Research requests on the forum - a free lunch?

[Michelle Young]

I also think a lot of new users have no conception of how busy and rapidly changing the forum is-I will help if I can, I am not great on look ups but if I have some information to hand I will help. I got my fingers burned once though by offering to take photos. That is another story

Michelle

[Seadog]

Perhaps a good way of filtering the research requests would be to automatically load the excellent “Researching a Soldier” page from the “Long, Long Trail” website before posters input their questions. May I suggest that if this happens then reference to the location of war diaries is also included (if not there already). I know that there is a header directing posters to the web page but I would be surprised in anyone takes the time to read it, Perhaps a minor change to the header for the list of websites including the GWF on the aforementioned page might be “If after exhausting the above research links with no success try the following websites which may be able to help”. Perhaps in addition a minimum number of posts should be required before research requests are accepted.

Regards

Norman

[arboskittler]

As far as I'm concerned (and being a relative newbie, also), my first couple of questions posed here pointed me towards Ancestry. I subscribed (and still do) and like to think that if a question is posed about a particular 'soldier' then I am quite happy to take a look at Ancestry to see if I am able to find information. If so, I am pleased to post it (no photo images, though) as I like to think it all helps justify my monthly subscription. However, I do agree with an earlier post that the 'style' and wording of the request does influence my enthusiasm to help.

I am happy too if I can provide detail from a book etc... I don't take the approach that because it's in book titled ABCD, that the questioner should go out and obtain their own copy of book title ABCD.

Let's help where we can. I've learned so much from my own posts as well as reading the answers to others posts. The GWF is an amazing knowledge gathering opportunity for all.

Cheers,

Andy.

[hazelclark]

In expecting 'thanks' for responses, do remember that not everyone has the time to be on here every day! ;-)

Stuart

If you actually ask people to help you, the very LEAST you can do is check back within a reasonable time.

Hazel

[Seadog]

A perfectly valid attitude Andy (Post 53) but you have in a way proved my original point by your reference to Ancestry and your willingness to use it for third party research requests. This is what I mean about a "free lunch" for the large proportion of those who could if they so wished subscribe to the pay-sites and obtain their own info. I would expect a surge of requests for information as and when the IWM upload the basic details of 8 million individuals and ask that the public "fill in the gaps" for I cannot see a mass joining of the pay-sites if free research is available here, hopefully I will be totally wrong. What do you think of my suggestions in post 52?

Norman

[SteveMarsdin]

Hi Norman,

It has always been the case that some members are jusk seeking a particular piece of information, once they have their answer they leave, hopefully with a thank you but, as is evidenced by some of the earlier contributors to this thread, some do stay. it is only with a continued introduction of new blood and ideas that the GWF will avoid becoming moribund and continue to grow.

I don't think we need more regulation but the perhaps the LLT link that you refer to in your post #52 could be made clearer (and also references to the external sites you mention ? although this might mean that the rest of us, who might also be interested in Joe Bloggs of the 1st East..... don't get to see a thread develop). Where I strongly disagree with you Norman is having a minimum number of posts before research requests can be made, for two reasons: 1. in my view one of the principal benefits of the GWF is it allows people to learn more about WW1 and the people affected by it, this idea may put people off asking and thereby learning. 2. if it doesn't put them off it may lead to (if the threshold is after 5 posts), 5 inane posts that just clutter up the GWF !!!

From a personal point, I work part-time at an auction and occasionally ask for help with medals, photos etc*., to help me list them more accurately and enhance or confirm the independent research I have alreadsy done. It is not my main reason for belonging to the GWF and certainly not my main interest in WW1; if people want to help me they will, if they don't they won't. I learn from the responses (and I'm sure some others do too). I always thank people and in turn have also assisted people here and on the francophone forum, where my limited knowledge permits.

* In fact I may post some photos of 6 rifles/bayonets next week !

[StuartAB]

If you actually ask people to help you, the very LEAST you can do is check back within a reasonable time.

Hazel

Indeed. But on one of the posts linked to, a member was prompting for an update from the OP within 24 hours of the original request.

Stuart

[Sue Light]

Perhaps a good way of filtering the research requests would be to automatically load the excellent “Researching a Soldier” page from the “Long, Long Trail” website before posters input their questions.

This would be extremely confusing for those whose questions are not related to soldiers, and I don't think it would be good to be so blinkered in relation to new posters.

