…Thought I was seeing things…I tried to find the “Railroads” location at the top of the page and could only find “General Discussion”…Was beginning to wonder…
Then I noticed the 3:20 time of creation and felt better…
I thought the same thing. After reading the sticky note at the top of the page, it looks like a good addition to the forum.[tup]
Threw me a curve too…but I fouled it off.
| Well since I dont look everyday like I did before I retired, I must have missed something…I thot I had been sent to a different mag. or something …Im not sure about it yet…Danny |
|---|
I’m not so sure this is an improvement. I liked the “Trains” forum because it covered everything in one place, while others like railfan.net, are so fragmented. Now I have to check three sections to the forum each time to cover all my interests (general, transit, and passenger). Oh well, we will see how it goes.
Another forum/board I’m on occasionally moves topics from the general discussion type board to more specific topic areas when appropriate - say, another GE vs EMD thread started on GD gets moved to Locomotives…
I’m sure I’ll stop into general discussion the most, with an occasional foray into the more specific topics, especially if I’m following a specific thread.
You say tomaTOE and I say tomato, you say potaTOE and I say potato…whatever trips your trigger.
I don’t see any advantage of fragmenting into narrowly focused topic categories. On one hand, it may seem more orderly, but there is a downside to it as well. It is fine for those who want to start a discussion about a specific topic they have in mind. But many people who are inspired to contribute to a discussion would not even have thought about it prior to seeing the discussion. Those spontaneous contributions will not occur when the discussions are pigeon-holed into numerous, specific categories, unless they are all checked out by every member during every visit; and that will not be the case. The majority of members will just peruse the main general section because they are not looking for anything specific.
I post on another forum that also has topic categories for everything under the sun. Yet all the action is in the main “breaking news” section, and all the little pigeonholes are largely ignored because the users don’t want to take the time to check them with every visit. Besides that, the moderators will move a post they disagree with to a tighter focus category under the pretext of making a better fit for the topic. Of course, the controversial post then dies for lack of visibility. New posts under these narrow focused topic categories often go nowhere. Generally equivalent posts placed under the main heading, “Breaking news,” attract dozens of
NO!
I am not Dan Quayle!! I do not say Potatoe…
I’m also not sure if I like the thread chasing much.
As an aside to Bergie, I understand there is a Steak & Shake near St. Marys, Georgia and a couple of short lines nearby as well. Do I sense a story opportunity? Perhaps a photo op?
LC
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
I don’t see any advantage of fragmenting into narrowly focused topic categories. On one hand, it may seem more orderly, but there is a downside to it as well. It is fine for those who want to start a discussion about a specific topic they have in mind. But many people who are inspired to contribute to a discussion would not even have thought about it prior to seeing the discussion. Those spontaneous contributions will not occur when the discussions are pigeon-holed into numerous, specific categories, unless they are all checked out by every member during every visit; and that will not be the case. The majority of members will just peruse the main general section because they are not looking for anything specific.
I post on another forum that also has topic categories for everything under the sun. Yet all the action is in the main “breaking news” section, and all the little pigeonholes are largely ignored because the users don’t want to take the time to check them with every visit. Besides that, the moderators will move a post they disagree with to a tighter focus category under the pretext of making a better fit for the topic. Of course, the controversial post then dies for lack of visibility. New posts under these narrow focused topic categories often go nowhere. Generally equivalent posts placed under the main heading, "Breaking news,&
…My thought in understanding this new format, perhaps one might come back thinking he will find a certain subject on this forum as he always has and miss it completely if it has been “moved”…Not really thinking to look somewhere else for it.
Well, it is obvious to me you never hear the old song from which this line about patato or tamatoe is taken (see below for entire song lyrics), so I will now take the final line from that song and suggest “let’s call the whole thing off”.
Song: Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off Lyrics
You say “either” and I say “either”
You say “neither” I say “neither”
“Either” “either”, “neither” “neither”
Let’s call the whole thing off
You say “potato,” I say “patattah”
You say “tomato”, I say “creole tomata”
Oh, let’s call the whole thing off
Oh, if we call the whole thing off
Then we must part and oh
If we ever part, that would break my heart
So, I say “ursta” you say “oyster”
I’m not gonna stop eatin’ urstas just cause you say oyster,
Oh, let’s call the whole thing off
Oh, I say “pajamas”, you say “pajamas”
Sugar, what’s the problem?
Oh, for we know we need each other so
We’d better call the calling off off
So let’s call it off, oh let’s call it off
Oh, let’s call it off, baby let’s call it off
Sugar why don’t we call it off,
I’m talking baby why call it off
Call it off¡
Le
It just means you’ll have to open three windows in your browser instead of the one when you log in to the site. That way you can still cut and paste quotes from one thread into another if such is relevant. Just make sure to reference which section you got it from.
[:O] You mean I can’t just make this stuff up?[;)]
You can continue to make up stuff all you want.[:-,]
But say we have a situation where we’re talking about…oh, let’s see, something that has a cross sectional characteristic, oh! I know…modern steam locomotives to avoid using foreign sources of oil. In the other section they might be discussing how the T1 could have beaten diesels if it had gone further into development. In this one we might be discussing what type of modern steam could allow lower cost operation than diesel. If one posts something in the former that has merit for discussion in the latter, we can cut and paste it. But then it might confuse some people who can’t find that quote in the GD section, which may bring on charges of “making it up”. But if we reference it from the other section, then everyone’s happy.
[(-D] I get it! I get it! Don’t turn into the Washington Madman on me.[:P]
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
I don’t see any advantage of fragmenting into narrowly focused topic categories. On one hand, it may seem more orderly, but there is a downside to it as well. It is fine for those who want to start a discussion about a specific topic they have in mind. But many people who are inspired to contribute to a discussion would not even have thought about it prior to seeing the discussion. Those spontaneous contributions will not occur when the discussions are pigeon-holed into numerous, specific categories, unless they are all checked out by every member during every visit; and that will not be the case. The majority of members will just peruse the main general section because they are not looking for anything specific.
I post on another forum that also has topic categories for everything under the sun. Yet all the action is in the main “breaking news” section, and all the little pigeonholes are largely ignored because the users don’t want to take the time to check them with every visit. Besides that, the moderators will move a post they disagree with to a tighter focus category under the pretext of making a better fit for the topic. Of course, the controversial post then dies for lack of visibility. New posts under these narrow focused topic categories often go nowhere. Generally equivalent posts placed under the main heading, "Breaking news,&
Did I miss it or has there been no explanation of the advantage of subdividing the forum? If there is an advantage, I cannot see what it is. One of the problems from having too many places to put things is that it is sometimes difficult to decide which place is best.
Here is a question: When someone starts a new thread, are they free to place it in the general discussion even though there is a specific sub-category forum available for it? Or is the general discussion only for threads that don’t fit into the sub-categories? I have noticed that some threads that started out in the general discussion forum a week or so ago have been moved to sub-categories.
This forum change will work right when all the old posts are sorted out by category and moved to the right category. Who has that responsibilty?
Andrew
This is getting as confusing as IRS regulations…