Myrtle Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 Not wishing to add to your stress levels Andrew, but I would like to point out that the section titled "Women" will not be easily found when placed in "At Home". Will those people new to the forum realise that information regarding women at war is under this particular heading. Think about it! Are you going to move the section on soldiers to an area called "Not at Home"? You may as well do away with the whole thread regarding women and then people can post wherever relevant. Myrtle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old-ted Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 Myrtle. I am in complete agreement. It is nonsence to put women into a section titled "at home". Perhaps there are those who think they knitted by the fireside whilst the men fought the war. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanCurragh Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 Myrtle and John - thanks for your comments. As has been said elsewhere, we are happy to receive all comments, favourable and not, and go forward from there. The "Women" section is under the heading "Home Front" - this is surely more appropriate than "Soldiers and Armies". Of course we know that women were not at home knitting, but I think it fair to say that most involved in the war effort did not serve overseas. I would also suggest that to use words such as "nonsense" is not particularly helpful - a lot of work has gone into this re-organisation Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 I see the main problem as the women's section now having been made virtually invisible. It's been taken from a fairly prominent position with a bold heading and placed way down the board as a sub-forum with only a tiny greyed-out title among many others - when the closed section at the top of the board is removed it will never bee seen again. Although the content might still be there, unless you're familiar with the board you would never come across it easily. As for most women involved in the war effort not serving overseas - that might be true, but I still think you're looking at a group well in excess of 50,000. As a researcher of women I'm only too aware that 'the war' is, and has always been, 'the soldiers' war' and women cause a lot of shoulder-shrugging, but what I find surprising here is that this greying-out of women is being seen by the Moderators as nothing out of the usual, and that by adding the 'overseas' bit it's OK. I was asked in advance, and off-list, what I felt about the changes, and although I can see lots of advantages in the new Home Front section, I really feel that 'Women,' wherever it sits, should not be a sub-forum, but at least visible bold sub-heading. If you glance down the main board, things like 'Interpreting Medal Index Cards' 'Culture Pages' 'Chit-Chat' 'Remembering' 'Book Reviews' etc., all have prominent places - I genuinely feel that as things stand at present women and their service have been hidden and demoted below all of these. Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 Not on the subject of the positioning of the subject of women in the Great War, but a more general comment which I offer as advice. Mods, please feel free to reject this advice as you see fit! I understand the need need for a tidy up (and how much work it entails) but I would be wary about going too far down the route of subdivision of the forum. It's all very logical and left-brain, but does not necessarily assist users either in finding information or asking questions. Leading thinking in development of high-content websites is actually to move away from this type of classification to having stronger meta-data and means of searching. That's why the use of subject tagging, favourites, subject-matter alerts etc are becoming key to social networking and other sites. I see Invision has just issued a new major release of the software. Does that offer Mods and users any significant developments in being able to quickly find stuff without having to know in which forum it may have been placed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burlington Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 I think I am in agreement with the view that 'Women' should not be consigned to 'Home' or similar. Home Front certainly for many women, and men of course, but what about VADs etc who served away from 'Home'. They were women but not at 'Home' There is no 'Medical' section on the Forum, and perhaps this very important subject could be a place for all medical staff, medical advances etc, including of course the work of 'Women' working in the medical field whether home or abroard . I am, yours sincerely, Confused.com!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old-ted Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 Myrtle and John - thanks for your comments. As has been said elsewhere, we are happy to receive all comments, favourable and not, and go forward from there. The "Women" section is under the heading "Home Front" - this is surely more appropriate than "Soldiers and Armies". Of course we know that women were not at home knitting, but I think it fair to say that most involved in the war effort did not serve overseas. I would also suggest that to use words such as "nonsense" is not particularly helpful - a lot of work has gone into this re-organisation Alan Point taken Alan Regards John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Strawbridge Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 It seems to me that there has been change for changes sake. What was wrong with where it was? It seemed to fit perfectly. It is rather idiotic to place the section under "At Home" when so many brave women served and died overseas in France and in the harsh conditions of the Balkans. Mods, by sidelining into a sub-section you are suggesting that the topic is less worthy. Please reconsider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eviltaxman Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 Jim, All topics, irrespective of their "value", will be placed in a sub-forum of one shape or another. The whole idea, as laid out in the test area, was to clean up the main page and by moving everything in to a given category, then sub-sections is what everyone that visited the test site favoured. This is something we Mods have been discussing for nearly 5 months and haven't taken any issue lightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 Myrtle and John - thanks for your comments. As has been said elsewhere, we are happy to receive all comments, favourable and not, and go forward from there. The "Women" section is under the heading "Home Front" - this is surely more appropriate than "Soldiers and Armies". Of course we know that women were not at home knitting, but I think it fair to say that most involved in the war effort did not serve overseas. I would also suggest that to use words such as "nonsense" is not particularly helpful - a lot of work has gone into this re-organisation Alan No one is disputing the hard work but I can't help feeling that it would have been better to have had this thread (and the one on Ireland) BEFORE implementing the changes, the discussions might have been more considered on both sides for a start. And the impression (doubtless false) that members views were not being taken into consideration would have been avoided. Perhaps in future a proposed chages thread would benefit all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stiletto_33853 Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 Centurion, With all due respect, I do not recall you visiting or leaving any constructive comments on the test forum when this was open to the membership for the very reason of obtaining comments on how the forum may look in the future, and some very good comments were left there for us to mull over. Given this why do you now find it constuctive to make such comments when you had the opportunity previously to give some input into the forum, or are you just happy having a moan!!!!! Let us lay this out again shall we, nothing is set in stone as to what you see now, CONSTRUCTIVE comments are welcome to get the site moving forwards. