I'm sure you are an understanding person Harold. I have been around long enough to know that the quality of the SCs, ASCs and national officers and their ability to understand varies from year to year and I have seen some pretty stupid things go down in the name of enforcing rules. That's my concern. On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Harold Kilmer <[email protected]>wrote: > I am not trying to pick a fight. > > In my opinion if and when I as SC of NM find a web page or CC in violation > when they are notified of the violation they are given two weeks to correct > it. This means if someone is in violation and on vacation or attending a > funeral and can not be notified until they return in say a month; when they > are notified they would have two weeks. As chair of a state organization > the SC/ASC has this privilege. You don't have to make it hard on any one. > We are talking about sites that should have been set up correctly when they > were first created. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Harold Kilmer, NMGenWeb SC http://www.nmgenweb.us/ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cheryl Rothwell" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 1:51 PM > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > > > Two weeks is not enough time. Period. Not everyone has a computer > attached > > to their body and nothing else to do but watch for incoming email. Some > > members have real lives, work, take care of children and/or parents, go > on > > vacation, get sick, etc. Unrealistic requirements drive members away. > > Possibly in smaller states there are still waiting listing but in the > > larger > > states we no longer have that luxury. There is nothing to be gained by > > making difficult rules. > > > > Cheryl Rothwell > > ASC, ILGenWeb > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

Two weeks would be more than sufficient in many cases IF all they are doing is adding their name to a page AND they were home, not sick, on vacation, out of the country, doing hospice duty, etc. However, are you going to write a rule that says "two weeks except ..." and then write three pages of exceptions? I know at least one SC who is away from home in another state with iffy dial up service once or twice a year for an extended period. After Ivan I had no service for 7 weeks. There are so many exceptions and life is too short to list them. I also understand that giving a long deadline only encourages procrastination. A workable option might be to give the SCs almost unlimited discretion in this. They know their CCs and generally know if they are getting a run around or there are valid reasons. Cheryl On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Sherri <[email protected]> wrote: > Playing devil's advocate here, if we're talking about replacing a logo or > adding the coordinator's name and contact info to at least the main page of > a Project site, why would two weeks not be sufficient in most cases? > Article VI, Section 5 of the bylaws already include this statement right > after the portion that David quoted: > > "The two-week time limit shall be flexible based on justifiable reasons > presented by the website coordinator." > > That would give the leeway needed, if additional time is required, to > extend > the 2-week period if a coordinator is unavailable for whatever reason. > > Sherri > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Larry Flesher > Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 2:34 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > It's OK - I agree with you anyway <grin>. > > Two weeks is insufficient to mandate a correction - also not enough time. > (Four weeks/one month is better, in my opinion). > > Larry > SC MOGenWeb Project > SWSC SC Rep, USGenWeb Project AB > > > --- On Sat, 10/10/09, Nola Duffy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Nola Duffy <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 12:41 PM > > Excuse please, I was intending to > > respond to Katherine. > > > > Nola > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version > > of virus signature database 4495 (20091010) __________ > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

Two weeks is not enough time. Period. Not everyone has a computer attached to their body and nothing else to do but watch for incoming email. Some members have real lives, work, take care of children and/or parents, go on vacation, get sick, etc. Unrealistic requirements drive members away. Possibly in smaller states there are still waiting listing but in the larger states we no longer have that luxury. There is nothing to be gained by making difficult rules. Cheryl Rothwell ASC, ILGenWeb

Article VI Section 5 ... Coordinators of *any websites* found to be in non-compliance shall be notified of such and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to bring their website into compliance.... two weeks is written in the bylaws. This is in bylaws and it did not specifically which coordinators. It is so plain that all coordinators are subjected. And here's the other bylaw... ARTICLE IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS Section 1. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo on the home page. A state project logo may be required depending on the guidelines/standards in effect for that state. Note - it said *All websites*. Guidelines have recommendations in additon to what is spelled out as required by the bylaws. David Samuelsen

