October 2008 #2

This symbol "±" means the end of a subject discussed.

October, part two:

Naughty girls of GenWeb:

You've heard of Karen Mitchell, Tina Vickery, and Nola Duffy and Jan Cortez (some say she used to be Jana Black--who knows and who cares) They are nice people.

Tina Vickery is the Chief Splatter-head. She once worked for RW, for how much money--no one knows.

When she was elected as Chief Splatter-head everyone on the Newsletter Committee resigned rather than work with her. (That reminds me of a naughty girl story over in New Mexico.)

Tina is the State Coordinator of MaineGenWeb (MeGenWeb). That's the truth.

Tina is the State Coordinator of Wisconsin GenWeb (WIGenweb). Honest.

Tina is the County Coordinator of Stone County, MS. That's for sure. She has web interests all over the map.

At the last National election (2008) a majority of Splatter-heads voted for someone other than incumbent Tina for NC. That's freaky.

When the new USGenWeb-Search.Us indexing system came out, Tiny demanded that WIGenWeb not be indexed, but without asking the WIGenWeb CCs. Did she think that the WIGenWeb CC's were not worth the curtsey of asking them?

Can the NC be recalled? That's the question some are contemplating. As you may recall, two Splatter-heads resigned recently. Rumor has it they did not care for Tina. Rumor has it many current Splatter-heads do not care for her.

The latest silly project of Splatter-house is the what's-a-call-it committee to determine the duties for the National webmaster. Needles to say we have been operating just fine for years withOUT this silly committee. Well, the committee is finally done with this dum-dum business.

From: Mike

To: usgw_web@rootsweb.com

Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 9:34 PM

Subject: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] FYI:

Draft of National Website Maintenance & Webmaster Qualifications & Duties For the benefit of any USGENWEB members who are members of the Discuss list, or any of the regional USGENWEB lists, I am posting a copy of a draft of the document the Webmaster Study Group is preparing for discussion and action by the Advisory Board. Note that not every Study Group member agrees with 100% of what is here. We are practicing the fine art of compromise, and we plan to discuss and revise this document a little more before we turn in our final version of it on this coming Thursday. If you have any further input you would like us to consider, I encourage you to respond with those comments quickly as we have a tight schedule. I can't guarantee that any comments you provide will be incorporated in our final product, but I will promise they will be read and considered. If you don't want your response to be passed on to the full Study Group, please state that in your message itself. Otherwise I will assume you will allow it to be so forwarded.

By the way, statements like "this is over kill" or "this is a piece of junk" or "why did we waste this time" won't be very useful and will likely not have any impact on what is finally produced. Suggestions for SPECIFIC changes and stating the SPECIFIC reasons you believe those changes will improve the document will be much more useful and will be read with interest. (snip)

Mike St. Clair

Chair, Webmaster Study Group

(continuing)

DRAFT PROPOSAL - NATIONAL WEBSITE MAINTENANCE & WEBMASTER QUALIFICATIONS &

DUTIES (end) (not printed here as even this is too junky for this yellow journalistic web page. He called it junk as well.)

One interesting post on Discuss today was this:

From: Ellen To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com

Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 6:00 AM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS]

FYI: Draft of National Website Maintenance & Webmaster Qualifications & Duties

I'm just wondering if the AB next intends to outline procedures for handling a fly that wanders into the room.

Ellen (end)

Enough said, and to the point. That is the state of the Advisory Board today. It's no wonder some want to recall the NC. ±

News: The USGenWeb Election Committee url has changed to http://usgenweb.org/usgwelections/

News: Ugliest web site: http://www.usgwarchives.org/nm/nmdi.htm

News: A member asked:

To: <usgwp-cc@usgwp.org

Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008

Subject: [USGWP-CC] list dried up and blown away?

Has this list dried up and blown away? (end)

The answer is that the people on that list have come to realize it's trashy. It's a list for promoting U$GenNet. It's list list for bashing any man or woman who does not agree with the message of their supporters, like Bully the dancing circus bear. It's a list that enjoys causing problems for USGenWeb. It's a list for sucking unsuspecting members into that slimy whirlpool. It's a list that fosters personal attacks. Hopefully, that scummy list will die and U$GenNet and their supporting ilk will go away.

