RootsChat.Com
Beginners => How to Use RootsChat (Please don't post requests here) => Topic started by: josey on Sunday 10 January 16 13:46 GMT (UK)
-
Hope this hasn't been raised before ;D ;D I did do a search honest :)
I have contributed to several threads on the last couple of weeks which have turned out to have been duplicate requests or connected to earlier posts. Usually the mod or an observant member has found the original post & given a link. It's a bit annoying to find you have spent time looking for & providing information that another kind chatter had found 2 years ago.
I have no idea of the technicalities but I just wondered whether it was possible, when a new topic is posted, for a message to appear to the poster to remind them to provide a link to any other thread on the same or connected subject?
Josey
Added by Trystan:
See: www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=738845.msg5851225#msg5851225
(as there's lots of pages)
-
Don't know about the technicalities of what you are asking but in the last hour I have reported 3 duplicated posts so share your frustration.
In particular - duplicate posts with 3-4 pages of info from a year or so ago and then a new post appears asking for the same info and from the same poster. ::)
-
Strongly agree there seems to be a lot more of them lately very frustrating >:( >:(
-
I agree Josey and Carole, it is annoying after spending time looking up things, then to have someone point out that the same question has been asked on other boards. Some people obviously think that by posting in several places that they stand more chance of getting an answer. I can forgive people new to the forum, but not those who have been members for quite a time and so should know better.
That is a good idea, Josey. I wonder how easy that would be?
-
It's also disappointing when you discover that suggestions of possible leads in the earlier (unlinked) threads apparently haven't been pursued and that earlier threads haven't been replied to.
-
Yes Jen - particularly when somebody has been advised to buy a particular cert to advance their research but don't bother doing so
-
Yes Jen - particularly when somebody has been advised to buy a particular cert to advance their research but don't bother doing so
I'm beginning to think that is the reason in some cases. People don't realise that genealogy can be quite an expensive hobby and, perhaps mislead by the television programmes, think that everything is available for free on line. They ask for information from recent certificates and expect people to go and look it up for them. Maybe they think if they ask enough times someone will do the impossible. I'm afraid that you have to spend money if you are serious about it as a hobby, after all you wouldn't expect to do other hobbies such as fishing, sewing, stamp collecting without spending money to get the basic equipment.
-
Hi
Some think that ( a one-off ) £9.25 is expensive.
I have been known to be very vocal about wasting MY time ( let alone you others ) duplicating effort/research already done ( and accepted as being done ) and have had very strong discussions with a mod or two ( for whom I have great respect ).
MY time could be better spent helping others than duplicating effort/research already done.
It is a very simple change to the "New Topic" facility to add a bit of verbage reminding people not to repeat/refresh requests already posted AND tell ALL known detail.
If Rootschatters are not told about duplicates, in my view, it lacks respect to those generous enough to donate their time/effort/subscriptions.
Soapbox put back in cupboard.
Ray
-
It is also very annoying when you help a new member, only to realise that they have asked the same question under another username after a break from being on the board. Came across it on our board a few years ago, and we cottoned on it was the same person.
Cheers
KHP
-
Or people go and find information for them, and original poster says "oh I already knew that!" :o
-
Of course, it could mean that the Original Poster needs to actually R E A D a message before they can actually have the thread go 'live' .... or perhaps simply 'tick a box' as though they have read said message....
Cheers, JM
-
I find it more annoying personally when the OP ignores what advice/information they have been given, or refuse to accept it could be the right thing because of a spelling or location variation.
Possibly a simpler thing to add in would be an automatic search on their post/thread title, based on key words that could show them possible other threads. This could kick in when they click "post", and show them these threads of possible interest, and any they already created, with a message something like "have you already started a thread for this, and have you seen these possible threads of interest?"
-
While I do agree with the tenor of the OP and responses I will also make allowances for some.
At times we do make searches , maybe the search terms are poor, or the responses are so varied that previous topics can be lost within the search return.
Then there is a difficulty in trying to phrase a topic that has no bearing on another similar post but uses similar terms. Though to be fair most of these are on the ToT Boards
But I also find it difficult when I have tried to help someone only to find the topic previously covered , BY THE SAME OP!!
-
I find it more annoying personally when the OP ignores what advice/information they have been given, or refuse to accept it could be the right thing because of a spelling or location variation.