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 Riding through the unecessary digs from some who make them regularly, may I thank those who have posted constructive criticism. Elsewhere I asked for it, as I'm not completely convinced either. This is the consultation that some believe we do not allow. C'est la vie. As I said I want to get this right. If it takes a big efort to reorganise (again!) then so be it. There appears to be a weight of opinion that Women should not be in the Home Front. It used to be in Soldiers & Armies which was clearly inappropriate. May I invite comments as to where members feel it ought to go if Home Front is disliked and Soldiers & Armies is inappropriate? Genuine question - I'm not small minded and can ride criticism so I would genuinley appreciate the help. May I re-emphasise that there was no intention to downplay the role of women. If that is what I appear to have done it was inadvertent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennyford Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 I entirely agree with Sue Light that the invisibility of the women's section is the key issue in your changes. This is a remarkable forum not replicated elsewhere and deserves not to be hidden away. Is there any way you can remedy give it more prominence within the current format? Jennian Sorry, one more thing: 'VAD, Munitions Workers, Nurses'. Doctors? Around 400 women doctors saw some sort of service in WWI, quite outside their normal practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 Maybe it could stay where it is, but the section could be divided into two with sub-forums for each. So 'Home Front' would still have its current sub-forums (minus women) and underneath there would be a 'Women' section, with subforums for 'at home' and 'overseas'. I'm not sure that you need the explanation of them being nurses, munition workers, VADs, etc. Both these sections would then fall under a different umbrella forum title - though what that might be I'm not sure - something like 'Behind the Lines' or .... well, anything really Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old-ted Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 Hands up. I opened gob before putting brain into gear. I never read the threads on the test forum. Had I done so I would have had a better understanding of what you were doing. Further constructive comments on this will follow after giving it some thought. Regards John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eviltaxman Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 I have put the following suggestion to 2 other Mods for consideration and thought I'd throw it in the mix too....... How about a separate category for Women? Within the category would (for now) be one subsection - the one we're effectively already in. Down the line, and if needed, we could create separate sub-sections for the main topics? Currently we have - Home Front - At Home -- Women I propose (in the fullness of time) - Women In The Great War - Home & Overseas -- Home -- Overseas The latter 2 sub-sections could be the result of further consultation with you, the members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJanman Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 You could always change the title of the whole section from 'Home Front' to say 'Behind the Lines' and then have the sub-section for women. In any event they were behind the front lines. Just a thought. Barbara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stiletto_33853 Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 Peeps, This is the consultation period, this has been laid before you and as stated before nothing is set in stone yet. Your input is not only welcome but valued!!! Sue has been consulted before this went live and we value her and other contributors to the Women section input. John, no problem but it sure makes you feel unwanted sometimes when all we have is the good of the forum at heart, I think poor old Andrew is shell shocked. The test forum was placed there solely for members to have a little look and make suggestions, for the members to feel part of moving the forum forward if you like. Now lets move forward shall we. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old-ted Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 I have put the following suggestion to 2 other Mods for consideration and thought I'd throw it in the mix too....... How about a separate category for Women? Within the category would (for now) be one subsection - the one we're effectively already in. Down the line, and if needed, we could create separate sub-sections for the main topics? Currently we have - Home Front - At Home -- Women I propose (in the fullness of time) - Women In The Great War - Home & Overseas -- Home -- Overseas The latter 2 sub-sections could be the result of further consultation with you, the members. I think that would be an improvement. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts. Regards John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 ... underneath there would be a 'Women' section, with subforums for 'at home' and 'overseas'.... That was my original intention before being talked out of it! Keep the comments coming folks and we'll amend it to the best option that suits. Contrary to a comment above, I'm not shell-shocked by all this. I think it's great that we have such debates. What irritates is when people have a moan for the sake of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old-ted Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 What irritates is when people have a moan for the sake of it. Ces't normal mon ami! John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 For some. Thankfully not for all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 I hope it wasn't me who talked you out of it (I really am very very old now and cannot be responsible for my actions ) I did say 'I think that ‘Women’ should be left as it is. I can’t see that having a section for women on the Home Front would serve any purpose, and would only cause a division which would make negotiating the Forum more difficult.' But I just never envisaged that we would be condemned to obscurity (unless in the future you're going to condemn everyone to obscurity, and if so, then it's OK!) Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 'Condemned to obscurity' may be a little strong Sue. As I've said, we can alter the location if somebody would like to suggest a good alternative. Nothing is final yet, as some people seem to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 I was going to add a smiley after 'condemned to obscurity' but gave you the benefit of the doubt as being one among the Mods not really needing it. Sue smiley smiley smiley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.