From today's mail (Oct 21) on that scummy list, One of the insiders said this about U$GenNet:

"USGenNet added two servers a number of months ago which doubled USGenNet's costs. As soon as the Ancestry.com scare evaporated, USGenNet closed off new account applications. Fund raising is nonexistent there. USGenNet leadership appears dead in the water. Maybe a funeral dirge is a wee bit early for USGenNet but I am looking for a member of the Guild

of Funerary Violinists so I can have one at the ready when USGenNet does take a dirt nap." (END)

It's a misleading and inaccurate statement. People have been fooled to believe that U$GenNet owns their own servers. That's a lie. They merely rented more server space; they did not buy server units. The fact that one of their own loony goons thinks they shall fail is significant. This may be another misleading statement to get people to fork over more money.

U$GenNet has a disgusting program called "Legacy" where unsuspecting and naive, elderly people leave their estates to U$GenNet . Some of us believe that the Legacy program is abuse of the elderly and kin to racketeering.

Misguided elderly people are harming their family's wellbeing by giving their estates to a revolting organization. Their grandchildren need an education more than ever in this competitive world. Grandparents abuse their own grandchildren by giving their estates to some whacky genealogical organization masquerading as a charity.

THEY ARE NOT A CHARITY.

They are money grabbers and bullies. The sooner they fail, the better it will be for the genealogical community. We must remove the influence of all special interests groups like U$GenNet and RW and the Archives and the Advisory Board. This webmaster used to be fearful of speaking up and for good reason. All of the power groups can, will, and have used their power to silence people, deny them web space, or kick them out of currently held positions. It's time for all of us to stand up.

Flashback : Regarding the Depends wearing fascists on U$GenNet's list; Quote snipped: ...

"HUFFING PAINT: Meanwhile over on the alternate CC list, there is nothing of interest to report. The list has collapsed into one of its semi-regular White Man's Burden Club whine fests, full of the usual easily-refuted internet "truths" about Iraq, Katrina, poor folks, brown folks, religious fanatics, and foreigners. It has little to do with genealogy (other than some "my family was here before yours" one-upmanship) and nothing to do with USGenWeb, so its fairly safe to ignore it until the cave-dwellers retreat once again into their warm, safe dreams of the good old days."

Clipped from http://dailyboardshow.blogspot.com/ -Tuesday, October 09, 2007; The Daily Board show.±

Do some good people serve on the AB? Actually, yes. The problem is they will get the crap slapped out of them if they dare stand up for LCs. Nothing should bother ethical Project Members more than knowing the AB marches in lock step out of fear, ignorance, secrecy and indifference. ±

Fourteen days until the election of a Black President of the United States of America; in spite of the lies, slander, hate and voter fraud. Hope, hope, hope and have faith. We can turn USGenWeb around too. ±

Genealogy Trails raises its ugly head. Oct 24, 2008;

Some folks over on U$GenNet's CC personality discussion and slander list, have actually talked about a real issue to the relief of members who are sick of the morbid obsession with slander. The subject was Genealogy Trails.

From: Don

To: <usgwp-cc@usgwp.org

Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 2:36 AM

Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] apolitical alternative?

From one that dropped USGW after 10 years of suffering through that political mess and now is affiliated with GenealogyTrails.

I can recognize your exasperation and can sympathize with you that USGW has never become united. I worked many years to gain even a small amount of rights for the CCs of USGW to no avail, absolutely none.

Fred, your admiration of the Archives is generous. I do agree that Linda and Joy have good organizational skills, however their administrative skills are lacking. This has resulted in a lack of cooperation with all other USGW factions. In fact they are in direct competition with the rest of USGW in most areas. My personal belief is the Archives were the primary cause of the failure of USGW to unite its members.

Let me explain to those that may not know about GT. First, we are not a group with any affiliation or organization. We are as USGW was originally planned.

We all, anyway those that can afford it, contribute to the cost of the expenses of the organization. That is we pay $10 a year to house our files on the GT server, to buy subscriptions that are available to all and to defray other expenses.

Our index files are required to be on the GT server, but any remaining pages can be located anywhere. Myself, I host four Kansas counties, two Nevada counties and also act as the Nevada host. Only my six index pages are on the GT server. Several gigs of other data are on another server.

