The Remembering Today function has proved to be an especially popular feature with a wide range of names, ranks, regiments and cemeteries being represented. We receive many requests from people asking to have a loved one commemorated on the main banner at the top of the page. The names at present are selected in a entirely random fashion, to ensure a wide cross section of the dead are represented.

The proposal is to meet requests for Remembering Today in return for a donation to the Forum; however, we wish to stress at the outset that we mean no disrespect to the Great War generation in suggesting this proposal. The bare facts are that we currently require around £220 per month the keep the GWF online, and here perhaps is an opportunity to combine the needs of members and creditors to mutual satisfaction.

Some are able to donate much more than others, and we do not wish to see a loved one omitted on financial grounds, therefore there will be no minimum donation amount, however a donation must be received in order to have a name added to the database.

Please be assured that names will continue to appear every day, whether requested or drawn at random by Admin, and there will be no distinction between the two on display.

The GWF Team feels this service should be made available to anyone who has been a registered member for three months, irrespective of the number of posts they have made. This might encourage our silent majority to participate, and prevent a stream of new registrations for the sole purpose of requesting a casualty.

If implemented, requests would be taken on a first-come first-served basis. To prevent any arguments or an inundation of requests and any lengthy delays, the 1st July and 11th November will continue to be selected at random by the Admin team.

Advance notice of 2 weeks would be required to ensure members of the team can insert the name into the monthly database on time. To ensure that everyone has the chance to have a name included should they wish one, Pals will be limited to a maximum of two names during any calendar year, however only one donation is required for two names to be added.

It is not intended to include servicemen from non-Commonwealth countries at this time, however this may be reviewed in future should there be a demand.

The Remembering Section will remain in place for those who wish to remember loved ones.

Please PM requests for dates to Matt Dixon, and once a donation has been confirmed the name will be added and a confirmation will be sent to you.

Thanks
The GWF Team

It is, of course, entirely a matter for the Forum Trustees how they operate the site and how they raise the funds. However, on another thread, they do invite comments on this proposal.

I have to say I find this to be an unfortunate and unwelcome retrograde step.

The daily name is the first thing I look at when I log on to the Forum and it is the sheer randomness that makes it such a powerful feature. You never know what nationality a casualty might be, what rank, or what arm of the service. The randomness encapsulates the random nature of death and, for me, encapsulates what I mean when I say “We will remember them” - I am remembering the death of someone completely unknown to me.

This becomes devalued with the commercialisation. If we have to have sponsorship, let it be for a product or service not a man’s memory.

I have to say that I am in agreement with John here. On first joining, I was impressed by the purely random nature of the 'Remembering Today' feature. That said, if this is a requirement to ensure that the Forum remains financially viable, I would support this; furthermore, I would support going the whole hog and allow individuals to join purely to have a relative remembered - unless you promulgate the name of the proposer, it would appear random to me. Moreover, I would sell 1 June and 11 Nov to the highest bidder. It depends on how mercenary the GWF believes they need to be.

I will continue to support the Admin Team whatever their decision.

Roxy

I fully understand the financial pressures on keeping GWF running, but feel this to be a wrong step to take. One of the greatest things to happen after the Great War was to ensure that all men, regardless of rank, seniority, what they had done or how connected or financially well-off they were, were equally commemorated. Could you not keep (that is, go back to) a genuinely random selection (which I believe is no longer the case) AND have a "sponsored" memorial?

It is a completely random selection I assure you.

There have been some good points made here, which no doubt will provoke some debate amongst the Trustees.

and surely the random nature of remembrance itself, and future research.

None of us, with one or occassionally two exceptions, knows whose name will appear in red on any given day. Similarly, as the men themselves did not know who would return to fight another day, none of them could foretell that a forum such as this would exist, linking people around the globe to whom their memory is precious, and the random nature of who might find themselves requested across the years.

Before anyone says 'Ah, but only men who left a family will be chosen' - not so. Names might be requested for a variety of reasons aside from family history.

I'm glad if that is so, Matt - really I am. I understood that once we could not get Terry's random download direct from the CWGC database, a manual selection was involved. How else would General FDV Wing have appeared the other day? Was that sheer chance?

I didn't intend the random-or-not aspect to be the key part of my point above and I'll say no more.

It's not a case of being mercenary, Roxy, we just need to ensure that the forum keeps running. Running costs are of the order of £200 per month. Apart from a very small amount coming in from Amazon, this is entirely from member donations, for which we are very grateful

But as Matt has said, we welcome all thoughts, positive or negative, on this issue

Alan

I do not know the nature of the CWGC random choice. How was it generated? Was it purely random? Could someone explain the process?

Equally, I do not know the nature of the general's death, which may well have occured by sheer chance. I imagine the nature of his selection here was sheer chance for him too.