And what makes your advice right? :)
I understand the point you make , and I am confident I have been guilty of this also. I know I have posted on one brickwall that I still don't feel confident is correct. A possibility certainly, but not to the level of certainty I desire.
Doesn't mean I don't appreciate the effort people go to. Every answer or different path is an opportunity to test my own assumptions.
:)
-
I understand the point you make , and I am confident I have been guilty of this also. I know I have posted on one brickwall that I still don't feel confident is correct. A possibility certainly, but not to the level of certainty I desire.
I would hope that people don't just take what they are given as gospel truth, but also check it themselves. However, the beauty of a forum such as RC is that when several people come to the same conclusion it is more likely to be right - far more than just copying from an online tree. ;D ;D
-
Sorry David, my wording was probably a little absolute. But you got my meaning. When we take the time to help people find a piece of data, and we post what we feel is a good possibilty. And yes, Groom is right. If more than one of us comes up with the same piece of data, chances are it is the right one.
I'm not sure which annoys me more: the OP dismissing things people have taken the time to find, or the OP simply ignoring/not acknowledging a post with possible information. And the ignoring one doesn't just apply to "newer" Rootschatters either.....
-
But on the other hand it is possible for someone to ask a simple question and come back home after a hard days work to find three pages of info they never asked for, and sometimes, especially newcomers, they don't realise the thread has gone to other pages.
Maybe if there are half a dozen reasonable replies we should wait for a response before we go further.
Mike
-
I would hope that people don't just take what they are given as gospel truth, but also check it themselves. However, the beauty of a forum such as RC is that when several people come to the same conclusion it is more likely to be right - far more than just copying from an online tree. ;D ;D
On the other hand, if those several people coming to the same conclusion are actually all using the same source as each other then it stands to reason that we would come to the same conclusion as each other.
There's of course plenty of online documents to look for from our armchairs, so perhaps it is simply needed for each of us to be striving to find the difference between searching and researching.
We can all find online indexes, and online secondary sources, and thereby each of us can easily be coming to the same conclusion as each other.
Cheers, JM
-
True, Mike. I have seen several threads where the OP has said they hadn't been aware of replies. Is there an option for email replies? Or perhaps they don't check their emails often?
What I was referring to though is when they do reply, and either ignore what someone has posted, or dismiss the information found as "incorrect". There is one Rootschatter that unfortunately I won't assist anymore, as she wouldn't accept the things found, as they didn't fit in with her "theory". But that's only one, everyone else, I give them another go. ;D
-
I would hope that people don't just take what they are given as gospel truth, but also check it themselves. However, the beauty of a forum such as RC is that when several people come to the same conclusion it is more likely to be right - far more than just copying from an online tree. ;D ;D
On the other hand, if those several people coming to the same conclusion are actually all using the same source as each other then it stands to reason that we would come to the same conclusion as each other.
There's of course plenty of online documents to look for from our armchairs, so perhaps it is simply needed for each of us to be striving to find the difference between searching and researching.
We can all find online indexes, and online secondary sources, and thereby each of us can easily be coming to the same conclusion as each other.
Cheers, JM
True JM, but the more experienced Rootschatters can often spot a possible link that might not seem obvious to the OP of that thread.
-
True, Mike. I have seen several threads where the OP has said they hadn't been aware of replies. Is there an option for email replies? Or perhaps they don't check their emails often?
What I was referring to though is when they do reply, and either ignore what someone has posted, or dismiss the information found as "incorrect". There is one Rootschatter that unfortunately I won't assist anymore, as she wouldn't accept the things found, as they didn't fit in with her "theory". But that's only one, everyone else, I give them another go. ;D
Only one., I have quite a list :)
-
True, Mike. I have seen several threads where the OP has said they hadn't been aware of replies. Is there an option for email replies? Or perhaps they don't check their emails often?
What I was referring to though is when they do reply, and either ignore what someone has posted, or dismiss the information found as "incorrect". There is one Rootschatter that unfortunately I won't assist anymore, as she wouldn't accept the things found, as they didn't fit in with her "theory". But that's only one, everyone else, I give them another go. ;D
Pine, there's two RChatters that I no longer try to help. It saddens me that I am not prepared to help them, as they do ask for help, but when help is given which contradicts their theory, they send rude and 'illogical' PMs.... you know, I still do not understand why they feel the need to send such PMs which in fact are full of silly statements contradicting themselves, tripping up with chronology etc trying to tell me more about their ancestors in the hope that somehow I will become convinced that I am wrong .... not my ancestors so why do they think they need to 'convert' me or prove to me that I am wrong... Surely they can simply ignore me rather than be rude. So, yes, 'I have thick skin' and I use the RChat option and 'block' these two ...