Why the requirement. It is for the benefit of the researchers, of course. Also it does make it a lot easier for the search engines to find us and to organize their search.

Norma, it might be of interest to you that GT has a state comprehensive search engine after only one year of national existence. Just over a year ago GT elected to go national and they now have a search engine that covers the entire organization.

When you don't have a bunch of bylaws, politically defined enemies and/or friends to get in the way it is amazing what can be accomplished in a short period of time.

Keith, you no longer have to wade through the verbiage at the top of the pages. If that bothers you just use the search engine that is state comprehensive and you can go straight to what it is you wish to see. However, I am pleased that you have taken the trouble to wade through the pages to see what the rest of the sites look like. You learn a lot doing that. http://genealogytrails.com/search.html

Fred, to get back to the Archives. The USGW Archives try to duplicate everything the counties have on their pages. Marriages, wills, cemeteries, census, etc., etc. This depletes the personnel for both sides of USGW. There are even some CCs that are more interested in forwarding material to the Archives than they are to putting it on their sites.

Both the Archives and the counties suffer from a shortage of personnel because of the duplication and it results in the CCs saying what the hell, why go to the trouble of establishing and maintaining a site if it is going to be duplicated by the Archives.

If I recall, this was Murphy's major concern when the Archives was formed and it has proved to be well founded.

Now, let me contrast that with the method used by GT, one that is significantly different and is probably its greatest asset. A method that has resulted in uniting the group and the one asset, I believe, that will lead to its success.

No, it wasn't the bylaws, there aren't any. No, it wasn't the board, there isn't one. No, it wasn't politics, there are no power brokers, the group is apolitical, period.

Being a new group and lacking a host for every county, they elected to fill the states and counties with data by designating a state on a periodic and rotating basis to receive all the information that other hosts could find, format and send to the designated state.

Still today, depending on the size of the state, two to four weeks are allocated for a state to become the recipient of the generosity of the rest of the group. After that another state is designated. And so it goes.

This is the archives of the group, the counties are the archives. In affect we all work on the archives, but the data is retained at the county level. We send each other marriages, military data, cemetery lists, etc. The information is on the county sites, for the most part, and everyone supports all sites in turn. We don't have an Archive for marriages, they are on the county site where a researcher would expect to find them. We don't have an Archive for cemeteries, the listings are on the county sites where the researchers would expect them to be. and on and on.

Such a simple idea has created an organization without bylaws, without opposing groups, without politics and with members that contribute, not only to their own sites, but to the sites of others freely and willingly.

Friendships are formed across the breadth of the project and knowing that one will be the recipient of the generosity of others does tend to make one willing to find and send data to those others. It also enriches ones own knowledge of the other states and counties and makes one more knowledgeable of resources where data can be found.

Amazing isn't it that I with Nevada and Kansas counties and many other members with other various counties, would work our rear ends off to put material on Oklahoma, Arizona, Alabama, Louisiana, and other state sites not our own?

Have mistakes been made and material been posted that shouldn't have. Yes, we're human, we make no claim to perfection. Both our organizations use the same sources to gather data, many of our contributors are also your contributors so it is obvious that similar material will appear on GT pages and on USGW pages. In fact, Fred gave me permission to use Nevada

material from the Repository, I assume it may also be posted on a Nevada site affiliated with USGW.

One thing you can be assured of, unlike some parts of USGW there is a strong feeling that unethical gathering of material should be frowned upon and when called to attention and proven, the offending material be removed. And, never, ever, would there be a reason for one GT group site to gather information for another GT group site. There is no competition, only cooperation.

Another difference that should be noted. There is no claim to any contributor's material, not just that they retain the copyright, but also, if they wish it removed it will be removed from GT.

In my short time with GT I have seen a whole state scrubbed on request. Also, there is an ongoing conversation about what is right and what is wrong, what is permissible and what isn't.

All hosts are subscribed to a host list and this dialog is used to reinforce that message to older hosts and to caution and instruct new hosts. Are there disagreements. Yes, that too is human, but they do not tend to become personal.

I would have remained longer with USGW, but I'm getting too long in the tooth to fight windmills and having found the system a distraction and a hindrance in placing material on my sites I just had to leave.

