********************* Please forward to all Project Lists ********************************** The National USGenWeb Project site and all sites hosted on theusgenweb.org domain, as well as a few other Project sites have been hit again by a hacker that has included some malware code at the end of the majority of the pages on each site. We are working with the hosting service right now to get the sites cleaned and the code removed. Please ask ALL Project Coordinators that have their sites hosted on theusgenweb.org or anyone that specifically gets notices that they're sites are infected to not connect by ftp to the sites until at least the 16th as we work to try to ensure that we have the sites cleaned once again. For folks that have only visited the USGenWeb National site or any of the other affected sites using their browser, the risk is very minor that your computer has been infected. If you've connected by ftp and downloaded files from any of the infected sites, I'd suggest running a full virus scan on your computer and I'd also recommend running at least a couple of spyware scans to add an additional level of confidence that your system is clean. All sites that are hosted on theusgenweb.org server will have the passwords changed before you can log in again. I'll be starting on this immediately so that the downtime will be minimized as much as possible. If anyone has any specific questions or problems, please let me know. Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Kemp Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:36 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [MSGEN Official List] Fw: [BOARD] State Coordinator's Mail List ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:19 AM Subject: [BOARD] State Coordinator's Mail List > ***************** Please Forward to Project Mail Lists > *************************** > > The Advisory Board, after discussion amongst themselves have agreed that > a > discrepancy in how the State Coordinator's mail list has been handled > compared to how the BOARD and USGENWEB-ALL (CHAT) mail lists are handled > should be corrected. > > As of today, the State Coordinator's list will be opened to any interested > USGenWeb Project Coordinator to subscribe in to moderated status. You > will > also need to send me an email giving your name and USGenWeb Project > affiliation before the subscription will be approved. Subscription > requests > from email addresses that I cannot identify as belonging to a USGenWeb > Project Coordinator will not be approved. > > You can find links to all USGenWeb Project mail lists that are hosted at > Rootsweb at http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/USGenWeb/. > > > Sherri Bradley > National Coordinator > USGenWeb Project > Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org > Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > 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 > "Golden Rule" of E-Mail: =============================== That which thou findeth hateful to receive, sendeth thou not unto others. ------------------------------- 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

We've wandered far from the original objective in this discussion. Ideas have been mentioned about what specific individuals would like to see included as requirements, which, good or bad, the agenda items don't cover. Search engines, placement of logos, etc. are outside of the range of the agenda items. The AB, right now, is not looking to expand the requirements, simply to clarify wording in the document. I'm not saying that expanding the requirements is a bad thing - I agree with some that clearly delineating the requirements vs. 'should or suggested haves' (guidelines) would be of benefit, but in a large forum, you'd never come to a concensus about what should be included where. The AB has received a tremendous response to their request for comments on the subject of the two agenda items under discussion, and we thank you for that. A motion will be brought to the floor and a vote taken on these agenda items so that we can move on to other items. (We're trying to stay focused and make our way through the agenda so there's not constantly carried-over items from month to month. <g>) Once again, thank you, one and all, for your input. Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php

Indiana has required a working search engine for several years now. Free Find will extend the search for a non-profit site if you ask. And visitors love to be able to search the site. I do myself. I think most of our CCs are proud to display the project logos prominently. This still leaves plenty of room for design differences. Debby Beheler [email protected] State Coordinator INGenWeb Project http://www.ingenweb.org -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cheryl Rothwell Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 9:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist Are you going to mandate the search engine too? Those things come and go. I have a Google search engine on one county that works well but doesn't seem to do as well on another. Another works very well but the site grew so it will not search the entire thing without payment. As with anything else, it's a can of worms. It seems to me there is a push to make all the sites alike. Is that what you really want? ------------------------------- 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

Google checks and indexes sites once a month. I have a Google account. Additional search engines may be encouraged to get around this problem, but Google gives you world wide publicity none of other site search engines do. Link to search engine pages where you can use more than 1 search engine, on home page is preferred and don't try to put it at the very bottom of the home page. You don't have to put multiple search engines on the home page. A link off the home page to a page listing different search engines in use, can be utilitized much more effectively. Professional quality home pages have search engine link right at the top part of the page. As for Free Find limits, you can get around that problem. Split the site sections into categories, viola! you have a new search engine specificially for that section with all new additional pages. There's no limit. David Samuelsen

