I hate to be so dense, but can someone tell me:
What benefit would it be to waste hard drive space duplicating files from
the archives on the county pages when you could use your head and just link
to the existing files? Especially with so much more information out there to
make available!
It seems a flagrant waste of resources....maybe that both the space and
time would be better spent on seeking new files than duplicating existing
ones....
Carol
-----Original Message-----
From: Holly Timm <hollyft(a)bright.net>
To: OHGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com <OHGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Date: Thursday, August 19, 1999 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: [OHGEN-L] Re: Archives
>Allen Richmond wrote:
>> Wally Garchow <wally(a)calweb.com> wrote:
>> > >The requested URL /~usgenweb/oh/darke.htm was not found on this
server.
>> > I must have missed it. When was this change/loss
announced?
>> There hasn't been anything on the OH list posted about changes within
>> the USGW-OH portion of the USGW Archives.
The standard layout for the archives should have always had the page at
/!usgenweb/oh/darke/darke.htm (or index.htm) ... i.e., in it's own darke
county directory.
It appears that someone corrected this to be as it should be by moving
darke.htm to the darke directory, they also appear to have replaced it so
now it is in the oh and the darke directories.
>> Check it and see if that is the page you're seeking. From what I can
>> see at the Darke listing, though, the description pages are not
>> extant. Only the generic file-name is found when one clicks on the
>> links shown:
>> <A
HREF="ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/oh/darke/bible/">B...
>> Records</A>
<section of additional urls deleted>
ftp urls have always led to directory listings, I found all the toc's in
place with
http listings:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/oh/darke/dk_bible.htm
and so forth
>> > Maybe every county should have the option to mount those themselves to
>index
>> > their county's archives and make the data more accessible.
>>
>> That sounds like a very good option - would provide double exposure
>> so visitors/researchers could easily find the information they seek
>> in more than one venue.
Individual counties have always been able to place a TOC on their site to
the contents of the archives. Few have bothered to do so.
>> > And the Archives has
>> > publicly announced (elsewhere) that CCs may not download from the
archives
>> > for their pages.
>>
>> Apparently the unofficial word out "on the street" is that archive
>> materials *may* be posted at the county site through contacting the
>> contributor and asking for their permission to duplicate/post at the
>> county level, if the contributor has not already donated a copy to the
>> county site itself.
You can't go posting stuff places without the permission of the contributor
so I understand them saying we can't download freely for putting on our
county sites but I would very much like to see the Archives people
suggesting to any contributor that they also see if the county site would
like to put the file up or better yet, seek a permission for that from the
contributor at the time of receiving the file. The Archives has long asked
us CC's to send contributions of material to them, a one way street... why
can't the Archives people help push material back to teh county sites?
>> > Is it now US/OHGenWeb policy that all Archives are only
>> > accessible by search engine? If this US/OHGenWeb policy or Rootsweb
>policy????
The above simply isn't so.
>> I don't know if USGW has such a policy in place - nothing has been
>> mentioned at the upper levels of "management" (term used very
>> loosely). RW generally doesn't make their policies known (apparently)
>> until after-the-fact, given the developments of the last few weeks as
>> example.
RW has nothing to do with USGW decisions about internal directory
structures or contents.
>> Let's get some input in here from others in OHGW and see what we can
>> all learn.
It looks to me like someone in the archives tried to bring Darke County's
area into alignment with the rest of the structure. I am sure Darke County
is not the only one *out of alignment* but a consistent directory structure
is an admirable goal. I have often gone to a county I wanted by typing in
the basic url:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/ and adding the two letter
state and then the county name.
There has never been a rule against counties listing and giving links to
specific files in the Archives, often a county can give better descriptions
and context. Freely downloading files for use on the county sites is a
problem as the contributor's permission is needed to put them up on the
county site. But, we do need more cooperation back from the Archives
people, including better information about contributed files and they ought
to ask contributors if files may also be added to the County Sites.
Holly Timm
Brown County
______________________________