I also agree with a month. Generally when we go on vacation, we go for three weeks twice a year. I can access email when we are gone, but would not be able to update a website during that time period. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Flesher" <[email protected]> > It's OK - I agree with you anyway <grin>. > > Two weeks is insufficient to mandate a correction - also not enough time. > (Four weeks/one month is better, in my opinion). > > Larry > SC MOGenWeb Project > SWSC SC Rep, USGenWeb Project AB > > > --- On Sat, 10/10/09, Nola Duffy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Nola Duffy <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 12:41 PM >> Excuse please, I was intending to >> respond to Katherine. >> >> Nola >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version >> of virus signature database 4495 (20091010) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.9/2427 - Release Date: 10/10/09 06:39:00

I am not trying to pick a fight. In my opinion if and when I as SC of NM find a web page or CC in violation when they are notified of the violation they are given two weeks to correct it. This means if someone is in violation and on vacation or attending a funeral and can not be notified until they return in say a month; when they are notified they would have two weeks. As chair of a state organization the SC/ASC has this privilege. You don't have to make it hard on any one. We are talking about sites that should have been set up correctly when they were first created. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Harold Kilmer, NMGenWeb SC http://www.nmgenweb.us/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cheryl Rothwell" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > Two weeks is not enough time. Period. Not everyone has a computer attached > to their body and nothing else to do but watch for incoming email. Some > members have real lives, work, take care of children and/or parents, go on > vacation, get sick, etc. Unrealistic requirements drive members away. > Possibly in smaller states there are still waiting listing but in the > larger > states we no longer have that luxury. There is nothing to be gained by > making difficult rules. > > Cheryl Rothwell > ASC, ILGenWeb > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Speaking for myself and a number of CC's in NCGenWeb, we would be opposed to the time period of two weeks mentioned below. A month would be a more reasonable time period, particularly if the site in question is a larger one. Or try three weeks instead, if a month sounds too long. As some others have pointed out within our own project, what is someone is ill or on a two-week vacation when they are notified? Katherine Benbow ASC, NCGenWeb On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM, W. David Samuelsen <[email protected]>wrote: > Article VI Section 5 > ... Coordinators of *any websites* found to be in non-compliance shall > be notified of such and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in > which to bring their website into compliance.... > > So this meant Town and/or Local Projects are subjected to this rule > about the logos. There is no loophole for the TC/LPCs to get away with > it. And it isn't vague about Town/Local since it says *any websites*. > > David Samuelsen > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

David is exactly correct and two weeks is plenty of time to correct the web site. I for one do not think the by-laws should be corrected period. We all need to live with what we have. I might add that if the states/counties want to recognize the town/parish Coordinators we could add LC in our individual state projects as a guideline or a policy for the person maintaining the town/parish; however they should still be required to display the USGenWeb logo (and state if required) for identification purposes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Harold Kilmer, NMGenWeb SC http://www.nmgenweb.us/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "W. David Samuelsen" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 9:54 AM Subject: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > Article VI Section 5 > ... Coordinators of *any websites* found to be in non-compliance shall > be notified of such and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in > which to bring their website into compliance.... > > So this meant Town and/or Local Projects are subjected to this rule > about the logos. There is no loophole for the TC/LPCs to get away with > it. And it isn't vague about Town/Local since it says *any websites*. > > David Samuelsen > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Excuse please, I was intending to respond to Katherine. Nola __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4495 (20091010) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

Katherine, I agree. Still, we don't need to be too concerned about the national guidelines if we have our own because the AB has always looked to the states' by-laws in most issues if a conflict arises. I do think I will write and let the AB know that the 2 weeks will probably not sit well. If our CCs think it is too much, you know that the feeling is probably the same national wide. Nola ----- Original Message ----- From: "Katherine Benbow" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > Speaking for myself and a number of CC's in NCGenWeb, we would be opposed > to > the time period of two weeks mentioned below. A month would be a more > reasonable time period, particularly if the site in question is a larger > one. Or try three weeks instead, if a month sounds too long. As some > others have pointed out within our own project, what is someone is ill or > on > a two-week vacation when they are notified? > > Katherine Benbow > ASC, NCGenWeb > > > > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM, W. David Samuelsen > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Article VI Section 5 >> ... Coordinators of *any websites* found to be in non-compliance shall >> be notified of such and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in >> which to bring their website into compliance.... >> >> So this meant Town and/or Local Projects are subjected to this rule >> about the logos. There is no loophole for the TC/LPCs to get away with >> it. And it isn't vague about Town/Local since it says *any websites*. >> >> David Samuelsen >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4495 (20091010) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4495 (20091010) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