But I am diverting off topic .... To me, it is a question of how to get the OP to 'think' for themselves instead of perhaps expecting us RChatters to do their thinking for them.
Cheers, JM
-
PineFamily
You want to see my PM ignore list ;D
In my view, it is not up to us Rootschatters to provide answers, only potential answers.
Some "answers" may be spot on, it is not up to me(us?) to decide that.
Even if I find something irrelevant, but "close", then I post "it" (as notes).
Even if the OP dis-regard it.
"It" may provide a link, not only to the current OP but to other "OP"'s
I am astounded when OP criticises when RC's either
give info not requested (but fits initial, badly-worded requests)
or the response does not fit info not divulged.
Anyone got a ladder to help me get back on my soapbox
R
-
That's it Ray, I am here to hold your ladder for you. :)
Cheers, JM
-
Cheers JM
I'm halfway up, or is it halfway down ( the stairs ) ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBsT84lwcC4
R
::)
-
It seems that all of the Rootschatters who posted on here are on the same page (both in spirit and literally ;D).
Is there only room for one at a time on that soapbox, Ray?
-
The one thing that comes over from all these replies is that we all share the same frustration of wasted time spent on duplicate posts or ungrateful/sceptical posters.
So - what's the solution? I personally do not have the technical expertise to pass an opinion on the viability of checks before posting or pop up messages etc so I think we all owe Trystan and Sarah the courtesy of inviting their input
Has anybody already drawn their attention to this post?
-
Pinefamily
Darren
Sit on the stair with me ;D
R
-
The one thing that comes over from all these replies is that we all share the same frustration of wasted time spent on duplicate posts or ungrateful/sceptical posters.
I know a lot of us do try and link duplicate posts or alert Mods to them when we spot them, but sometimes this is too late to prevent people from looking up things. Perhaps Trystan or Sarah do have a solution to this, or maybe it is just a case of everyone posting when they spot a duplicate.
As for the ungrateful/sceptical posters I can't see how you can prevent those, apart from ignoring future posts in the hope they will eventually get the message. On answering a recent post, I nudged the poster into a "Thank you" by saying something along the lines of, "Before we go back further, has the information found been correct and of any use?" ;D
-
Subtle, Groom, subtle.
-
Subtle, Groom, subtle.
;D ;D
-
Hi "Groom"
It is not just the duplicate posts/threads,
it is the "abuse" you get when "they" realise that they have been "spotted" (my terminology).
Why don't posters realise that if they centralise the thread they are more likely to get everyone working together?
Then place links wherever they like (even other genealogy domains) referring back to that "central" RC thread.
" I have 2000 photographs to enhance, may I have them by next Thursday? I need to publish my next book"
R
-
Sorry R, we have minimum requirements, you need to want them ready for tomorrow, and you need to have 4000 at least.
Cheers, JM
-
;D
" You cannot be serious"
[ J.McEnroe 1984 ] [ ? ] . . . . . come on Rootschatters . . . . . when?
JM That's the post I always wanted the courage to send . . . . .
R
-
One thing I have noticed. When I start a new thread about someone connected or perhaps mentioned (but not the subject person) in an earlier thread of mine and put a link to my older thread, the new post sits in limbo waiting for moderator approval. It can be some time before it appears on the forum.
-
One thing I have noticed. When I start a new thread about someone connected or perhaps mentioned (but not the subject person) in an earlier thread of mine and put a link to my older thread, the new post sits in limbo waiting for moderator approval. It can be some time before it appears on the forum.
I think that if a new thread has a website link it is automatically referred to a moderator to ensure it is a genuine post and not spam.
Andy
-
One thing I have noticed. When I start a new thread about someone connected or perhaps mentioned (but not the subject person) in an earlier thread of mine and put a link to my older thread, the new post sits in limbo waiting for moderator approval. It can be some time before it appears on the forum.
A possible way round that is to post your question on the new thread, then go straight back and modify it to add the link to the other threads.
