Lives of the First World War -subscription Site closing

[Keith_history_buff]

  

10 hours ago, 2ndCMR said:

 

So basically it was a way for FMP to get a ton a free data and for the IWM to do a timely "feel-good" exercise, but not intended to do anything much except provide subscription revenue after the bulk of the public interest in the Great War has faded.

 

Why am I not surprised?    At least the Canadian Great War Project met a better fate.

 

3 hours ago, charlie962 said:

They probably thought they might get a lot more out of it without having to put in any more effort. I agree - a disgrace compared to Canadian, Australian etc efforts. But that culture in UK persists with limiting access to IWM records and charging large sums for copies of photos etc;

 

I would not agree with the assertion that 'it was a way for FMP to get a ton a free data'. I would need to see some evidence. The only data that FMP does have are some bare bones LOTFWW profiles, and this data is in the public domain via the Permanent Digital Memorial.These profiles are one of the few things you can see on FMP without paying for the privilege. 

What is a clever ploy on their part is that a profile will usually have links to several records in FMP, so it is a clever way of getting people to use FMP. If you viewed an individual on the PDM, you would struggle to determine how to find them on the 1911 Census. If, however, you were to see their profile on FMP, and it had a direct link to FMP's image of the 1911 Census, you could click and be persuaded to either subscribe or take out a trial.

There were fears that have never really been allayed that the legal terms under which contributors added to LOTFWW did seem to "gift" FMP data. If LOTFWW had turned a profit, then perhaps FMP could have exercised their legal right to do so. I have no legal training, and am therefore not the best qualified to assess this. As mentioned previously, not long after the 2017 decree nisi of the FMP - IWM partnership, Charlotte from the IWM - who was involved with LOTFWW and many other public engagement activities - did come on this group and make a comment. Owing to the mistrust and loss of goodwill from what had been promised yet had failed to materialise, she took a lot of stick on here, despite being well-meaning and trying to calm down those worried about accessibility from 2019 onwards.

Unless (1) the IWM were to get a big budget, (2) senior managment were to actively sponsor the project and were looking to make a revitalised PDM 2.0 I do not foresee any member of the IWM posting on this forum in an official capacity, for the reasons mentioned above.  (Points 1 and 2 failed to occur during the LOTFWW project, so a change of policy seems unlikely, and I don't see any "WW1 Centenary fund" still in existence and unclaimed.)

 

[Matlock1418]

To ALL

 

19 minutes ago, Keith_history_buff said:

Charlotte from the IWM - who was involved with LOTFWW and many other public engagement activities - did come on this group and make a comment. Owing to the mistrust and loss of goodwill from what had been promised yet had failed to materialise, she took a lot of stick on here, despite being well-meaning and trying to calm down those worried about accessibility from 2019 onwards.

I recognise Keith is defending Charlotte, and I concur - Any 'stick' must definitely not be personal but aimed at IWM

 

19 minutes ago, Keith_history_buff said:

Unless (1) the IWM were to get a big budget, (2) senior managment were to actively sponsor the project and were looking to make a revitalised PDM 2.0 I do not foresee any member of the IWM posting on this forum in an official capacity, for the reasons mentioned above.  (Points 1 and 2 failed to occur during the LOTFWW project, so a change of policy seems unlikely, and I don't see any "WW1 Centenary fund" still in existence and unclaimed.)

Whilst Keith's not seemingly negative by intent [I'm sure that is not his intent] his comment is quite possibly the likely current position at IWM

 

But ... for the benefit of the project and all those who worked on it and for all who could get good from it in the future - regardless of potential cynicism, let's all try and keep positive, and keep pushing at IWM

Edited 18 November , 2019 by Matlock1418
addit

[Keith_history_buff]

@Matlock1418, have you thought of starting a new topic, as it appears that you have enough ideas to justify a new thread on improvements you would like to see to the PDM?

[Matlock1418]

52 minutes ago, Keith_history_buff said:

have you thought of starting a new topic, as it appears that you have enough ideas to justify a new thread on improvements you would like to see to the PDM?

Not really wanting to start yet another thread [found at least three] - but it actually seems a good idea to do so with a more specific clear intention in the title

Looked to start one but Centenary Forum seems locked at the moment ??? - have messaged the mods to enquire.

[Keith_history_buff]

I would have thought that Using the technology (Non-GWF questions) would have been more appropriate for a post-Centenary website.

[Matlock1418]

Just now, Keith_history_buff said:

I would have thought that Using the technology (Non-GWF questions) would have been more appropriate for a post-Centenary website.

Was wanting to keep in the same GWF forum/zone 

I thought that Using the technology forum was for discussion about using the GWF technology - perhaps = the Mods are sure to put me straight!

[ss002d6252]

5 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

Was wanting to keep in the same GWF forum/zone 

I thought that Using the technology forum was for discussion about using the GWF technology - perhaps = the Mods are sure to put me straight!

'Using Technology' would be the best place for now. We can always move it at a later date if needed.

 

Craig

[Keith_history_buff]

Your new thread is acknowledged 

 

[spof]

As discussion about this topic is more suited to the new thread, I am locking this one.

 

Glen

GWF Admin Team