It's OK - I agree with you anyway <grin>. Two weeks is insufficient to mandate a correction - also not enough time. (Four weeks/one month is better, in my opinion). Larry SC MOGenWeb Project SWSC SC Rep, USGenWeb Project AB --- On Sat, 10/10/09, Nola Duffy <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Nola Duffy <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 12:41 PM > Excuse please, I was intending to > respond to Katherine. > > Nola > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version > of virus signature database 4495 (20091010) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Joe, I need to clarify something - the township and local sites that I was referring to are ones that are recognized by the USGenWeb State Projects - their coordinators are recognized as members of the XXGenWeb State Project and their names submitted to the Election Committee as members and they're allowed to vote. Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of joe patterson Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 11:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Fw: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items The local coordinator should be required to show a logo IF the town/ city is not part of a county/parish. ONE way to require this is to include independent cities/towns in the definition of CC. On Oct 9, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Tina S. Vickery wrote: >> Because the document is still titled "CC >> Guidelines", there are those Coordinators that do not feel the >> document >> should apply to their sites if they're not county sites. >> Specifically, >> Town and/or Local Project sites are the ones that I heard this from >> most often. Don't we have larger problems than this?? Like a dwindling number of volunteers?? The red white and blue ONLY logos may not fit well with some decors.....?? sizes?? possibly a MINIMUM display size..... but nothing else...... > While visiting sites across the Project, I noticed that although > there are > only four recognized logos (those posted at the link above), some of > our > Project members have either never replaced logos that were in use > prior to > these logos being created and voted on by the members, or have taken > "creative license" with them, modifying the colors, sizes, etc. ------------------------------- 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

Article VI Section 5 ... Coordinators of *any websites* found to be in non-compliance shall be notified of such and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to bring their website into compliance.... So this meant Town and/or Local Projects are subjected to this rule about the logos. There is no loophole for the TC/LPCs to get away with it. And it isn't vague about Town/Local since it says *any websites*. David Samuelsen

The local coordinator should be required to show a logo IF the town/ city is not part of a county/parish. ONE way to require this is to include independent cities/towns in the definition of CC. On Oct 9, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Tina S. Vickery wrote: >> Because the document is still titled "CC >> Guidelines", there are those Coordinators that do not feel the >> document >> should apply to their sites if they're not county sites. >> Specifically, >> Town and/or Local Project sites are the ones that I heard this from >> most often. Don't we have larger problems than this?? Like a dwindling number of volunteers?? The red white and blue ONLY logos may not fit well with some decors.....?? sizes?? possibly a MINIMUM display size..... but nothing else...... > While visiting sites across the Project, I noticed that although > there are > only four recognized logos (those posted at the link above), some of > our > Project members have either never replaced logos that were in use > prior to > these logos being created and voted on by the members, or have taken > "creative license" with them, modifying the colors, sizes, etc.

