I think Joe has captured the essence of the subject of "Site of the Month."
Beyond recognizing excellence (which is what this is all about, isn't
it?), recognition should help stimulate CCs, site managers and
project coordinators to strive to improve their sites by recognizing
the needs and desires of the users. Isn't that why we are here? To
provide what, in a commercial world, users would be willing to pay
for. That, indeed, is the beauty of the USGWP. We have volunteered to
make information freely available without a profit motive. Nothing
can be more rewarding!
I don't think there is an argument about the need for recognition of
worthy sites. At least, I have not yet read any negative comments.
The question is how best to implement a method of recognizing the
qualities that are deemed worthy of recognition. These qualities have
yet to be agreed on.
Firstly, I would like to propose that the Project explore the
feasibility of setting forth a method of Project-wide recognition of
member sites. I don't think it's a stretch to incorporate this in the
By-Laws, should this proposal be approved. The methods used in the
past give rise to the question of how the determination was made.
If the membership believes that Project site recognition is a worthy
goal, it needs to be decided how this might be accomplished and how
it would be done:
1. Nomination by national or state Project members.
2. Nomination by Project page visitors.
3. Self-nomination.
Should the Project determine that Project site recognition ("Site of
the Month") is a worthy goal, the Election Committee may be a
valuable tool in its implementation. Regardless of the method used to
choose a site for recognition, a method of tabulation should be
devised. Whether a committee or the standing AB members should have a
determining vote, an impartial method should be used.
I strongly feel that Project member recognition is a way of
empowering members to strive for excellence. Like most members, I
have yet to reach any conclusions on what constitutes a "Site of the
Month." This criteria must be determined first, before the decision
to proceed further is made.
Joyce Reese stated that she feels that recognition of a specific site
belittles those who may be hard-working site managers but lack either
web techniques or "artistic ability." I feel that these concerns must
be addressed to determine if Project members feel that this proposal
adversely affects them. This is certainly an obstacle we don't want
to present to those who have chosen to volunteer their time and
talents. For that reason, each segment of the Project should be
contacted to determine if the Project members have similar concerns.
I am listing sampling of what I think should be considered, including
many of which have already been posted.
This is not meant to be complete or exclusive. As listed, these are
simply suggestions off the top of my head.
1. Scope and quality of information.
a. Local vital record access; cemeteries, marriages, census, etc.
as available and appropriate
b. Local history, county/city origin
c. Local notables
d. Newspaper accounts, stories, obits
2. Ease of navigation.
a. Search engines, site map
b. Ease of navigation, logical layout of pages and categories
c. Uncluttered home page
3. Helpful links
a. Unambiguous, easy to follow
b. Viable to insure none are dead
c. Associated USGWP pages, projects
4. Associated helps
a. mailing lists, forums, blogs
5. Illustrations (remembering copyright restrictions)
a. Personal photos of neighboring notables and landmarks.
6. Esthetics. Nice to have but certainly not the most important
feature of a site.
Respectfully submitted,
Derick S. Hartshorn
At 02:02 PM 11/7/2008, you wrote:
The Site of the Month concept is too limited, given the number of
sites
in the USGW. The criteria should be based on an overall approach as to
what information and in what matter is the information conveyed to the
"customer". The customer is any researcher, individual, or organization
that may visit the particular USGW site.
Cordially,
Joe Markovich