From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Richard Smith   
    writes:   
   >On 31/07/18 22:04, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   >   
   >> I can think of three possibles:   
   >> 1. the administration of such a scheme (handling of credit card details,   
   >> etc.) might cost more than it raises.   
   >   
   >I know this isn't true as I've designed and implemented similar   
   >donations systems outside genealogy and the administrative costs have   
   >proved small compared to the amount of money passing through the   
      
   Good to hear. (Although I suspect the amounts of money involved in a lot   
   of crowdfunding are based on hopes of [financial] return - things like   
   investing in a potential business.)   
      
   >system.  On one of the systems I'm involved with, the average donation   
   >size is about £3.50; on a register transcript system, I'd envisage a   
   >minimum pledge of around £5, meaning costs would be proportionately   
   >lower.   
      
   I'd imagined genealogists as probably being willing to commit to _less_   
   than potential investors, though I'd like to be wrong (I think).   
   >   
   >> 2. There might be something written into the articles of association (or   
   >> whatever) of FreeXXX that prevents their taking any money.   
   >>   
   >> 3. There might be some interfering clause in the numerous contracts   
   >> between the various archives, Ancestry, FindMyPast, and/or other entity   
   >> that blocks it.   
   >   
   >If either of these are the case, which I doubt, it could be run   
   >entirely independently of FreeReg.  If either FreeReg or one of the   
   >data providers wanted to prevent volunteers from receiving payment for   
   >their work from third parties it would have to be in the agreement that   
   >volunteers commit to when signing up, but there's no such language   
   >there.  Absent that, I can't see how such a restriction would be   
   >enforceable.  But I also can't see why any of the parties involved   
   >would want to stop volunteers from accepting payment.   
   >   
   I wasn't thinking anyone objecting to volunteers getting money (let's   
   assume just 3, not 2 - as you say somewhere, that could be got round by   
   running independently if there _is_ any such clause). I was thinking   
   more of, seen in the worst light, dog-in-the-manger clauses, or in best   
   light, protection of investment: any sort of exclusivity arrangement   
   with Ancestry or FMP (or others, but I think those two together swamp   
   all others), saying nobody can get at a particular set of records but   
   them. Such agreements are regrettable, but I think those in charge of   
   some records feel obliged to sign them as a condition of getting the   
   records digitised and transcribed by the big boys. (For example, until   
   very recently FMP had sole control of all access to the 1939 register,   
   AFAIK. I don't know if any other - say - parish record holders have made   
   similar arrangements; I suspect some have, though don't actually try   
   hard to publicise the fact.)   
   []   
   >Trying to think of reasons why this might not work, the main ones I can   
   >come up with are:   
   >   
   >1. There aren't enough genealogist who would be willing to sponsor a   
   >transcript to make it worthwhile.   
      
   I fear that may indeed be the stumbling block: for 5 pounds, I suspect   
   many potential sponsors would want to ensure that the record(s) they are   
   after would be covered, so I suspect some at least would want to specify   
   a year sub-range, or if you set it up so that that can't be done (i. e.   
   it's for the entire available range of a given parish), would want to   
   set a time-limit.   
   >   
   >2. The volunteer transcribers are actively disinterested in accepting   
   >payment.   
   >   
   >3. Paying volunteers could result in greater numbers of less able   
   >volunteers, resulting in a poor quality of transcript.   
   >   
   >I think you could build in measures to mitigate each of these concerns.   
   >   
   >In case (1), the scheme really only becomes worthwhile if you have   
   >several pledges (or one large pledge) for some of the parishes.  That   
   >works best if people pledge for quite a few parishes, but they may not   
   >be able to afford to pledge that much.  You could mitigate this by   
   >allow people to pledge money to the first N parishes to be completed   
   >from of a longer list of parishes.   
      
   Sounds good - though complicated!   
   >   
   >I think you can mitigate case (2) by making it easy to nominate a   
   >charity to receive the donation instead of accepting it yourself.   
      
   Indeed.   
   >   
   >You can mitigate case (3) with technical measures, such as double   
   >entering the register and checking them against each other.  (I think   
   >FreeReg does this anyway: certainly FreeBMD does.)  Only award the   
      
   Yes, I was going to say that ...   
      
   >money if this shows the transcript to be of a suitably high quality.   
      
   ... though hadn't thought of making it conditional on quality! I'm glad   
   I'm not the only one to be cynical.   
   >   
   >I'm pleased you think it sounds like a good idea!   
      
   It also sounds like a huge amount of work to set up. But I hope you   
   succeed!   
   >   
   >Richard   
   >   
   How would you set up the "menu" - the "here is what's awaiting   
   transcription" list? In particular, would you state what the year   
   range(s) potentially available are, or only the parish names?   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)