This agenda item is now under discussion on AB-CHAT by the Advisory Board and is shared here with permission. I would be very interested in input from Project members as the Board addresses this item. I look forward to your input. Tina Vickery Representative at Large [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:06 PM Subject: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items > The next two items on the agenda both deal with the CC Guidelines document > so I'm going to put them together for discussion as I was the one > responsible for adding them to the agenda. > > Item #1 - Discussion of the requirement that the USGenWeb logo on Project > sites be one of the approved logos posted at > http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/logos.shtml. > > Item #2 - Reviewing the CC Guidelines document to indicate that those > items > listed apply Project-wide, not just to county sites. > > Both of these items were identified as issues after last year's > clarifications were enacted - either before or during the recent election. > > While visiting sites across the Project, I noticed that although there are > only four recognized logos (those posted at the link above), some of our > Project members have either never replaced logos that were in use prior to > these logos being created and voted on by the members, or have taken > "creative license" with them, modifying the colors, sizes, etc. > > The other thing that I've heard on more than one occasion is in regards to > the document entitled "CC Guidelines". During the last term's > clarification > of the CC guidelines document, we generalized the wording of the "Contact > Information" section to include ALL project coordinators, but didn't > change > the title of the document. Because the document is still titled "CC > Guidelines", there are those Coordinators that do not feel the document > should apply to their sites if they're not county sites. Specifically, > Town > and/or Local Project sites are the ones that I heard this from most often. > > One other thing to consider, along with item #2 is whether the document > should be separated into requirements vs. suggested items to include on/in > a > Project site. Requirements might include display of the USGenWeb Project > logo, contact information for the site coordinator, a link to the state > project, a link to the USGenWeb National project, a query page, lookups > page > (lookups volunteers, etc. Suggestions might include a link to the > USGenWeb > Archives Project, a link to the county mail list, a link to the > WorldGenWeb > Project, etc. > > Having provided this background info, I'll turn it over to the rest of you > for discussion. > > > Sherri Bradley > National Coordinator > USGenWeb Project > Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org > Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php

Please forward to Project mail lists Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/business/agenda2.php From: Christina Palmer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 12:51 PM To: Sherri Bradley Subject: Call for Volunteers **** Please Forward to All lists and Members **** The Election Committee is asking for volunteers to fill several positions that will be available on January 1, 2010. If you are interested, please contact any member of the EC http://usgenweb.org/usgwelections/2009-ec/2009current.htm Thanks, Christina Palmer [email protected] USGenWeb Election Committee

Welcome Mitch. Les SC WVGenWeb SEMA SC Rep

That is awesome! Way to go, Barbra!   Shirley --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Larry Flesher <[email protected]> wrote: From: Larry Flesher <[email protected]> Subject: [MOGEN] FW: Recognition Award To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 10:27 AM Occasionally, I get to send a very very nice message to you all, and today is one of those occasions! Congratulations, Barbra, on your tireless work and energy in maintaining your county sites. Your efforts have been recognized by one of your "customers", who took the time to write to the USGenWeb Project National Coordinator and express his thoughts. We're all very proud of you, Barbra! Way to Go! Larry Flesher SC, MOGenWeb Project > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:11 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Recognition Award > > Hello from Missouri! >      In the past, I have seen county > GenWeb sites that stated they had > been recognized with various awards such as "Site of the > Year" and so > forth.  I don't know if this is still being done, but > I would like to > submit to you that Barbra Chambers (site administrator for > Harrison > and Mercer Counties in Missouri) REALLY deserves whatever > award or > recognition the US GenWeb can give!!! >      Barbra took over the sites just a > few years ago, and at that time > they contained VERY little useful information.  There > was a list of > cemeteries, but FEW had a list of burials.  There were > no photographs > at all, no obituary information and no search engine at > all.  Going > to either the Harrison or Mercer County sites was basically > a total > waste of time!! >      Over the past few years, Barbra > has given COUNTLESS hours of her time > to build what we now feel are two of the best county > genealogy sites > on the internet for USEFUL information.  ALL of the > cemeteries now > have full lists of burials, there are obituaries and > photographs, and > the site is easy to navigate and search.  We spend a > LOT of time on > our genealogy and have checked out county sites from all > over the > country, and NONE are better or more informative than > Harrison and > Mercer County, Missouri.  NONE!! >      If the US Genweb project still has > an award or some type of > recognition for site of the year, Barbra Chambers is more > than > deserving!  In fact, she should have had it LONG > ago!!! > >      Thank you for your time and > consideration.  Respectfully, > > Phil Stewart > Bethany, Missouri > > > > >       The State Coordinator (SC) is Larry Flesher. The Assistant State Coordinator (ASC) is Denise Woodside. ------------------------------- 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