I have many friends still in USGW and I wish them, and all of you, the very best. Hopefully some day the politics can be forgotten and you can return to the enjoyment and satisfaction of transcribing material for the researchers. Anyway, that is my wish for you.

DonT (end)

and

From: usgwp-cc-bounces@usgwp.org

On Behalf Of SouthernGenes

Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:14 AM

To: CC Discussion List

Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] apolitical alternative?

Well I checked and nothing was purloined from my Florida sites.

If I develop a list of merchants utilizing old telephone, directories, city directories and newspaper ads and simultaneously you are developing the same from the very same resources and input the data in a similar fashion in a spreadsheet and this is done independent of each other, does this mean I purloined your work, or that you purloined mine? No it does not mean

either purloined from the other and lets us not forget, we extracted facts from public domain items and facts ARE not copyrightable or "ownable". What maybe copyrighted is the manner in which they are arranged and only then IF it

is unique.

Who knows, maybe in 5-10 years they will be the force to be reckoned with in Free Genealogy, cause it is a sure bet that USGW nor the USGenNet sites (alhn and aghp) will be unless something drastic occurs and persons who care about the project and not how they can use the project to further their own end comes into power.

Personally I hope they all still exist and better yet are thriving. The more places people can find genealogical and historical data online for free, the better the chances are that TGN is denied a paid subscriber. If we all worked together we could conceivably be serious rivals to TGN.

A very basic grass roots approach to getting existing members of USGW to actually participate in the electoral process would be encouraging ALL members to register and vote. The more people who vote, the better chance of seating people who have not had a stranglehold on the project for 10 yrs or more. For all those who view genealogy as just a hobby, I am here to

say, not anymore. When Wall Street Investment Firms start buying up Genealogy sites and resources genealogy is no longer just a hobby but business and big business at that.

To be competitive, and yes we are competing with them, we need to grow-up and start operating this organization in a manner conducive to future growth and expansion. In my opinion that would mean incorporating the project as a non profit educational/charitable organization with a 501 (c) 3 exemption.

There is nothing wrong with the original concept that became USGW, it was and still is good. The problem is no one ever sat down and thought about the implementation and how an organization of several thousand people across the world could exist without some basic rules of behavior. Just because we are not in the business of making money does not mean we should not be professional in every way. I still say the original concept was a great one and with some tweaking and honing could become a force to be reckoned with.

(end of post)

---- Original Message ---

From: Norma

To: "CC Discussion List" <usgwp-cc@usgwp.org

Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:28 PM

Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] apolitical alternative?

Hmmm! Then it wasn't just my imagination that some of the data looked suspiciously like it had come from my site.

Norma (end)

Norma is true to character with her limited intellectual response using paranoid insinuation and swift-boat jabs that "someone" must be stealing, lying, or buggering someone, somehow, someway. No proof needed; just accuse and slander. It's suspicious! Suspicious, I tel' ya' !

I'm no fan of Gen Trails, but I've seen no evidence they are dishonorable. My crystal ball tells me they will succeed. ±

Why do we need the XXstate and county sites when we have the Archives which now have launch-pages for every county in America?

From: Keith

To: "CC Discussion List" <usgwp-cc@usgwp.org>

Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 5:29 PM

Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] apolitical alternative?

Another useless genealogy site with a flowery design. Folks, the USGenWeb model is done. Speaking in terms of history, this model is akin to the Middle Ages, while Footnote, FamilySearch Record Search, etc. are the Industrial Revolution. One is about ego and the other about info. Take a look at http://www.genealogytrails.com/geo/wilkes/index.htm Notice how you have to scroll down a lot to get past the useless narcissistic "Welcome" "goals" junk? People don't want to read about all

