RE: [Killietalk] Re: Killie Registry

["Kray, Edd" <Edd_Kray at rf.doe.gov>]

OPINION and you're all free to disagree.

I think the new registry is a poor substitute for the F&E Classified we
set up last year.

Apparently, from the mail recently received. Members do not even
understand its purpose. Is it a species registry? Is it an online F&EL?
If you have to explain it ten time on killietalk, it is too complicated
an unclear to the membership (and non-members on killietalk too).
Additionally, although it is supposed to function as an online
classifieds, nothing in its name or title, indicates that to anyone
logging onto the website.

The fact that so FEW fish are offered for sale on the registry is also
evidence that it is confusing and not performing its function
effectively.

My OPINION is that we go back to the "Classifieds" website function as
it was set up last year.  (a separate species registry could be there to
perform the specific function of AKA inventory, functions 2 and 3 below)
The membership clamored for the classifieds for years and now it's been
essentially set aside and replaced by this confusing registry that
no-one seems to understand.



-----Original Message-----
From: killietalk-bounces+edd_kray=rf.doe.gov at aka.org
[mailto:killietalk-bounces+edd_kray=rf.doe.gov at aka.org] On Behalf Of
Barry Cooper
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 8:49 PM
To: killifish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Killietalk] Re: Killie Registry

As Dennis Heltzel and I have explained, there are two major purposes for

the Killie Registry. One is to allow members to list what they are 
keeping, indicating whether they are for sale or not. In other words, it

serves as an online F&El and replaces the Classifieds that we used to 
have. The second purpose is the serve as a census of killies being kept 
by members. That will only work if the majority of members list their 
holdings. Knowing that some members don't want everyone to be able to 
see their listing, the member is able to tag the visibility of the 
listing, to everyone, to AKA members only, or to the Species Maintenance

Committee only. Using the last will allow that committee to compile 
useful lists of what is in the hobby and to flag what is at risk. Again,

it will only work if people participate and I hope they will.

A third, but unofficial, use for the registry is to provide a ready 
reference for valid species names and locations. For the former we are 
using KMI IV, but we'll make adjustments on the advice of the AKA's 
nomenclature committee, chaired by KMI's author, Ken Lazara. We want to 
keep location names as accurate as possible, so we will ask for some 
supporting evidence when requests are received to add new ones. I'm 
working on a couple now, so those who submitted them, please be patient.

Barry

Kenneth Combs wrote:

> 
>Did I miss something? Is the registries purpose more than a
>buyer/sellers list? Has the idea of a database of a "all members
>stocklist" been proposed before? (something that includes stock
sources,
>reference photos, ect)...
>Also, apologies to all for the previous long rants, I re-read em (kinda
>wish I had'nt even posted :\), just a release of pent up fustration
over
>the maddening naming conventions, questionable aquabid purchases, and
>conservation concerns...I keep thinking theres gotta be a way to align
>(or separate) all of the sorted goals; hobby, commercial and
>conservation...
>
>KC
>ken_combs at sbcglobal.net
>
>
>
>
>To join the AKA see http://www.aka.org/pages/join.html
>Archives are at http://fins.actwin.com/killietalk/
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Barry J. Cooper
Sweet Home, OR 97386


To join the AKA see http://www.aka.org/pages/join.html
Archives are at http://fins.actwin.com/killietalk/


To join the AKA see http://www.aka.org/pages/join.html
Archives are at http://fins.actwin.com/killietalk/