That is wonderful news Larry, and the kind we like to see. Kudos to Barbra. So, is that going to give the AB a little nudge to re-establish the counties of the month? Jan Cortez MIGenWeb State Coordinator ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Flesher" <[email protected]> Occasionally, I get to send a very very nice message to you all, and today is one of those occasions! Congratulations, Barbra, on your tireless work and energy in maintaining your county sites. Your efforts have been recognized by one of your "customers", who took the time to write to the USGenWeb Project National Coordinator and express his thoughts. We're all very proud of you, Barbra! Way to Go! Larry Flesher SC, MOGenWeb Project > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:11 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Recognition Award > > Hello from Missouri! > In the past, I have seen county > GenWeb sites that stated they had > been recognized with various awards such as "Site of the > Year" and so > forth. I don't know if this is still being done, but > I would like to > submit to you that Barbra Chambers (site administrator for > Harrison > and Mercer Counties in Missouri) REALLY deserves whatever > award or > recognition the US GenWeb can give!!! > Barbra took over the sites just a > few years ago, and at that time > they contained VERY little useful information. There > was a list of > cemeteries, but FEW had a list of burials. There were > no photographs > at all, no obituary information and no search engine at > all. Going > to either the Harrison or Mercer County sites was basically > a total > waste of time!! > Over the past few years, Barbra > has given COUNTLESS hours of her time > to build what we now feel are two of the best county > genealogy sites > on the internet for USEFUL information. ALL of the > cemeteries now > have full lists of burials, there are obituaries and > photographs, and > the site is easy to navigate and search. We spend a > LOT of time on > our genealogy and have checked out county sites from all > over the > country, and NONE are better or more informative than > Harrison and > Mercer County, Missouri. NONE!! > If the US Genweb project still has > an award or some type of > recognition for site of the year, Barbra Chambers is more > than > deserving! In fact, she should have had it LONG > ago!!! > > Thank you for your time and > consideration. Respectfully, > > Phil Stewart > Bethany, Missouri

Occasionally, I get to send a very very nice message to you all, and today is one of those occasions! Congratulations, Barbra, on your tireless work and energy in maintaining your county sites. Your efforts have been recognized by one of your "customers", who took the time to write to the USGenWeb Project National Coordinator and express his thoughts. We're all very proud of you, Barbra! Way to Go! Larry Flesher SC, MOGenWeb Project > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:11 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Recognition Award > > Hello from Missouri! >      In the past, I have seen county > GenWeb sites that stated they had > been recognized with various awards such as "Site of the > Year" and so > forth.  I don't know if this is still being done, but > I would like to > submit to you that Barbra Chambers (site administrator for > Harrison > and Mercer Counties in Missouri) REALLY deserves whatever > award or > recognition the US GenWeb can give!!! >      Barbra took over the sites just a > few years ago, and at that time > they contained VERY little useful information.  There > was a list of > cemeteries, but FEW had a list of burials.  There were > no photographs > at all, no obituary information and no search engine at > all.  Going > to either the Harrison or Mercer County sites was basically > a total > waste of time!! >      Over the past few years, Barbra > has given COUNTLESS hours of her time > to build what we now feel are two of the best county > genealogy sites > on the internet for USEFUL information.  ALL of the > cemeteries now > have full lists of burials, there are obituaries and > photographs, and > the site is easy to navigate and search.  We spend a > LOT of time on > our genealogy and have checked out county sites from all > over the > country, and NONE are better or more informative than > Harrison and > Mercer County, Missouri.  NONE!! >      If the US Genweb project still has > an award or some type of > recognition for site of the year, Barbra Chambers is more > than > deserving!  In fact, she should have had it LONG > ago!!! > >      Thank you for your time and > consideration.  Respectfully, > > Phil Stewart > Bethany, Missouri > > > > >