Das Werk LARC-V Early Version | Armorama™ - Site Content Discussions / Armorama - KitMaker Network
Why has this been posted here rather than in either the cold war/Vietnam/Modern Armor sections???
Maybe because it is a news item?
1 Like
And why would a “news item” appear here rather than under the subject/topic heading that most pertains to this “news”.
This “section” appears to me as a totally unorganized “dog’s breakfast” of topics.
All news items appear under the Site Content Discussions Forum. That is how Jim wants it and that is how it is going to be. Time to get over it.
2 Likes
If this were just “news items” then first of all the section should be labeled as such.
Even as “news items” the posts should then appear both here AND in the particular sub-topic it pertains to.
Many (I would say most) of the posts in this section are not “news” but simply discussions of a particular model or modeling aspect and should therefore be placed within the specific topic heading and not here.
I apologize for asking/expecting there to be some actual logical order to this website.
But then what do I know?
- I am just a 10+ year customer/user/contributor
- 50+ year scale modeler
- 20 years in marketing, technical copy writing, design & editing for a Fortune 500 Company
- An additional 8 years in the printing & graphic design industry
- 10 years in GPS mapping for the State of Kentucky
- Some webpage design experience
- Some computer programming experience
- Way more than a little Engineering experience (Electrical/Mechanical)
It embarrasses me to have to show you my resume but I feel it is necessary given the strength of Gino’s reply to me. I will remove this portion after a few days posting.
Oh and now I see Uncle-Heavy is replying so I had better ring off and see what he has to say.
aaannnnd …
in the old forum the News-posts and similar were listed as site related content and there was a check box that had to be checked in each forum to make those posts visible. That little checkmark could drop out and then all news were hidden until one figured out what had happened.
Well that certainly all sounds logical - NOT
Get.
Over.
It.
Resistance.
Is.
Futile.
Live with it or don’t live with it, your choice.
1 Like
I believe I have already chosen or else we would not be having this conversion.
The title “Site Content Discussion Forum” would seem to indicate that we are about to have a discussion either about something that has already appeared elsewhere in the forum or a discussion about the inner workings of the Armorama site itself.
Now Robin get out your Webster’s and your Encyclopedia Britannia and prove me wrong on basic word definitions here.
This “Site Content Discussion Forum” is in large part a “dog’s breakfast” of items that really should be filed to appear elsewhere on the site.
An article praising a beautifully done King Tiger model or critiquing a Sherman diorama DOES NOT belong here! I am simply trying to point out disorder on the site in an attempt to create order where none now exists.
Now if you want this to be a “news” section fine, then make it about NEWS.
But even then each “news” item needs to appear in both this section AND the actual subject section it pertains to.
Example: the new DES US trailer resin kit: Now that IS news but why then would it not also appear in the WWII Allied forum? That is IF our intent really is to “get the word out” and not something else.
My contention would be that the best place for the DES news is IN the forum section it best applies to under a label “NEW PRODUCT; DES WWII Trailer”
Doing this would increase the information value of the Forums themselves and halt this habit of burying all these miscellaneous items here where they may or may not get seen.
Yes, yes, Robin I know you profess to look at EVERYTHING and as an administrator that MIGHT be within you job description but to think that the rest of us (users) operate this way would be false thinking.
I spend the greatest amount of my time in the “WWII Allied” and the “WWII Axis” sections because that is my primary area of interest. WHY would I or WHY should I have to go looking in the “Site Discussion” section for things that might or MIGHT NOT pertain to my area of interest.
My contention is that the current editorial arrangement of this part of the site is illogical and actually serves to block (or at least hamper) the flow of information through the site itself.
I am just trying to get you guys to look at something here that you may have taken for granted all this time. In other words perhaps, just perhaps you are not seeing the forest for all the trees. And it may take an outsider who actually uses the site on a daily basis to see a potential problem invisible to the admin staff/
You really need to take this up with Staff_Jim in a private message. We have no power to change this and it is how Jim wants it. It is his site, he makes the rules.
1 Like
It has been discussed with Jim and the current setup will not change.
End of story.
1 Like
The ‘Site content’ is the content on the various sites,
for instance Armorama. Armorama is a lot more than the Armorama forum and sub-forums.
This is Armorama:
It can be found here: https://armorama.com/
This is the Armorama forum:
The red arrow shows how to get to the Armorama site, i.e. back
to https://armorama.com.
The Armorama forum is here:
Armor/AFV - KitMaker Network
Note that the two URL’s are different, the only pieces of text they have in common
are https:// and armor.
The site content that is supposed to be discussed in the ‘Site Content Discussions’ forum
is the news and other site content that is being published at the Armorama site.
Arguing about the layout, structure or site logic inherited from discourse does NOT belong in
the site content discussions since those other aspects are not ‘content’.
Unfortunately there is no convenient flag, at least that I know about, for you to use to avoid being bothered by the posts in ‘Site Content Discussions’. The only advice I can give you in the current situation is to refrain from opening those posts and instead go to the Armorama site and view the content there. You may miss out on the discussions that may or may not be caused by the site content.
The discussions about the site content will continue to take place in the ‘Site Content Discussions’ forum which is where they belong (regardless of your opinion about it).
Cordially / Robin
Says you - but in the end perhaps clearer heads may prevail.
Sorry Hanns but I am the monkey in the wrench here.
I am only attempting to improve the site not tear it down.
Submitted for your approval (or disapproval) but (IMHO) the organization in this one area of the site is illogical and hampers the operation.
Says you as well. In the end, Jim will prevail since he owns the site and this is how he wants it. Simple as that.
2 Likes
Jim’s is the “clearer head” I was referring to.
I certainly am not referring to my own!
Jim’s is the only opinion that really matters here and I am simply trying to influence that opinion. So what is wrong with that? Sorry you don’t like the way I choose to go about it. I must admit I have gotten that comment regarding my methods more than a few times in my life.
Couldn’t agree more.
You just go ahead with your monkey business and check out just how far the monkeying around will get you.
I did tell you about the Ignore-feature didn’t I?
Awfully useful in some cases …
By my Bruce Willis reference you also may glean that the “nuisance” is the one who ends up saving the day.
Put that in your Urban Dictionary that apparently fails to take into account the usage of the expression as used in the movie “Die Hard.” That’s a fairly “Urban Reference” if you ask me.
Quote from that link:
" monkey in the wrench was first used in the movie Die Hard in 1988. In the film, the hero is a cop trapped in a highrise building full of terrorists. After killing several of them, he talks to their leader via a cb radio. When the villain asks who he is, he states,
“Just a fly in the ointment Hans, a monkey in the wrench, a pain in the ass.”
by Bobby White June 30, 2008"
Just go on dreaming about changing how the news items appear.
Oh, so on you second attempt you DID find the reference to my quotation.
I am trying to improve things here. To add a bit of logic and order to something i think is in disarray.
I would ask just what it is you are trying to accomplish here as you support the status quo rather than even considering/weighting the value of what is being said here.
Perhaps it is you Robin who are actually the monkey in the wrench.
(Your first definition and not the second.)