I think I read somewhere that it is the spam catcher, or whatever you call it, that catches a new topic with a link. It may do this to prevent people being directed to other unsuitable websites?
-
I understand that there should be a method to prevent spam and undesirable links, but can't see why it prevents posting of a thread linking to another post on the Rootschat forum
-
Probably just too sensitive. Also, if you use the shrink link tool you get a link address that looks as if it comes from Rootschat, so serious spammers could get round it that way if it didn't pick up anything with the word Rootschat in the link.
-
I just come across this thread this morning that was posted yesterday (Sunday).
So the answer to the question raised (and the comments):
Hope this hasn't been raised before ;D ;D I did do a search honest :)
I have contributed to several threads on the last couple of weeks which have turned out to have been duplicate requests or connected to earlier posts. Usually the mod or an observant member has found the original post & given a link. It's a bit annoying to find you have spent time looking for & providing information that another kind chatter had found 2 years ago.
I have no idea of the technicalities but I just wondered whether it was possible, when a new topic is posted, for a message to appear to the poster to remind them to provide a link to any other thread on the same or connected subject?
Josey
As far as warnings and things before people post, generally we find that very quickly people tend not to read warnings and just press OK boxes just to get onto the next bit. It could almost be a case of where would you stop with messages before people post. Such as, "Are you sure this doesn't possibly breach a living person's privacy?" or "Are you sure you are not breaching copyright in posting this?". All these of course are virtuous messages to put up before somebody posts.
We have tried out over a number of occasions a "Related / Similar Topic" features. This showed up posts that had similar wording in the title. It wasn't perfect though - especially if there was a word in it common to many posts. Some of the related posts do appear quite bizarre quite often too (which can bring up some other interesting topics anyhow).
The biggest difficulty was that the feature was pretty heavy-going on the web server itself. As you can imagine, each and every post resulted in a search of some 5.1 millions posts. This caused a slight delay in pages loading up at times and was prone to pages occasionally timing out.
Some of you may have noticed the Similar Topic or Related Topic feature.
Anyhow, as this has been raised, we'll just try out a feature that feature again, and this time try and display possibly similar topics as people are posting. It may need to be turned back off again due to the technical effects of it though, but we'll see how it goes.
All the best,
Trystan
-
Thanks, Trystan.
I didn't realise about the strain on the servers of a search like that; to some extent I was hoping the responsibility could lie with the OP. I admit I am guilty myself on some occasions (like 5 pages of Terms & Conditions' ;D ;D) of not fully reading stuff on screen in order to click 'OK'.
I hope it was not rude of me not to have included you in the original post.
Josey
-
Josey,
No it wasn't rude at all. Sarah and I tend to try and keep Sunday free as much as we can for each other so we're often slower to spot a topic like this.
We'll just have a go with this thing, and see how it goes for now. I'll probably move things around a bit - like where it appears and how many related topics it shows and things though. It does hammer the server and we don't have the resource to upgrade the hardware so it's often a fine line to get the right balance.
Cheers,
Trystan
-
Hi,
I posted a topic yesterday re James Grant and Lilias Stuart which has since been merged with a previous post of mine. I had read this topic and checked with my last to make sure I put on right board and to see if I should put a link. After consideration it seems I wrongly took the view not to.
Sorry to have got it wrong.
Sandra
-
Great that you took the time & effort to read the previous post. Hope it's infectious :D. Exactly my original point :). Only a mod can merge 2 topics.
-
We'll just have a go with this thing, and see how it goes for now. I'll probably move things around a bit - like where it appears and how many related topics it shows and things though. It does hammer the server and we don't have the resource to upgrade the hardware so it's often a fine line to get the right balance.
New thread ::)
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=738939.0
-
System Design on back of fag-packet(1)?
Only need to run the search
* on the first post of a new topic
* on the posts already made by the OP starting the new topic
About as stressful as an "Unread Topics" request?
System Design on back of fag-packet (2)?
? However, what is wrong with putiing a comment at the top of the "New Topic" (only) template,
something to the effect . . . . .
"DO NOT DUPLICATE REQUESTS
Please let Rootschatters know, at the beginning of your new topic, if you have or are intending to pose the question elsewhere. Rootschatters get very upset if their time is wased or they duplicate work/effort/research already carried out by you /someone else"
Then the OP cannot be surpised at getting "ticked off" by those that they have upset.