of that. They want information. Period. (end) Joy wrote: From: Joy To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 10:10 AM Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] WebmasterStudyGroup (snip) This group is dysfunctional because most of you do not get out from behind your computers and meet your fellow USGW members. It is very hard to trust someone when you only have their sound-bite e-mails to judge them by. (end)

~~~~Joy's post was in response from Jeff's, "It is the JOB of the BOARD to assure that they PICK someone they can trust, but with paranoia being the norm, there is NOBODY trustworthy in the entire project."

These conversations are relevant to the greater issue of the purpose of USGenWeb. I admire Joy. I admire how she put together the Archives. It's what USGenWeb should be about, about DATA! Pick any state page in the Archives. You will see links to every county. Try this: http://usgwarchives.org/az/azfiles.htm for Arizona. This is a wonderfully organized page with each county shown. It's beautiful. Oh, the Archives pages used to be the ugliest damned pages on the internet. They are now cleaning them up and making them attractive. The data pages are still horrible in that black and white text format, but the rest of the Archives project is improving by leaps and bounds.

I hate to toot my own horn, but I was ahead of the Archives long ago when I came out with NM Genealogy. It's now NM ALHN.

See this: http://newmexicoalhn.net/ It is well organized. No crap, clutter, and hoops to jump through to get to the data. True, I do not know much about html or server access, but I know what people want to see when they are doing research.

I painfully conclude that as the Project exists today-overall, there is no need for the XXGenWeb sites to exist. The State projects, with some exceptions, have failed. They are a collection of disjointed county sites. To paraphrase a great compiler, Keith G., while referring to a specific web page, (paraphrase) Another useless genealogy site with a flowery design. Folks, the USGenWeb model is done. Speaking in terms of history, this model is akin to the Middle Ages, while Footnote, FamilySearch Record Search, etc. are the Industrial Revolution. One is about ego and the other about info. Notice how you have to scroll down a lot to get past the useless narcissistic "Welcome" "goals" junk? People don't want to read about all of that. They want information. Period. (end paraphrase)

Keith is correct. Our project is in the middle ages. Several problems exist in USGenWeb today:

1--The Archives have been successful beyond expectations, but at the expense of the XXcounty web sites.

2--We have a useless and ineffective and counter-productive, cowardly Advisory Board who refuses to address and correct problems, preferring instead to shovel problems onto the next train out of town.

3--We have several assholes in the project who have their own agendas. They are either on power trips, ego building, or endeavor to block progress. You know the names, common names like Dred and Kareless and NotNormal.

The solution is to get rid of the competing elements and settle on a model that is achievable and simple. Put an end to the idiotic committees. Yes, even put an end to the Advisory Board. They have become another log in the logjam.

Our goal can be achieved by organizing the States into productive Incorporated entities, with a LEGAL set of articles of incorporation. Each incorporated entity with it's own ARCHIVES. Each entity having logical assignments--those who are experts at HTML and server questions, taking over those duties. Those who are gifted at research, filling that niche. Those who can type and compile, performing those tasks.

The present situation is not efficient, and it's confusing to the public. To quote Keith, "it's akin to the Middle Ages! "

Should the states decide not to evolve, then no reason exists why we should not become The USGenWeb Archives Project, and dump the state organizations. ±

Shocking news: Barnum makes boo-boo. It's getting close to Halloween--Boo time. Barnum made a clumsy mistake on the Discuss list today. I referred to Mike P. as an AB member. Heaven forbid. I was actually thinking of the other Mike. The point I was trying to make is still valid:

The vision of the founders of USGenWeb will never come to pass because there are two USGenWebs: The ARCHIVES and the STATE Projects. The AB and other elitists will not admit this fact. But these two camps are in a constant war, with the Archives winning. Many State Projects have failed. County sites in many cases are link-infested sites. The AB and many SCs are on an ego trip and do not seem to give a hoot if USGenWeb progresses or not. They sure the heck will not address the problem which is obvious. My other point is that there are quality web sites out in cyber land that would love to join USGenWeb either as stand alone counties or as an additional State Projects. Every person in authority seems to be against that even though it's not forbidden by the Bylaws. The reason is simple: They do not want competition. They would rather bask in the glow of false self esteem than to compete with better web sites.

The other Projects are out in front of USGenWeb when it comes to admitting new web sites. They will admit STAND ALONE county and state sites from anywhere, from any other Project, as long as they comply with their own project standards.

USGENWEB WILL NOT!!!!

The answer is to allow any quality site to join USGenWeb. Data can be placed in a STATE Archives to be handed down from one generation of managers to the next. This can be made legal and possible by the states incorporating and having legal articles of operation, not the madness we have now with each successive AB free to interpret the Bylaws as they fancy, and their refusal to apply the Bylaws fairly when a LC and SC have an issue. ±