Put yourself in the position of a man who died 90-odd years ago. Would you know the whos, whys and wherefores of future generations and technologies?

We probably need a statisician to develop these thoughts.

Might I add to Alan's list the availabilty of the GWF badge:

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...5&start=175

Of course, you might have two names mentioned, a random one and a sponsored one.

Edwin

I too am unhappy about the idea of places on a memorial being "for sale"; that you can pay to increase the chances of someone appearing from very small to certain (provided you are quick).

I hope that you can clarify that this is not a "sale in perpetuity", and you have to pay each year and you cannot "pre-book". Otherwise just over 180 people could "buy up the memorial".

If there is an issue of funding, I would like to see other approaches used. We know little about the finances of the forum. We now learn that it costs £220 per month, but we know little about how that is funded. Perhaps the Trustees may consider making a direct approach to say to those of us who have over say 100 posts to our name (or some other measure), and suggest that if the costs were shared across the heavier users the cost would be £X each and how about it? I suspect that £X may be quite low, and if directly approached, many of us many be prepared to contribute more (thereby removing any suggestion of compulsion). But at the moment we have little idea of the scale of the issue at an individual level.

I am almost tempted to pay to stop the privatisation of the memorial!

David

David,

If you look around at, for instance, the headings in the Classified Section, you will see that the £200+ monthly outlay has been posted regularly.

We don't wish to hammer members with this message, and fortunately occassional drives bring in a sudden but short flood of donations which will keep us going for months, which is then extended by a regular trickle of donations.

Perhaps, and I'm thinking aloud here, we should levy charges on the Classified Section, rather than leave it to goodwill, though it may be difficult to compile a scale of charges, given its diverse nature and the fact that donations to the forum are often donated from goods and services offered there.

All,

I regard the change as a very well intentioned one but a wrong step.

Indeed, I am not tempted but actually willing to pay to stop the privatisation of the memorial.

As David proposes, perhaps the trustees could consider the alternative of meeting the minimum funding requirement from the 100+ users by calculating an average monthly cost and then directly contacting those users - clearly you would have to aim higher than the minimum as not everyone would able (or indeed willing) to make the requested contributions - as I say my answer to such an approach would be positive.

Best regards,

Ian.

David - as mentioned above, I can tell you exactly how it is funded - a trickle from Amazon, donations and badge sales. There may be a small surplus from the conference too.

There is nothing else

Alan

So, what are we looking at?

Costs per year of £220*12 = £2640
less "trickles" etc., say ... 140 (keep the maths simple)
leaving deficit to fund ... £2500

We have about 28,000 members, let's assume less than 10% are active say 2,500
perhaps of those, 20% are highly active (say, have more than X posts in total or more than Y posts in the last year) - on average £5 from each of 500 active members would do it. (Assuming my maths is in the right ball park - we (the PBI) don't know!).

In two years of "membership", I don't think I have ever received a polite direct request (e.g. via PM or email) with the above sort of argument laid out and a request to consider a £5 donation - or better still £10 or £20 to take account of those who either can't (or won't) donate.

Why not try; you might be surprised?

David

Please cause a space to be inserted after the colon in "Remembering Today:" at the top of the forum page. It is these small attention to detail kind of things that make GWF superior to most non-commercial and non-government websites and forums.

Pete - done (and well spotted!)

I can't say I am comfortable with the linking of Remembering Today with donations - it just doesn't feel right making the link.

While the intentions were good - it would be far better either to follow David's idea of an agreed regular annual donation from the hardcore members - or make the Amazon link far more prominent. If we could route a fraction of the Forum members' purchases through here, it must make a dent in the running costs.

If we can get agreement from a sufficient number of members to spread the annual cost via a committed donation - I would sign up.

Brian

Quote from post No.1: To prevent any arguments or an inundation of requests and any lengthy delays, the 1st July and 11th November will continue to be selected at random by the Admin team.

If this plan is to go ahead, then can I ask the Admin Team to consider adding a third date to the above – 25th April

regards
Michael

I don't think you can differentiate between particular days - every casualty deserves remembrance - quantity does not make that day anymore significant.

Brian

Agreed, if I am to be given the opportunity to pay to prevent anyone else being commemorated on say 26 April (for that is the effect of "buying the memorial for the day"), why shouldn't someone else have the same right to blot out 25th April, 1st July, 11 November etc.?

Once you accept that "remembering today" can be bought, the day is irrelevant.

David

Agreed, David.

But some of us now seem to be considering buying a day so it can remain a random choice on that day. I'm not sure I'm any less uncomfortable with that than a day being bought for a specific name. It is the principle of remembrance being for sale that is the issue?