I do agree with your thinking as expressed here but there are far too many in today's "rush-rush" and "make it easy for me" world who, if they cannot find there information quick and easy, just move on to other sites. With much of the haphazard spelling used in the past, I prefer taking my time and reading and sounding out some of the names when doing serious research. Back when many census takers and county clerks just wrote the name down as they heard it, it sure led to some very strange spellings. As recently as yesterday I was ask on two different telephone calls how to spell my surname, Shockey. Back a hundred years ago they likely did not bother to ask. Les Gayle Triller wrote: > I put my search engine at the bottom of the page just above my footer. > Since search engines don't always pull up everything you have on your site > or will pull up several pages that it found only because the name of the > submitter matches what you typed in. There is also the issue of spelling. > I think it is good for the researcher to see what your page has to offer. > Often pages have great information that might help our researchers that will > not come up in a search such as interesting newspaper articles about the > area or stories that might give them an idea of what life might have been > like for their ancestor. Or links to other sites that might be of help. > Many states are putting vital records on line that the researcher would not > know about if they stopped at the top of your page and ran a search. If you > place your search engine at the top of the page and the page itself is never > looked at a lot of very good and helpful things could be missed. Just my > thoughts on the matter. > > Gayle

I have done that twice. I think I've reached their limit. On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:09 AM, AnnieG <[email protected]> wrote: > If you are using a Freefind search engine they will give unlimited search > to > genealogy projects. Just go to your control panel and click on contact - > choose the department Free Account support and request more space. > > AnnieG > -------Original Message------- > > From: Cheryl Rothwell > Date: 10/14/09 08:39:12 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > Are you going to mandate the search engine too? Those things come and go. I > have a Google search engine on one county that works well but doesn't seem > to do as well on another. Another works very well but the site grew so it > will not search the entire thing without payment. As with anything else, > it's a can of worms. > > It seems to me there is a push to make all the sites alike. Is that what > you > > really want? > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

A far better search is AtomZ. You can have unlimited sites and pages plus all your web sites are visible on an admin screen with ONE login. Easy to use, schedule, etc. http://www.atomz.com. AnnieG wrote: > If you are using a Freefind search engine they will give unlimited search to > genealogy projects. Just go to your control panel and click on contact - > choose the department Free Account support and request more space. > > AnnieG > -------Original Message------- > > From: Cheryl Rothwell > Date: 10/14/09 08:39:12 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > Are you going to mandate the search engine too? Those things come and go. I > have a Google search engine on one county that works well but doesn't seem > to do as well on another. Another works very well but the site grew so it > will not search the entire thing without payment. As with anything else, > it's a can of worms. > > It seems to me there is a push to make all the sites alike. Is that what you > > really want? > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > >

If you are using a Freefind search engine they will give unlimited search to genealogy projects. Just go to your control panel and click on contact - choose the department Free Account support and request more space. AnnieG -------Original Message------- From: Cheryl Rothwell Date: 10/14/09 08:39:12 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist Are you going to mandate the search engine too? Those things come and go. I have a Google search engine on one county that works well but doesn't seem to do as well on another. Another works very well but the site grew so it will not search the entire thing without payment. As with anything else, it's a can of worms. It seems to me there is a push to make all the sites alike. Is that what you really want? ------------------------------- 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

Are you going to mandate the search engine too? Those things come and go. I have a Google search engine on one county that works well but doesn't seem to do as well on another. Another works very well but the site grew so it will not search the entire thing without payment. As with anything else, it's a can of worms. It seems to me there is a push to make all the sites alike. Is that what you really want?

