I really wonder how many of our CCs agree with this? I'm in 9 states and whenever I went to a new state, I "looked around" before offering to adopt. I find FAR more sites that don't focus on being such a gateway--but rather focus on transcriptions and volunteer networks. I OFTEN find that we duplicate efforts that exist free-of-charge elsewhere. For instance, Rootsweb has a "Books We Own" project that offers lookups in books. I never turn away an offer for lookups and will always post a volunteer on my site; but I also make the volunteer aware of the "Books We Own" project. Likewise, I was recently asked if I'd like the transcriptions for a cemetery in one of my counties. I responded that I'd love to have them, or the submitter could put them on the TP and I could link to them (and provided the link to the TP). I think some of our CCs feel they are personally responsible for providing information instead of FACILITATING finding of information. I don't think we give good direction to them, nor do I think many of them agree with or understand what we're saying here. I say this based on feedback of my own sites--which are generally 90% information on finding sources and 10% transcription (and that's if I'm lucky; but in some counties there are TONS of transcriptions available). We also never got clear on what we use the archives for... and I've seen countless e-mails that constitute "turf war" on where work should be held...! Any suggestions on renewing the spirit and mission of what our CCs should be doing--and guiding them in their mission? --Heather Jones DeGeorge ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kimm Antell" <kantell@austin.rr.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:11:04 -0500 To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [STATE-COORD] What's our purpose? What makes a "useful" site? > I agree with you Heather. I think our purpose is to provide information. > Providing information does not mean only doing transcriptions. I see our > sites as gateways to point genealogists in the direction of where they can > find information regarding their relatives in the county that we sponsor. > If we have the time to do transcriptions, that's great. However, I don't > have time and this is probably the same for many other people. I try to > contribute small transcriptions that I can do quickly rather than the huge > ones that there is no way I can take the time to do. (Which is a good idea > as the small ones tend to get lost. :) ) But if my site has a wealth of > links and information on how to obtain genealogical information, does that > make it less of a site that might have a few links and 5 transcribed > cemeteries? > > I recently won an award for Tom Green County in Texas and was also showcased > on the Dear Myrtle radio show as being an excellent gateway to information. > I feel proud of that work. I think it is important that my users can find > the information quickly and easily. > > Cheers everyone! > Kimm > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Heather DeGeorge [mailto:heatherdegeorge@writeme.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:00 AM > > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [STATE-COORD] What's our purpose? What makes a "useful" site? > > > > > > > > All this talk about soliciting funds to further the efforts > > brings me to a rather relevant concern... > > > > About a month ago I was told by a reporter that one of my county > > sites looked like any other and "nothing special"--which he > > determined by comparing mine to 2 others (this was his total > > exposure to such sites and genealogy in general). I was > > thoroughly infuriated with him because the site in question, > > while it had little or no transcriptions, pointed users to TONS > > of information resources--some on the net which had > > transcriptions; some on the net that provided information on > > topics or how to order records; and some that were locations, > > instructions, and contact information on getting to original > > source records. Most of these I had actually used myself or > > contacted the places to ensure I knew what was available and if > > there was a fee associated with it, etc.--all stated for the > > user. I also noted (for non-online resources) how to best get > > the research objective met by having contacted those places > > myself and asking how they'd prefer the researcher to deal with them. > > > > As someone who researches locally and not locally, I find that > > this information is infinitely useful. Finding the location of > > the primary resource is half the battle won. Knowing what > > libraries exist--especially those devoted to special interests > > (like race, religion, industry, etc.). > > > > I think it's unfair to say that only transcriptions provide value > > and that pointing to resources does not--especially since > > transcriptions are subject to human error and incompletions. I'd > > rather go to the source--as many researchers would--and therefore > > I value the resource location more than the transcription. Not > > to say I don't appreciate transcriptions, I just appreciate more > > the original/primary source location. > > > > So what's the purpose here? I thought it was to help users who > > were looking for their ancestor's in XYZ county? Showing them > > all of the information that exists there for their use? > > Transcriptions were a bonus--and something I leave to the > > archives (which I link out to in addition to providing the > > original source location of the records transcribed--especially > > since few resources are transcribed in total). > > > > Would love to hear everyone else's thoughts... > > > > --Heather Jones DeGeorge > > -- > > __________________________________________________________ > > Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com > > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup > > > > CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search > > http://corp.mail.com/careers > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003 > > -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search http://corp.mail.com/careers

>I think we flip-flop back and forth between "leave volunteers alone and be grateful for whatever they do" and an unrealistic level of bureaucracy. There must be a happy medium. I'm strongly in favor of leaving the CCs alone to work without interference, but I don't think setting up a list of basics which could reasonably be expected by visiting researchers would be taken badly. A list of basic directional answers on the state site also seems like a good idea. One more thing for my to do list... > I really wonder how many of our CCs agree with this? I'm in 9 states and whenever I went to a new state, I "looked around" before offering to adopt. I find FAR more sites that don't focus on being such a gateway--but rather focus on transcriptions and volunteer networks. I OFTEN find that we duplicate efforts that exist free-of-charge elsewhere. > I think some of our CCs feel they are personally responsible for providing information instead of FACILITATING finding of information. I don't think we give good direction to them, nor do I think many of them agree with or understand what we're saying here. I say this based on feedback of my own sites--which are generally 90% information on finding sources and 10% transcription (and that's if I'm lucky; but in some counties there are TONS of transcriptions available). On the other hand, I would also say that a significant portion of the general public thinks "it's all on the Internet" and that having all your census transcripts and cemetery listings etc. available for instant searching *is* a reasonable expectation, so the CCs who provide content-heavy sites are giving their visitors exactly what they want. If they're not able to, that's OK, but I don't think doing it is straying from their mission. Bob Sullivan NYGenWeb SC