Ray
-
I've often come across requests here and it later turns out the OP has placed the same request on other sites (and often received the information long before posting here) so more and more often I waste time googling to discover other posts elsewhere >:(
and I've just posted links to another new topic with OP asking for information on same person, etc, ::)
... and also posted a link to this topic ;)
-
Please excuse me if I'm speaking out of turn. I'm not a frequent Rootschatter (due to work, etc.) but I do try to contribute when I can.
Sometimes people do try to take advantage, it's true. Other times, though, I think it's possible that people just don't know the ideal way to write a query and might not realize how much effort is expended by helpful Rootschatters.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that Rootschatters want to be as helpful as possible while using their time efficiently.
To that end, would it be possible for Rootschat to post an automated first response to all posts, posing some basic (but polite, of course) questions designed to enable Rootschatters to best help the original poster (OP)? Then the onus would be placed on the OP to respond with additional information or clarifications (if needed) before anyone started doing research.
Best regards,
Josephine
-
Hi Josephine
I don't think it's so much the way questions are posed that frustrate people, we have to make allowances for people who are new to genealogy or to using forums, or in some cases don't have English as a first language. What people are complaining about is those who post the same question on several different threads, or the same question several months after asking the original one.
-
Hi Josephine
I don't think it's so much the way questions are posed that frustrate people, we have to make allowances for people who are new to genealogy or to using forums, or in some cases don't have English as a first language. What people are complaining about is those who post the same question on several different threads, or the same question several months after asking the original one.
Hi, Groom:
To clarify, I do think that people don't always know that it is important to include in their requests links to other places where other people have already posted questions and answers.
They don't always know how important it is to be specific about where they (or others) have already searched, what has been searched (the search terms, names, geographic areas, record sources), as well as exactly what information they have, what they don't have and what they are looking for.
It's all of a package but people who haven't done extensive searches themselves probably don't realize that, unless they provide the above info (as long as it pertains to exactly the thing they are searching for), they could be wasting other people's valuable time (and effort and goodwill).
Best regards,
Josephine
-
Sorry to take a different tack here but the reason I respond to queries is not only to assist the OP but because I quite genuinely enjoy the thrill of the chase.
I would probably remember if I had searched the same topic previously and wouldn't do so again but if someone else has already done it I am not concerned that I may do the same thing and find the same info - just as long as there is a query to respond to.
Even if I do only find the same info as someone else has already supplied I don't feel that it is a waste of my time, goodwill or effort. Maybe I am in a minority.
Pheno
-
Sorry to take a different tack here but the reason I respond to queries is not only to assist the OP but because I quite genuinely enjoy the thrill of the chase.
I have to disagree :)
I too enjoy the 'thrill of the chase', but it's very deflating when I find out, after spending quite a lot of time on a topic, that someone else got there before me on an earlier thread which I didn't know about.
-
Yes but isn't it good to have your research methods and consequent finds confirmed?
Pheno
-
I agree with Jen, it is frustrating if I've spent time looking and cross checking records, to post and then someone points out that it is a duplicate post and that information has already been given. Even more so if it was suggested that certificates were purchased and that has been ignored.
Yes but isn't it good to have your research methods and consequent finds confirmed?
Maybe, but quite a few people on here are very experienced researchers and could be using their expertise to help others, rather than repeating what has already been found.
-
I have to agree with Jen's comments above. Duplicate posts seem to be occurring much more often lately.
A month or so ago I spent nearly 2hrs trying to find somebody on the 1851 census - a grossly mis-transcribed entry but I had the bit between my teeth ;D
Triumphant - I posted my findings. Only to have the "Red warning" show a reply posting the links to 2 duplicate posts, one from a year ago and the other from only 2 days previously asking exactly the same question and by the same poster despite the fact the info had been found on the year old post.
Whoever found the info a year ago - if it had been found on Ancestry - had not notified the error
Yes - I like the thrill of the chase - but a big NO to having my time and efforts wasted
-
I just checked a duplicate post from last night and a few days ago.
The Heading of each thread is almost exactly the same but neither come up as possibly similar topics to each other.
So I don't think that will work.
-
I'm a very inexperienced researcher still, and when I started, I knew next to nothing - Never heard of Ancestry, Find my Past and all the other fantastic free and subscription resources. Before signing up to RC I had been reading all the posts with great interest, picking up vague ideas of how genealogy research works - AND the etiquette/ethos of RootsChat.
