Since the ACR has been brought up and referenced several times in this discussion, I would just like to point out that the ACR was not created with the purpose of being able to stop anyone from mislabeling stuff or to control labeling standards for classifieds or auctions or shows. It seems like this is a central theme in the discussions I've read about getting a registry going for leos, and I wanted it to be noted that the ACR is not involved in any way in setting, establishing, maintaining, enforcing, encouraging, or discouraging any standards.
The ACR was created with the goal of building a family tree. It is a communication tool, just like this forum or the BOI, except that it uses a different format (such as the checkboxes) so that the information to be communicated uses a language that's as simple and common as possible, and can be easily written and read. As long as people can use it to participate in putting their snakes into the family tree, IMO it is a success.
A lot of people are fanatics about keeping breeding records for their colony, but this only benefits the individual who has access to those records. With the ACR, everyone who participates is able to keep their records AND tie them together with everyone else's records. Without the ACR someone could go buy a Lava from Seller A who tells Buyer B that they bought it from Breeder C, and Seller A's verbal assurance that Breeder C told them that it originated in Joe Pierce's stock and is possible het for anery. Or if they're lucky they might even be able to get all of that in writing from Seller A after emailing them and asking for information. With an ACR certificate they can instead look in the database and view the family tree all the way back through a multitude of breeders and owners, down to the wild caughts that started the line, and also "sideways" to see cousins and siblings and other related snakes. It isn't seventeenth-hand hearsay that may have been lost in translation or forgotten on the way back from the show, it is first-hand information directly from the source. That right there is cool, and that's what the ACR is all about.
I think that one of the reasons so many have decided to use the ACR is because there is nobody telling anyone else how they can or cannot label anything. Nobody has to surrender control of morph names or morph labels or any kind of "standards" to a third party in order to participate in the ACR.
I don't believe that the BOI would succeed if Rich decided that he was going to go through and re-write peoples' posts to say what he thought the poster meant to say, or what he thinks the poster should say, or if Rich decided he was going to use it to set standards of how people are supposed to do business, what forms of currency they will accept, what their TOS should be, how they handle refunds or specific shipping problems, etc. The BOI relies on peer review and does not set standards of doing business. It allows the community to gather in one place and do that as a whole.
By the same token, the ACR does not in any way tell people how they can or cannot describe their snakes. If someone wants to register a normal cornsnake as a "sunglow" they can do so. When the record is being processed, they will get an "are you sure?" email to confirm that is how they want it entered, but as long as it is not R-rated, we do not control what anyone puts in. We also don't take any responsibility for the truthfulness or accuracy of any record, which (based on what has been said in this thread) the LGR does.
What we do provide as a third party is not control, but the same thing as a notary: we can confirm that a record was indeed entered by such and such a person in such and such a way because we have the paper trail pointing back to them. It is up to peer review whether or not that data is "true."
Again, I just wanted to point out, since the ACR is being used as a model for comparison, that this is IMO a key difference between the two.
I love your Avatar, Paul.