I put my search engine at the bottom of the page just above my footer. Since search engines don't always pull up everything you have on your site or will pull up several pages that it found only because the name of the submitter matches what you typed in. There is also the issue of spelling. I think it is good for the researcher to see what your page has to offer. Often pages have great information that might help our researchers that will not come up in a search such as interesting newspaper articles about the area or stories that might give them an idea of what life might have been like for their ancestor. Or links to other sites that might be of help. Many states are putting vital records on line that the researcher would not know about if they stopped at the top of your page and ran a search. If you place your search engine at the top of the page and the page itself is never looked at a lot of very good and helpful things could be missed. Just my thoughts on the matter. Gayle -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lesley L Shockey Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 6:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist I doubt if very many ever look far enough to get to the bottom of the page. It seems most only go down far enough any more to find the "search" box, fill in their name of interest and if they do not get instant hits, move on to pages elsewhere. Les Gayle Triller wrote: > Because I have a banner on the top of most of my pages I have my state > logo's personal info, copy write and USGenWeb log all together in my footer. > If someone is looking for their ancestor on my site why would they not look > at the entire page. I also include my footer on every page of the site. > > Gayle > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cheryl Rothwell > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 8:39 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > Maybe we could get identical hats and skirts too? > > I think four is a reasonable choice. Ten would be too many. And "near the > top of the page" works for me although there have been days when I had to > define "near" for someone. You suggesting we order the layout of all pages. > This is not Stepford. > > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Dale Grimm <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The purpose of a logo is for "branding" - you see the logo and you >> instantly >> know the product. There is no mistaking logos for Pepsi, Nike, CBS or >> other >> companies. >> >> We have four different logos and each logo has several different >> variations. >> This does us no good. >> >> There should be only one logo and it should be displayed in the same place >> on all USGenWeb sites. When you see the logo in the right place, you >> instantly know you're on a USGenWeb site. >> >> >> Dale Grimm >> OHGenWeb SC >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sharon Craig >> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 3:16 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist >> >> That is the best solution I have seen in all of these e-mails. Link to > the >> approved logos in the paragraph and it is done. >> >> >> Sharon A. Craig >> Hamilton Co. InGenWeb Coordinator >> Assistant In GenWeb State Coordinator >> >> >> --- On Sun, 10/11/09, Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> From: Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 11:45 AM >> >> >> *All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo >> on the home page.* >> >> Leaving aside all the evident control issues, it would appear to me that >> the >> rules say "the USGenWeb project logo" so the solution is to define, >> somewhere that is obvious, exactly what "the USGenWeb project logo" is. >> >> The logo is one of those found here... or something along those lines. >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > ------------------------------- > 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

Dale, I believe that you hit the the heart of this issue. It sure appears that many do not care about trying to place the USGenWeb name out there for their visitors to see or promoting the Project. When the USGenWeb logo is hidden at the bottom of a page where it is not likely to be seen when it is supposed to be prominently displayed does nothing to help increase the branding or promotion of the Project. I felt that four different "official logos" were too much at the time of the vote and would not be a benefit to the USGenWeb Project. At the time I voted for the one that I thought would work best toward this goal. I know others told me at the time that they felt the same and also voted for only one official logo. Les Dale Grimm wrote: > The purpose of a logo is for "branding" - you see the logo and you instantly > know the product. There is no mistaking logos for Pepsi, Nike, CBS or other > companies. > > We have four different logos and each logo has several different variations. > This does us no good. > > There should be only one logo and it should be displayed in the same place > on all USGenWeb sites. When you see the logo in the right place, you > instantly know you're on a USGenWeb site. > > > Dale Grimm > OHGenWeb SC