When I took the plunge and became a member so I could ask for help, I was so impressed with the help I got from so many of you, and that's continued over the years, for which I'm very grateful.
I genuinely think that some newer members honestly think this is a 'look-ups' resource (hence the long lists of requirements) - which it is to a large extent but of course there are limits. I also think they don't appreciate that the vast majority of you are experienced and knowledgeable amateurs & enthusiasts (I think - no offence intended) who are doing this purely because this is a subject you are passionate about. They don't seem to realise that you want to point them in the right direction to start them off on their own journey of discovery. They think it's like Wiki or Google, instant info on demand.
And finally........I don't think they understand that the different boards are not separate entities, so they are worried that if they post in one board it will only be seen by a limited number of people.
As usual I've rambled on at length - I really hope I haven't offended anyone with anything I've said. I thoroughly enjoy Rootschat and all your knowledge simply makes me realise I know even less than I thought! I'm learning all the time. So thank goodness you're all here to put me right. ;D
Pat
-
I also think they don't appreciate that the vast majority of you are experienced and knowledgeable amateurs & enthusiasts (I think - no offence intended) who are doing this purely because this is a subject you are passionate about. They don't seem to realise that you want to point them in the right direction to start them off on their own journey of discovery. They think it's like Wiki or Google, instant info on demand.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head there, Pat. I sometimes get the feeling that a few posters think there are a group of people sitting in an office somewhere, just waiting to answer their query. ;D ;D
-
I also think they don't appreciate that the vast majority of you are experienced and knowledgeable amateurs & enthusiasts (I think - no offence intended) who are doing this purely because this is a subject you are passionate about. They don't seem to realise that you want to point them in the right direction to start them off on their own journey of discovery. They think it's like Wiki or Google, instant info on demand.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head there, Pat. I sometimes get the feeling that a few posters think there are a group of people sitting in an office somewhere, just waiting to answer their query. ;D ;D
there aren't? :o
-
I also think they don't appreciate that the vast majority of you are experienced and knowledgeable amateurs & enthusiasts (I think - no offence intended) who are doing this purely because this is a subject you are passionate about. They don't seem to realise that you want to point them in the right direction to start them off on their own journey of discovery. They think it's like Wiki or Google, instant info on demand.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head there, Pat. I sometimes get the feeling that a few posters think there are a group of people sitting in an office somewhere, just waiting to answer their query. ;D ;D
With a huge pile of assorted BMD certificates and photos to hand. ;D ;D
-
According to the home page banner
226,174 members are ready to help you with your questions
:o
-
According to the home page banner
226,174 members are ready to help you with your questions
:o
You're at my desk.
-
Some thoughts .....
I am not tech savvy, but I do like the option Ray submitted
It does not need a tick box, BUT if ignored by the OP, then we as family history buffs do need to be gentle in reminding them when we find out they ignored it as we can all be guilty of failing to read notices, whether here at RChat or elsewhere in our daily lives:
System Design on back of fag-packet(1)?
Only need to run the search
* on the first post of a new topic
* on the posts already made by the OP starting the new topic
About as stressful as an "Unread Topics" request?
System Design on back of fag-packet (2)?
? However, what is wrong with putting a comment at the top of the "New Topic" (only) template,
something to the effect . . . . .
"DO NOT DUPLICATE REQUESTS
Please let Rootschatters know, at the beginning of your new topic, if you have or are intending to pose the question elsewhere. Rootschatters get very upset if their time is wasted or they duplicate work/effort/research already carried out by you /someone else"
Then the OP cannot be surpised at getting "ticked off" by those that they have upset.
Ray
I am NSW centric so I am a frequent poster on the Australia Board. What amazes me is the number of posters who seemingly fail to consider any of the live links on our Resources Boards (not just the Aussie Board, but all the various Resources Boards across RChat). It seems to me that sometimes the OP anticipates that the regulars will be the ones to use our own time and energy to use the live links to 'find' the answers for the OP's enquiry. Perhaps the OP thinks the Resources are on restricted access, available only to regulars, or perhaps there's a new approach needed to how the resources are displayed....
Is it possible that people accessing RChat using a smart phone or similar device instead of a PC simply do not recognise 'live links' in our posts, or cannot scroll far enough through a thread .... or perhaps cannot 'click' on those live links or perhaps cannot 'copy/paste' 'live links' to their existing threads, or cannot access the 'search' option here at RChat ?
