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 >

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

Just to chime in on this subject. I know the professional marketeers would prefer the single logo, common placement, but I like our volunteers to have lots of leeway. I think that the four logo options is fine. I would like to see a fairly high resolution version of each available, and allow resizing to smaller by those with the capability to do so as long as a specified minimum size standard is met. I don't have a strong feeling towards requiring placement of the logo near the top, although that's my preference. I have indeed seen a number of websites where their design wasn't favorable to top placement. I enjoy the creativity and variety the CCs bring to their sites. Some are very talented, either technically or artistically, and applying that talent is one of the primary enjoyments they get from their assignment. That keeps them coming back and paying more attention. Others are perhaps not very talented and go with basic, but get a great deal of enjoyment out of the pure genealogical aspects of their assignment. I think one of the main jobs of the SC is to find willing workers and then support them in putting forth their best effort, educating those who want to learn on how to do it better and encouraging all to make the sites more valuable to the visiting researchers and more rewarding to them personally. Mike St. Clair

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

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>