I doubt if very many ever look far enough to get to the bottom of the page. It seems most only go down far enough any more to find the "search" box, fill in their name of interest and if they do not get instant hits, move on to pages elsewhere. Les Gayle Triller wrote: > Because I have a banner on the top of most of my pages I have my state > logo's personal info, copy write and USGenWeb log all together in my footer. > If someone is looking for their ancestor on my site why would they not look > at the entire page. I also include my footer on every page of the site. > > Gayle > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cheryl Rothwell > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 8:39 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > Maybe we could get identical hats and skirts too? > > I think four is a reasonable choice. Ten would be too many. And "near the > top of the page" works for me although there have been days when I had to > define "near" for someone. You suggesting we order the layout of all pages. > This is not Stepford. > > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Dale Grimm <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The purpose of a logo is for "branding" - you see the logo and you >> instantly >> know the product. There is no mistaking logos for Pepsi, Nike, CBS or >> other >> companies. >> >> We have four different logos and each logo has several different >> variations. >> This does us no good. >> >> There should be only one logo and it should be displayed in the same place >> on all USGenWeb sites. When you see the logo in the right place, you >> instantly know you're on a USGenWeb site. >> >> >> Dale Grimm >> OHGenWeb SC >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sharon Craig >> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 3:16 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist >> >> That is the best solution I have seen in all of these e-mails. Link to > the >> approved logos in the paragraph and it is done. >> >> >> Sharon A. Craig >> Hamilton Co. InGenWeb Coordinator >> Assistant In GenWeb State Coordinator >> >> >> --- On Sun, 10/11/09, Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> From: Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 11:45 AM >> >> >> *All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo >> on the home page.* >> >> Leaving aside all the evident control issues, it would appear to me that >> the >> rules say "the USGenWeb project logo" so the solution is to define, >> somewhere that is obvious, exactly what "the USGenWeb project logo" is. >> >> The logo is one of those found here... or something along those lines. >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Very well said Dale and Les, and Les I do like the idea of making it a requirement to put a search engine on the sites because I don't stay at a site that doesn't have one as I am not going to sit all day reading stuff that I am not looking for when the search engine can tell me immediately. Gail On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Lesley L Shockey <[email protected]>wrote: > Dale, I believe that you hit the the heart of this issue. It sure > appears that many do not care about trying to place the USGenWeb name > out there for their visitors to see or promoting the Project. > > When the USGenWeb logo is hidden at the bottom of a page where it is > not likely to be seen when it is supposed to be prominently displayed > does nothing to help increase the branding or promotion of the Project. > > I felt that four different "official logos" were too much at the time > of the vote and would not be a benefit to the USGenWeb Project. At > the time I voted for the one that I thought would work best toward > this goal. I know others told me at the time that they felt the same > and also voted for only one official logo. > > Les > > Dale Grimm wrote: > > The purpose of a logo is for "branding" - you see the logo and you > instantly > > know the product. There is no mistaking logos for Pepsi, Nike, CBS or > other > > companies. > > > > We have four different logos and each logo has several different > variations. > > This does us no good. > > > > There should be only one logo and it should be displayed in the same > place > > on all USGenWeb sites. When you see the logo in the right place, you > > instantly know you're on a USGenWeb site. > > > > > > Dale Grimm > > OHGenWeb SC > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Nope! It would make the world boring and some of the best ideas would be lost to us all. Mike St. Clair -------------------------------------------------- From: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 10:02 AM To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > Well, I say, it's a good thing we all have opinions.? Now, if we could all > have the same opinion, that would make the world turn much easier.? > > > > Denise > > NJ State Coordinator

Well, I say, it's a good thing we all have opinions.? Now, if we could all have the same opinion, that would make the world turn much easier.? Denise NJ State Coordinator -----Original Message----- From: Karen De Groote-Johnson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, Oct 13, 2009 9:02 am Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist LOL We would have to approve those hats and skirts now wouldn't we. This logo issue is beat to death in my opinion. We have four member approved logos, I think we need to add the word approved to the bylaw requiring the logo as I have always been under the impression that was the purpose in approving these 4 logos originally. Different designs so we have a selection that fits in with our individual web pages. When I see a web page that has one of the OLD logos, to me that indicates a stagnant page. PROMINENT adj. conspicuous, jutting out, projecting, distinguished, eminent, leading. The New Lexicon Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language 1992 To me and every other English speaking person prominent does NOT mean stuck at the bottom of a page. Our logos should be displayed somewhere in the first frame of the index page that you open when going to a site. You should not have to scroll to FIND the logo, it should hit you where you are when you open the page. Period, end of story. Lets get this taken care of and move to other items of importance please. Karen -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cheryl Rothwell Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 10:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist Maybe we could get identical hats and skirts too? I think four is a reasonable choice. Ten would be too many. And "near the top of the page" works for me although there have been days when I had to define "near" for someone. You suggesting we order the layout of all pages. This is not Stepford. <snip> ------------------------------- 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