This is the only forum that I use where automatic replies are not sent to posters of new threads to notify them that they have had a reply to their question. It seems pretty universal on most forums now. Consequently many new members do not realise that there has been an answer as they haven't received a notification to that effect. If they come back to check, it's often very hard to remember where you actually put your question in the first place. I feel it would be of great benefit for automatic notification of replies to thread starters to be the default setting.

Re: thank yous.

As the owner of a website I receive many queries every week, and that is increasing rapidly. I often sit for two or three hours a day checking information and links and sending detailed answers. Of the people I reply to, more than a third never even acknowledge my email. If you don't answer you get a reputation on forums and the like (such as this) of being a non-replier. If you do answer, you have to put up with what could be seen as wasting your time - you'll never know. I'm sure that all owners of large personal websites suffer similarly, and luckily you do meet some very interesting, friendly people along the way to make it worthwhile. Worst of all are older students, i.e. in further education. Almost none of them ever bother to reply, or say thanks - over the last few years I can remember only one doing so.

It is something that drives me mad, but this is a forum, and you have the choice whether to reply or not which is something the personal website owner can't do so easily. If you do reply, then you have to expect that not everyone will come back and say thanks. Unfortunately all help has to be given on the basis that you may never know whether it was useful or not.

Sue

[John_Hartley]

Where I am heading is that, perhaps, members should explain WHY they are making the request. Most do say 'Im researching a Great Uncle' or so forth and Im more inclined to help these people although they tend to appear, get the info, and then disappear.

Would it not also be reasonable to ask the poster "What do you already know about Uncle Bob?"

It would prevent very helpful members from unnecessary duplication and, I suspect, would tend to separate the wood from the trees (or, in this instance, the genuine family researcher from the trader pretending to be one).

[Seadog]

How about this for an example, I understand that the Australian records are actually on-line and free to use so why the question? its hardly rocket science to find this out.

Thread

http://1914-1918.inv...howtopic=195992

Aussie records

http://www.naa.gov.a...s/army-wwi.aspx

Why post this are the members supposed to do all the ground work or what!

A free lunch!

Norman

PS Somebody has even responded in the time it took me to post this

[GraemeClarke]

Hi

Yes, I did !! Do I get a prize ??

Regards,

Graeme

[Seadog]

What is the problem with such posters actually finding out sources of information for themselves?, I found the Aussie records in about 5 secs by typing "WW1 Australian Soldiers Records", hang on though it would be much easier if someone else did that for me, then I would not have to bother, would I?

Free Lunch

Norman

[Chris_Baker]

When I began building up the LLT site and added what eventually became the GWF, I always tried to slant them towards giving people what they need to know in order to find out more for themselves, rather than giving them the "answer". That's partly as it is an impossible task to provide every answer to every question, and partly because I think people get more value from discovering "how" than having it done for them.

There is a perfectly natural tendency for many GWF members to rush in and give the answers, mainly because they can do it, like doing it and believe they are adding value to the questioner. I guess that is providing a free lunch for the questioner, but so what? Both parties are happy. As long as the forum is not being abused for commercial purposes and no copyright issues arise I don't really see a problem. It's not my preferred approach but the fact that GWF is where it is seems to indicate that it is working.

[Seadog]

Is that what the forum is for, a free research tool for those who cannot be bothered to find out the most basic information themselves or as is more likely do not wish to pay a subscription to the various pay-sites where such information is increasingly stored. It seems to me that frankly some of these posters are "taking the Mickey” and I would have thought that the forum would be concerned about this situation, which I hardly think could have been the intention in the first place.

Regards

Norman

[dycer]

I have an interest ,in WW1, through accident of birth and nothing more.

Before I joined the Forum I had inherited documentary information which, by sharing, with Forum colleagues has been immensely supplemented and personally rewarding.e.g.had it not been for my e-mailing a few pre-War photographs to a colleague would I have known my relatives obituaries were available, to view ,in the town of birth, Library?Not that I now have any reason to physically visit the Library as my Forum "friend" was kind enough to e-mail copies..

Certainly the "free" Forum is used for WW1 information that is available on subscription sites.

But the advantage, of the Forum, is that members do not only respond to "hard" information requests as a result of their WW1 studious,academic knowledge but to my mind,in the hope that they will, in return,receive nuggets of WW1 information that is still held within families or is not available without a personal visit to a local Library,etc.

Or am I missing the point of this discussion?

George

[ss002d6252]

Certainly the "free" Forum is used for WW1 information that is available on subscription sites.

The advantage we have here is that the information may be available elsewhere but the knowledge to interpret it usually isn't (easily) available anywhere other than here.

