There is clearly a problem, or at least a concern, here.
Please note (I feel I must state this in the light of recent actions by Mods - including deletions of my posts, and PMs misinterpreting my motives) that there is
NO criticism of Mods or RC implied or intended in this post - it's just that there is obviously a problem/concern being discussed and it is up to all of us who feel we might be able to contribute ideas to enter into the dialogue.
It's surely not beyond our combined wits - Mods & humble RootsChatters - to manage to work
together to solve this current problem/concern in a way which will help
everybody.
If a RootsChatter very kindly makes a Lookup Offer (especially if it is from an arcane source of which not many RootsChatters will wish to avail themselves), it doesn't seem helpful if the kind RootsChatter making the offer has to spend his/her time searching to find out whether anyone wants his/her help (as described by keenbutconfused)!
On the other hand, the problems arising from lengthy threads developing from multiple lookup requests following on from popular Lookup Offers are a major concern (as described by Arranroots and others).
Barbara, why apologise for coming at the problem from the posters' point of view - after all, you are a poster!
Newf's suggestion that the
logic behind locking Offer threads should be explained on the Offer board is a very good one.
Erato's proposed solution is also good - though I think it is helpful for genealogical correspondence to take place
on the boards rather than by PM.
Perhaps some combination of Newf's and Erato's suggestions might be workable e.g. the Lookup Offers and/or the Lookup Requests boards might say at the top (stickied?) that the person who has made the Offer (because he/she has not posted on the specific
Request thread) will not be notified of a Request and thus might not see it - therefore it would be useful if the person making the new Request were to send a PM alerting the person who made the Offer to the new Request. Just a thought.
Incidentally, I am not active on the Lancashire board but I agree with Gadget that this is a problem of general application. And I should point out that I do keep my eye on Unread Posts in Lancashire because my My Gggfather, James HACKING b Liverpool (son of William b Liverpool, son of James m Liverpool), his wife (Elizabeth BAYES and her father William) and James's & Elizabeth's children all born Liverpool (including Ggfather George HACKING aged 5) left Liverpool in 1850 for Australia.
Regards,
JAP
PS:Arranroots, I'm puzzled by your strictures to Duck re quoting a reason which had been given why Duck's Offer was deleted. It didn't mention the author though it did seem to be from one of the Copyright-Editors. The C-Es (citing insufficient time) don't give specific reasons for edits or deletions (just the rather intimidating, bold and colourful standard replacement text) BUT they have, on specific copyright threads, invited RootsChatters to contact them by PM if they have specific queries about the reasons. Surely, therefore, there can be nothing secret or private about the reason(s) provided by a C-E in response to such a query? What would you suggest? Should the RootsChatter ask the C-E whether the response/reason can be quoted - surely C-E's answer would have to be yes? Should the RootsChatter post saying that the PM request has been made and that the response will be posted unless the C-E refuses permission?
A bit puzzling. Especially as only a day or so ago I received a response from a Mod to a PM of mine - that response, which
quoted my PM, was
copied by the Mod to another RootsChatter (pretty "naughty actually", to use your words eh
.
