In a message dated 8/29/2008 4:11:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
Again, the larger problem here, to me, is that it's unclear Find A Grave is free content.>>
------------------ But of couse that goes back to your desire that we should be promoting free content in a way that "quality" content is not. Personally I think our readers would be more inclined to favor us, if we were to promote the highest standards of quality, not just the free-est ones.
Find-a-grave is free in the sense that a reader doesn't have to pay to use it, and an editor doesn't have to pay to edit it. As to whether its free in the sense that the contents can be copied and re-hosted elsewhere, or sold for a profit, I'm not sure.
I'm a bit ambivalent about templating find-a-grave. On the one hand, it's nice to promote sites which aim to be, or have the potential to be, comprehensive (even if they are not currently), and sites which allow readers free-access to all the content. I would, for example have been against a template for EB except their new policy allowing deep-linking direct-to-content for "bloggers" (which means any online mass linker in their view). I would be against any template for JSTOR for example or Lexis-Nexis or Ancestry which all require payment.
On the other hand, I can't help but wonder where the line would be drawn toward this sort of "preferential" (if you will) approach. Template for Rootsweb's World Connect? Template for Marvel Universe ? Template for Huffington Post Articles ?
I'm not sure how we'd justify some against others. Or do we need to? Just allow the free creation of any priveledged link that can stand scrutiny.
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)