Actually, the previous guidelines said 9 months I think. I was sorta
hoping no one would notice that I hadn't suggested a time frame :-) I do
think we need some concept of "regularly". I'd say links should be checked
at least quarterly - I get annoyed at broken links when I'm researching.
And there are a multitude of sites that do that for you, so it doesn't take
all that long.
As for new data - yeah, we all have times when we just don't have the time
to update, so there does need to be some leeway. But sites that go
un-updated for years just shouldn't be.
Off to work,
Jacki
At 12:41 AM 2/18/2005, you wrote:
~ Updated and links checked regularly
Do we need to define "regularly"? The previous guidelines required that
sites be updated at least quarterly. I personally like that time frame...
or something similar. Not that I think it needs to be strictly enforced to
the minute. Heaven knows, we all have occassions when we can't find the time
or material to add to our sites. On the other hand, we've all run across
counties that haven't been updated in years. Without a specific time frame
spelled out, it will be difficult for the SC to determine whether a site has
been abandoned, or if the CC perhaps needs some help or encouragement, etc.
What do you all think?
Jeanne