But the advantage, of the Forum, is that members do not only respond to "hard" information requests as a result of their WW1 studious,academic knowledge but to my mind,in the hope that they will, in return,receive nuggets of WW1 information that is still held within families or is not available without a personal visit to a local Library,etc.

I've learnt plenty over the last few years, including some relatively obscure topics. I'm more than happy to share information (and received) - the websites I have with the information I have spend 100's of hours collecting could easily have been kept solely for myself but I don't mind sharing however I do admit it can be annoying when people ask for information and then disappear off never to be heard from again so I can understand why, on a forum this size, people can get annoyed when it's misused.

Craig

[hazelclark]

Indeed. But on one of the posts linked to, a member was prompting for an update from the OP within 24 hours of the original request.

Stuart

My apologies!

Hazel

[BottsGreys]

One thing, I often find that the information I locate for a requestor is not only interesting, but also adds to my knowledge of the war. In helping someone just this past week, I discovered an example of the U.S. Government repatriating a U.S. soldier's body not back to his immigrant home of Iowa, but to his native Ireland. This was a first for me. If instead of searching for it myself, I would have just suggested to the requestor that he look on the web for a historical society in the locale were the soldier lived, I may have never heard from him again (whether he followed my suggestion or not) and would have never known of the repatriation of the soldier's remains to somewhere outside the United States.

Chris

[Steven Broomfield]

This might have been suggested in the 3 pages of discussion, so I apologise if I'm repeating, but there is a simple solution.

If you don't like people asking for information, don't answer. In fact, don't belong to the Forum.

It really is that simple.

[Kate Wills]

Sadly, I don't think it is quite so simple Steve.

What is being suggested is that the Forum's future is imperilled by injudicous use of copyright material.

[neverforget]

I do appreciate the concerns regarding the copyright material Hazel. it`s quite scary to think how much of this stuff has been posted on the site already by it`s numerous well intentioned and generous members, and it is definitely an issue that we have to take seriously. I was trying to think of a way to deflect the responsibility away from the forum, and direct it towards the individual. As long as any "sensitive material" were to be exchanged via private e-mails, and is not displayed directly on the forum, I thought that would put the burden of responsibility on the individual concerned. I guess we may have to be a little more discreet with how we word our initial requests. Bottom line is that we have to protect what we have here. It truly is a wonderful and valuable forum.

[hazelclark]

I do appreciate the concerns regarding the copyright material Hazel. it`s quite scary to think how much of this stuff has been posted on the site already by it`s numerous well intentioned and generous members, and it is definitely an issue that we have to take seriously. I was trying to think of a way to deflect the responsibility away from the forum, and direct it towards the individual. As long as any "sensitive material" were to be exchanged via private e-mails, and is not displayed directly on the forum, I thought that would put the burden of responsibility on the individual concerned. I guess we may have to be a little more discreet with how we word our initial requests. Bottom line is that we have to protect what we have here. It truly is a wonderful and valuable forum.

I would have expected P.M.s to be exempt also, but despite the rhetoric, i think the object of the vast majority of posters is a concern to maintain the character of the Forum without their landing in the legal soup. I made some boo boos by posting diary excerpts until a friend enlightened me, and i swiftly removed them. However, I have privately sent all kinds of copies of documents.

Hazel

[seaforth78]

I, who, just really joined GWF in the last year will forever remain grateful to fellow members of this forum like Steven, Harry, Stewart, and others, who take the time and effort to answer my basic questions on an officer or such. I am a British Officer's Sword Collector and focus on officers who served in the Great War and inevitably I will have swords of different Regiments which I will inquire about. I'm a subscriber to Ancestry and gosh, it would never have occured to me to ask a fellow member to look up a MIC request and have them pay for it but however, in complete honesty, I wouldn't have known that by posting a copy of an MIC I paid for, for that to be considerated as inappropiate. (I never did it) But I am alarmed a bit (if I understood Norman correctly) if he is suggesting that perhaps its time for the GWF to urge itself (or members?) to pay for requests. This is just a hobby for me which, despite my collecting aspects noted above, I never profited off personally. Its the love, which I think we all share here on this forum, that makes this place a very nice and congenial forum to belong to. I would hate to see it degenerate into a moneymaking forum which, I trust, will never happen.

[AlanCurragh]

It will never happen, Seaforth - however, the forum does cost over 200 pounds per month to run - and that money comes from our Amazon/Abebooks links, surplus from the conference, and donations. Nowhere else.

So donations are always very welcome.....

[Seadog]

I did call that suggestion "radical" perhaps a better description would have been "tongue in cheek" whatever it achieved its purpose of stimulating discussion.

Norman