LOL We would have to approve those hats and skirts now wouldn't we. This logo issue is beat to death in my opinion. We have four member approved logos, I think we need to add the word approved to the bylaw requiring the logo as I have always been under the impression that was the purpose in approving these 4 logos originally. Different designs so we have a selection that fits in with our individual web pages. When I see a web page that has one of the OLD logos, to me that indicates a stagnant page. PROMINENT adj. conspicuous, jutting out, projecting, distinguished, eminent, leading. The New Lexicon Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language 1992 To me and every other English speaking person prominent does NOT mean stuck at the bottom of a page. Our logos should be displayed somewhere in the first frame of the index page that you open when going to a site. You should not have to scroll to FIND the logo, it should hit you where you are when you open the page. Period, end of story. Lets get this taken care of and move to other items of importance please. Karen -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cheryl Rothwell Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 10:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist Maybe we could get identical hats and skirts too? I think four is a reasonable choice. Ten would be too many. And "near the top of the page" works for me although there have been days when I had to define "near" for someone. You suggesting we order the layout of all pages. This is not Stepford. <snip>

Indiana does that and we learn a lot about new info avaiable, and who may have a problem,. Sharon A. Craig Hamilton Co. InGenWeb Coordinator Assistant In GenWeb State Coordinator   --- On Mon, 10/12/09, Gail Kilgore <[email protected]> wrote: From: Gail Kilgore <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Listening to the SCs, AB, and EC To: [email protected] Date: Monday, October 12, 2009, 3:17 PM To maintain contact with your CC's have a monthly roll call and in your roll call ask the CC's to give an update on what they have done or are doing. Gail ------------------------------- 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 to agree with you here Cheryl. These people are volunteers, giving of themselves to enrich this project. Why make things more difficult than they are. If anything changes it needs to be done thru the bylaws and with the procedure put forth. As far as branding - we have already been branded - Rootsweb - and as long as some of the sites are still on RW, we will always be RW to the researcher. Bottom line here is - good websites and good information - they will always come to see us if we have that and it doesn't matter what logo we have on the site. That in a nutshell is what we need to work on. Just MHO. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cheryl Rothwell" <[email protected]> > Maybe we could get identical hats and skirts too? > > I think four is a reasonable choice. Ten would be too many. And "near the > top of the page" works for me although there have been days when I had to > define "near" for someone. You suggesting we order the layout of all > pages. > This is not Stepford. > > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Dale Grimm <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The purpose of a logo is for "branding" - you see the logo and you >> instantly >> know the product. There is no mistaking logos for Pepsi, Nike, CBS or >> other >> companies. >> >> We have four different logos and each logo has several different >> variations. >> This does us no good. >> >> There should be only one logo and it should be displayed in the same >> place >> on all USGenWeb sites. When you see the logo in the right place, you >> instantly know you're on a USGenWeb site. >> >> >> Dale Grimm >> OHGenWeb SC >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sharon Craig >> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 3:16 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist >> >> That is the best solution I have seen in all of these e-mails. Link to >> the >> approved logos in the paragraph and it is done. >> >> >> Sharon A. Craig >> Hamilton Co. InGenWeb Coordinator >> Assistant In GenWeb State Coordinator >> >> >> --- On Sun, 10/11/09, Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> From: Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 11:45 AM >> >> >> *All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project >> logo >> on the home page.* >> >> Leaving aside all the evident control issues, it would appear to me that >> the >> rules say "the USGenWeb project logo" so the solution is to define, >> somewhere that is obvious, exactly what "the USGenWeb project logo" is. >> >> The logo is one of those found here... or something along those lines. >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > ------------------------------- > 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 maintain contact with your CC's have a monthly roll call and in your roll call ask the CC's to give an update on what they have done or are doing. Gail