John

My donations are modest, and occasional, but having thought about the subscriptions that I pay to other organisations I would be happy to set up a standing order so that they could become predictable, and would help the treasurer in planning the future. I am sure that many others would take a similar view.

Like others, I feel uncomfortable to say the least about the new policy and would like to see it withdrawn.

Perhaps the donations page could be amended to provide a link to a standing order form. In the past as a treasurer of other organisations I have found that making such forms widely available paid off handsomely.

Keith

All,

I have considered posting a separate thread asking forum members to indicate their willingness to pay a fixed periodic amount as an alternative means to fund the GWF and to stop this change. However, I decided that it would be an unreasonable (and crass) reaction to this thread because in spite of my opposition to the "Changes to Remembering Today" I can both understand and respect the good intentions of the trustees. Moreover, I can readily see that the need to create a viable and sufficient funding mechanism cannot and should not be ignored.

Therefore, will the trustees please consider polling the Forum on this issue? I would hope that we could more accurately gauge the majority view and all act accordingly. It would, I expect, have to be made clear that the impact of a no vote on this change would have to be backed up by a viable alternative means of funding the Forum - hence the additional poll options.

In that regard I think that Keith Roberts makes an excellent suggestion as regards a standing order or direct debit mandate. I do the latter on a monthly basis for the RBL, I cannot imagine any difficulty for the Forum trustees in setting up either mechanism.

Just purely of the top of my head, so not fully thought and better minds than mine will surely propose cleaner poll options I admit, I can think of four poll options along the lines of:

Poll: Changes to Remembering Today and Funding the GWF.
The trustees have proposed Changes to Remembering Today as a primary means of meeting the ongoing funding requirements of the GWF

1. I support the change as a means of funding the GWF
2. I do not support the change as a means of funding the GWF
3. I support the change as a means of funding the GWF - and I am willing to set-up a standing order or direct debit mandate to help fund the GWF.
4. I do not support the change as a means of funding the GWF - and I am willing to set-up a standing order or direct debit mandate to help fund the GWF as alternative means of funding.

The idea being that you pick the option that best fits your opinion

What do you think?

Ian.

Chris,
Wing's inclusion was purely random, as they all are. I prepared October's Rembering today selection and the intention was to give a total cross section of people who died in this month, General, Private or Labourer. As well as Wing you will find a Chinese Labourer, an Indian Labourer an assistant waitress, an Australian, Canadian a New Zealander and so on in order to show the entire range of casualties during this month, there is also another officer to come. As Wing was of General's rank, and I have not seen to many General's in the remembering today I thought it apt and assisted in showing the extent of the casualties suffered by all ranks.
A manual selection is needed these days, which I am sure that you are well aware, can be a time consuming business

Andy

LIke Keith, I'm an occasional donor - but have always responded on the occasions when the owners have appealed for funds to keep us going. In times gone by, when Chris was the owner, there was page on his website which indicated the financial health of the GWF. I'd like to see something similar before I committed myself to make regular payments - is the current system so broke that it actually needs fixing?

It just strikes me as odd that the owners have come up with this idea yet, for example, the "classified advert" section remains free.

That doesn't sound truly random, Andy - it sounds like random generation of names in the first instance, followed by selection of names that suit your 'intention'. A truly random statistical sample of the CWGC database would surely throw up about 25 British infantry privates and perhaps 5 others.

With the enormous bias of the forum towards the British infantry*, it seems likely that this range of casualties will not continue in future. However philanthropic some people may be, I can't see the Chinese/Indian labourers and the assistant waitress ever putting in another appearance. I feel it's unfortunate that this new scheme will over-rule the range of the casualties remembered.

Sue

*an observation, not necessarily a criticism

OK, the next time it is my turn to generate the remembering today shall I just take the first name out of a random generation rather than try to show all ranks and nations commemorated by the CWGC, or maybe 1st name for the 1st day, 2nd name for the 2nd day and so on. This was done not to take away anything from any one man or woman who died on any one particular day but to give a cross section, maybe this way I will keep my 'INTENTION' out of the mix for you, if that suits.

My only objection was to the pretence that the selection process is truly random. I am all in favour of highlighting the contributions of small contingents and minority groups, but not to the point where they seem to overshadow and obscure the far greater sacrifice of the statistical majority.

I have the list for November and December and I assure you there is a wide mix of ranks, regiments and nationalities represented.

Most of the comments thus far have been directed to the Admin Team.

What do you have to say to fellow members who requested implementation of the new service?

Kate,

I would say the following:

I understand the desire for such a service but respectfully disagree with the change, primarily for the reasons already outlined by John Hartley (post #2) and Chris Baker (post #4). I would also add that the Remembering Today feature is, for me, one of the most important features of the GWF website because of the very fact that it is presently randomly generated and no one casualty has a greater chance of being featured than any other.

