two or three months to the > mailing list suggesting that we check the message board. People who > use a message board usually ask to be notified when someone replies to > their message. So, it would not be harmful to the list member if they > didn't read the message on the day it was written. > > I believe the negatives of gatewaying much outweigh the positives. > However, the list administrator knows things about the mailing list and > message board that few of us know. She knows how she would like things > to operate, what would be easy and reasonable for her, and what would be > best for the mailing list. I think she is in the best position to make > the decision. > > I don't care one way or the other. I just tried to present an analysis > of the situation. > > Cliff Lamere > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Pat Connors wrote: > > >> Side note from admin: I believe a couple of years ago, as a list, we >> decided we wanted to be gatewayed to the message board. If a majority >> of the list would like to change this, I am open to a discussion. >> Thanks Cliff for the explanation. Also, if you don't want to read a >> message, you can just delete it. >> >> >> >> >> >>> taking place on a message board. It has been arranged so that this >>> mailing list also receives the message board messages (they are >>> "gatewayed" to the mailing list). >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > ====NY-RENSSE Mailing List==== > Check out the mailing list's website at: > http://www.connorsgenealogy.com/NYRensse/ > Add/check you Rensselaer County surnames on the surname registry at: > http://www.rootsweb.com/~nyrenss2/ > (under Links) > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NYRENSSE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

I have to agree with Cliff. Since I have been with this group, I have opened almost everything I have ever received--for 4 years! Only once did I find something that made a difference and that difference was so profound--connected me to generations of my mother's family (I still exchange a yearly email or two with the distant "cuz" who revealed our relationship)---that I have read everything posted since. I am really grateful for that information. But I am getting weary. How about QUESTIONS TO ALL, REPLIES TO ONE. That should be the motto and whatever will bring that procedure about will bring gratitude from me. Dot Keith in Cincinnati. On Jul 5, 2008, at 3:02 AM, Cliff Lamere wrote: > The list administrator asked our opinion about whether to keep the > gateway system, so I have tried to evaluate it. Nobody has said > anything negative about this system, so let me be the first. > > I'm not trying to talk anyone into abondoning the system. I just > offer > some facts to weigh. Here are some reasons why people might not > like it. > > 1) You can't tell who wrote the gatewayed email (not even your own) > without opening it. They all come from "gc-gateway". It is fairly > important to know who wrote the email. For example, if Pat Connors > writes an email, I will always open it no matter what the subject is. > > 2) People seldom use even their first name at the end of a gatewayed > message, so you don't know who wrote the message, which makes them > definitely less personal. > > 3) Most of the time you don't know, and can't learn, the email > address > of the sender, so you can't answer privately. > > 4) You can read the gatewayed email, but the previous message is not > included in it. It is therefore very often hard to understand the > answer. When a subject has several respondents at once, you just > can't > tell to what the incoming email is responding. Even if there is only > one respondent that day, you still can't tell what they were > answering. > This becomes even worse when the question was posted several days, > weeks, or months earlier (as is often the case with message boards). > This kind of confusion is avoided by using the message board the > way it > was intended; by visiting it. > > 5) Gatewaying forces you to go online and do some research if you > want > to understand many of the emails. > > 6) BUT, when I tried to do that twice in the past three days, the > link > to the online message took me to a screen advertising Ancestry instead > of to the message board. I did learn that if I closed the browser > window and clicked on the email link in the message a second time, > that > second time I would be taken to the correct place. Most people would > not have tried it a second time. > > 7) The current system sometimes generates duplicate messages to the > mailing list. > > 8) Gatewaying confuses a large number of the mailing list members. > Sometimes they try to answer the question being posed on the message > board, but they are only sending their answer to the mailing list > members. The person who asked the question doesn't always see a > helpful > answer. > > 9) As one member complained, somedays there are a lot of these > messages > that have to be deleted. For those who check mail once a day, that is > not a problem. For those whose computers alert them to the fact that > there is an incoming email, checking to see what that mail is, then > deleting it is not much of a problem. But, the large number of > gatewayed messages on some days can mean checking many extra times. I > suspect that some people find that to be annoying. > > 10) Unlike in past years, the mailing list Archives no longer > shows who > wrote most of the emails, because the ones that are gatewayed don't > list > a sender or their email address. They just list a "handle" of > seemingly > nonsense letters which usually makes it impossible to recognize the > sender's name. That means that it will be harder or impossible to > contact the sender when a genealogist finds an interesting message in > the mailing list's Archives. > > That is a lot of negatives. You may think of others. > > Despite all of these negatives, a small percentage of list members are > no doubt being helped, and a higher percentage don't want to miss the > chance that a message board message might help. But, this can be > resolved a different way. A line could be added at the bottom of each > email from the mailing list that tells how to reach the message board. > And an email reminder could be sent every two or three months to the > mailing list suggesting that we check the message board. People who > use a message board usually ask to be notified when someone replies to > their message. So, it would not be harmful to the list member if they > didn't read the message on the day it was written. > > I believe the negatives of gatewaying much outweigh the positives. > However, the list administrator knows things about the mailing list > and > message board that few of us know. She knows how she would like > things > to operate, what would be easy and reasonable for her, and what > would be > best for the mailing list. I think she is in the best position to > make > the decision. > > I don't care one way or the other. I just tried to present an > analysis > of the situation. > > Cliff Lamere > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Pat Connors wrote: > >> Side note from admin: I believe a couple of years ago, as a list, we >> decided we wanted to be gatewayed to the message board. If a >> majority >> of the list would like to change this, I am open to a discussion. >> Thanks Cliff for the explanation. Also, if you don't want to read a >> message, you can just delete it. >> >> >> >> >>> taking place on a message board. It has been arranged so that this >>> mailing list also receives the message board messages (they are >>> "gatewayed" to the mailing list). >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > ====NY-RENSSE Mailing List==== > Check out the mailing list's website at: > http://www.connorsgenealogy.com/NYRensse/ > Add/check you Rensselaer County surnames on the surname registry at: > http://www.rootsweb.com/~nyrenss2/ > (under Links) > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NYRENSSE- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message