On the Aussie Board we have a "How To Request a Look Up" thread, stickied to the main board. I suspect it is not even noticed by most of the posters. Other Boards have similar stickied threads, and I wonder how often the OP reads through them.
Here's the link to the How To from the Aussie Board : Prepared back in 2009, and read just over 27,000 times so far.... including many times by me clicking on it to copy paste it into threads particularly if an OP gives names and other identifying info about people who could well be still living.... ::)
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=368728.0
It includes the following
Just One More Thing
We all know how frustrating it can we to desperately require information that is not forthcoming. Duplicate Requests do cause problems. Our volunteers can become grumpy when they realize that they have just used their time and resources on a problem which has been answered elsewhere. We also have those posting the queries becoming upset when somebody mentions the duplication. The last thing we want is anger and hurt feelings. We all want a smooth running board with queries being answered as quickly and efficiently as possible. Far better for the Poster's and for the Look up Volunteers alike.
If you do have other threads where you previously received help with this person, please be sure to add the link(s) your new thread.
What strikes me, on re-reading my words in this particular post .....
a) Am I being too picky
b) Are my sentences too dis-jointed
c) Do we need to simply acknowledge that the pace of the living world is rapidly increasing and as family history buffs we need to adapt and accommodate at the fringes.
I am not the only family history buff who has been dedicated to this hobby since my childhood, and as a Baby Boomer, I can assure you that I know the pain of waiting and the thrill of receiving snail mail letters from fellow family history buffs with transcriptions of parish registers, /confirming/validating/eliminating/
leaving up in the air / some response to a query to match up to an entry in say a family Bible or in a 19th century document among the private papers of a deceased ancestor.
So here in the 21st century there are different tools available for family history research. It is how we use those tools that is as important as the information we glean. If we don't use the tools regularly we can forget how to use them to their best advantage, for our own benefit. I think this can be a quality reason for so many of us wanting to help with look ups. And so, I come back 'full circle' to the duplication of posts ..... hopefully with some discussion points to share.
Cheers, JM
-
According to the home page banner
226,174 members are ready to help you with your questions
:o
Maybe that should be changed from "Members" to "Volunteers"....I have been asked in the past if restoring is well paid.....after I recovered from my laughing fit......I pointed out that it I was a volunteer.
Carol
-
I have greatly appreciated the help given on here.
When I first started on "Rootschat" , not that many years ago, I did, because I'd got a bit muddled up, put two very similar requests up, concerning a puzzling Irish connection - and it was pointed out to me politely but firmly that I'd near-duplicated!
I felt about the level of a worm's waistcoat button for that, because I had already realised that people on here spend their time and effort to help so freely. I was reluctant to ask for help for a while after that, but then I made a list (quite long now) and jot down on that, in a loose-leaf folder, any original requests I make, so even if my brain does flip, I'm not as likely to do such a silly thing again.
On the other side, now having a bit more awareness, and having subscriptions here and there, and a bit better access to records, I'm irrationally delighted to be able to help someone out myself.
But I do get a bit sick of the ones that seem to say "Here's by grandparents names and now please find out and tell me everything about my family history, including all that would be on certificates, right back to William the conqueror" - and then, as you say, argue from little evidence that the helpful one HAS to be wrong!
I also spent ages waiting for a certificate once, after a post, and the replies to my post came thick and fast - and accurate for the most part, as I was later able to check out - and as I waited, I almost wrote "Yes - I'm still waiting for the certificate everyone's telling me to get" after I'd kindly been given the information that helped me to specify the right certificate. I felt that I really should not have had any more replies until I'd shown I'd done that something that became so simple myself, once I'd been pointed in the right direction, and yet further information came piling in....
-And I do hope that I've always thanked everyone here who is so helpful. You who are truly expert are valued and respected for your ability to ferret out the right places to find the information, and at least two of you writing on here I am very grateful to for help and good sound advice.
-
And I do hope that I've always thanked everyone here who is so helpful.
Take it from me - you always have ;D
-
Good. Take a bow, CaroleW, you were one I was thinking of, not just from help to me, but also how you've helped other. You deserve thanks.
-
. I felt about the level of a worm's waistcoat button
What a brilliant description, I must remember that!