However, without (I hope) being contradictory, I think that the suggestion from Edwin Astill to have both a random and sponsored name to be a good one as my objection is based on a sponsored name replacing the randomly generated one. If there could be both (with the sponsored one clearly labelled as such) then I think (and most others?) that I could have no reasonable objection.

I also consider my earlier post (#25) requesting for a poll to be set to be directed at both the Admin Team and the fellow members who both did and did not request the service in order that a wider consensus view be formed.

Best regards,

Ian.

Thankyou for that Ian.

I posed the question at post 33 because there seems to be an idea that this is a whim, dreamt-up and imposed on the membership by the nasty Admin Team; whereas it is actually a response to regular requests. Personally, I would welcome your poll, as outlined in post 25.

However, I would like to throw something else into the thread. Scant reference has been made to the Remembering Them forum, which is regularly used, and free for all. I realise entries there are not made at random, but the name is random to you and I because we do not know who or when someone will appear.

Can I add another thought. Remembrance is entirely personal. It is something I and many of us here do every day in our various ways, because we are researchers, and / or simply obsessed by the Great War. Yes, those who paid the ultimate sacrifice should be uppermost in our thoughts, but (speaking personally) my thoughts also rest with those who carried wounds through a lifetime, with those who gave and came through, with their families, and this applies to people of all combattant nations.

Perhaps, and this is again only a personal opinion (not policy, lest anyone feels irked) they deserve a mention in red too. The war was global, and The Great War Forum, though overwhelmingly populated by members from the British Commonwealth, has an international membership.

Kate

I would say to them:

"Please read the contributions I've made to this thread. I understand why you might want to be able to pay to have a name commemorated but, for the reasons I've outlined, I strongly disagree with you and hope that the owners will change their mind and not go down the route you'd like them to."

John

The poll is now available here

Thanks Kate.

Best regards,

Ian.

I ticked the first box, however had a choice to vote on a box that said,

I want the changes and don't wish to set up a direct debit but I am willing to send money when the call goes out, I would have ticked that box. A lot of folk dont trust direct debits or standing orders but wish to help the forum when it comes to money as shown when the call goes out for donations the money comes forward. I am looking forward to the new REMEMBERED TODAY feature and will be helping. Could you make it clear on the forum if there will be more than one name on a date i.e 2 brothers died on the same date, will it be able to show both names, it would be a shame for one to be rememembered and the other not. A sort of rolling names would be ideal if there were more than 1, just a thought,

Kevin

I have voted and I'm not bothered about keeping my vote private, I have voted for the second option I am totally against the idea and for the reasons stated above by Ian, John Hartley an Chris Baker.

Regards

Stephen

Me too
Tafski

I'm with you Stephen

Neil

I voted against the change. I actually think that the means or choice about supporting the forum financially should be kept separate from the content all the way.

Keith

I will, having suggested the possibility, however be making a quarterly, and modest standing order. If times became hard, like others I would also respond, but this must not be an either or issue. The question is about the option of buying the "remembering today " slot.

Not many votes cast yet

Roxy

Lets hope more people do and vote against the change, because if this gets pushed through it will be a very sad day for the forum.

Stephen

It's an open vote. Nothing will be 'pushed through'.

Andy

In which case, could you please clarify the intent of the poll.

Is this a "non-binding consultation" with board users or a "vote" on which the trustees feel bound to act in line with the majority view - even if, as now, only a tiny percentage of even the active membership have expressed an opinion one way or the other?

John

If anything was going to be forced through, why would we have created a Poll to find out what people wanted?

I'm quite surprised that if it was going to be such a "sad day", you didn't come and say anything about it yesterday at the meeting. (I would have come and spoken to you had I known you were there)

I voted in support of the new proposals, not because I have any wish to nominate someone to 'remember' but because I feel that maintaining the financial viability of the Forum is more important than the way the daily name is chosen. I realise that I've come to hold rather different views on commemoration than many, but if the Forum doesn't survive, a great deal will be lost, of which this feature is a rather small part.

However, what surprises me is how few people have voted in the poll. Is this a sign of lack of interest, and if so, how many people are actually going to continue to support the new feature after an initial show of support? Or is it because the poll is hidden away in a place not visited by many, and the only link is in one posting on another thread in the same area? Perhaps the poll should be moved - it's a change to the Forum as a whole, so why not get it out of the 'Remembering' area and visible to everybody wherever they are on the Forum. Maybe then a true idea of the level of interest will be obvious. If it's still very low, maybe that's a bad sign both for Remembering Today, and also for the Forum finances.

Sue

That's my fault I'm afraid, by the time I was thinking I must introduce myself you had to leave. If time hadn't run away with me I would have introduced myself and certainly spoke to you about this matter.

Stephen