Andrew Hesketh Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 Sorry - sense of humour failure on my part. It's been a long days night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pighills 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 have to agree wholeheartedly with Les' above suggestion. It seems to me the ideal, keep all the women together in one place and then broken down into sub-forums (I know some of you think it should be done in real life too ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 I appreciate the work you're putting in to try and reshape the forum. Yesterday I tried to find whether our classic drill halls thread was in the new section and I'm sorry to say that it took me a couple of minutes to find that it wasn't. I can't clearly analyse why at the moment, but Sue's comment about the Women section that "...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 be seen again. ..., unless you're familiar with the board you would never come across it easily" seems to apply. I feel the problem lies somewhere in needing to open up sections in order to see what lies within. It takes time, and a new user mightn't realise they are there to be seen. I'm afraid I find it counter-intuitive. I find it very trying to use forums where you need to keep opening up bits to get to where you think you might need to be or to where you thought you'd been - there are a lot of hyper-organised forums and they can be maddening. (But that might be because I have the wrong sort of thinking-style to sort things out into tight sections.) I thought that when our opinions were asked, a lot people argued against heavy use of subdivisions. The more categories, the more difficult it is to get stuff in the right place. I wonder, too, whether 'home front' is helpful in reflecting the international nature of the forum. Although I personally don't like women being separated out, I can see that the Women section on the forum attracts good use. In my view, women serving at home or abroad, in all sorts of roles, is similar to the roles carried out by men who did not serve as soldiers: that is, as Civilians. I feel that Civilians is a useful, broad category which embraces people who worked actively in the war and people who didn't because of age or health. Good luck. Gwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 Gwyn - the dill halls thread to which you refer is in Classics. I can move it over if you wish. Thanks for your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonym Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 Been busy this last few weeks with my WW2 ladies, so far in excess of 4,000 unfortunate casualties. As a result I have only just caught up with this subject. I for one can see no problen with "WOMEN IN THE GREAT WAR" whether they served as a non-com. VAD in a pokey little temporsary hospital in the Isle of Wight or a Nursing Sister in a Casualty Clearing Station behined the lines of the Somme; as a QMAAC cooking meals in Aldershot or a Concert Party in France, they were doing their bit as a "WOMAN IN THE GREAT WAR". The first place that I look when I want to see information on my WWI Ladies. They have taken second place throughout history in comparison to the GLORY OF THE REGIMENTS so let us not denigrate them now on this forum; after all in WW3 they will be equal to their male counterparts as they are now in Afghanistan. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 I'd just like to add that I only ever look in a sub-forum if I am starting a new thread. If I am searching, I search everywhere and generally, I look through recent posts using the "View New Posts" function. I place my new posts where I think they should go and wait to be corrected if it's in the wrong place. Therefore the re-organisation means almost nothing to me and will neither benefit me, nor cause me angst. Do others do something dramatically different that makes this such a contentious issue? Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendellers Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 I am not aiming to stir the waters however I have been a member for a year and am currently touring the Western Front. I had a query about a nurse buried in Tourgeville Cemetery and thought I knew where to go -if I was a new member I would probably gve up. I have to say that rather than rearrange the forum I would rather the mods gave thought to the search mechanism which is so frustrating. I think I am computer literate and for instance put +Sophie +Hilling into a search and still get only Sophie when as I understand it I should get posts with both words only. This happens with most of the searches I make and actually I find it easier to search with Google and then follow WF posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 It may make sense to just put everything about women back where it began then. This, of course, would place it under Soldiers & Armies again. Would this make everybody happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eviltaxman Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 The other alternative (given that Soldiers will also be reshuffled at some point!!) is my suggestion at #16 - a separate area completely. Rendellers - The search function is pre-set by the providers and there's little, unfortunately, we can do to adjust it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilH Posted 1 August , 2009 Share Posted 1 August , 2009 As a fairly new guy around here but one with some experience of running forums I'd have to say that you'll never please everyone with whatever you do and any changes will always recieve comments both for and against mainly because many don't see the thought that goes into laying out a site so that things are easy to find and I applaud those who maintain this site for the logical way that it's set out. Having said that, constructively, I'd have to say that, yes, the forum is totally lost where it is - having read this thread it took me 5 minutes to find it whilst deliberately looking. I'd guess that the idea is part of of a plan designed to reduce the scroll area of the main forum which can get very unweildy as a forum grows - sub-forums are normally used for minor forums of similar subjects listed under a major heading so I guess views will vary depending on whether or not folk consider 'Women at War' to be a major or a minor forum. I'd offer no criticism to those who made decisions but, assuming that I guess right in that the idea is to reduce the scroll area of the main forum, then I'd suggest that maybe a more logical way would have been to leave 'Women at War' as it was and to move the 'Home Front' forums to subforums of the main ones and then delete the 'Home Front' section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted 2 August , 2009 Share Posted 2 August , 2009 Gwyn - the dill halls thread to which you refer is in Classics. I can move it over if you wish. No, thanks, Andy. I doubt my ability to find it again. Re the previous post #35: I think you'll find that many of us who have commented have our own websites and are acutely of how much work goes into creating a layout. Therefore, our comments are not made carelessly. Gwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonym Posted 2 August , 2009 Share Posted 2 August , 2009 It may make sense to just put everything about women back where it began then. This, of course, would place it under Soldiers & Armies again. Would this make everybody happy? They have lived comfortably there during my five and a half years service I see no reason for the change, after all their job was to support the Soldiers & Armies. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eviltaxman Posted 2 August , 2009 Share Posted 2 August , 2009 Thank you for all your comments so far. Although we prefer the positive ones, the negatives also help. I previously suggested a separate category for women with this current sub-forum being moved as it stands. I have therefore, for now, created just the category and sub-section (with no live forum access) to gauge if this is more to your liking. You will find it directly below the "The soldiers and armies of the Great War" category. If this is (more) acceptable, we can move the relevant bits around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hywyn Posted 2 August , 2009 Share Posted 2 August , 2009 I'd just like to add that I only ever look in a sub-forum if I am starting a new thread. If I am searching, I search everywhere and generally, I look through recent posts using the "View New Posts" function. I place my new posts where I think they should go and wait to be corrected if it's in the wrong place. Therefore the re-organisation means almost nothing to me and will neither benefit me, nor cause me angst. Do others do something dramatically different that makes this such a contentious issue? Ken No, not me.This more or less mirrors my use of the Forum. I seldom scroll down a Forum/Sub forum looking for post headings of interest. If I want to find one of my threads I go to View Topics in My Controls Hywyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 2 August , 2009 Share Posted 2 August , 2009 Do others do something dramatically different that makes this such a contentious issue? No, I use "View New Posts" as you do. As such, whatever the owners do isnt a real problem to find things and I can probably suss out where I should post a new thread. However, I'd be very unsure if a new member would have similar confidence. I understand why the owners are wanting to change things round and create new sub-forums (as it's been explained to me). I just don't agree that it's the best way forward. But it's their backyard and I play here by their rules. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 2 August , 2009 Share Posted 2 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. Probably because I found it impossible to open Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrtle Posted 2 August , 2009 Author Share Posted 2 August , 2009 Alan Thank you for your reply. I was interested to read that there had been a Test Forum running a while back, as I hadn't noticed it! I must have had too much work on at that time. I along with many others appreciate the Admin's efforts and hard work to improve the layout of the forum. Les, Your suggestion for the new position of the women's category, looks good to me. I originally posted as I was concerned that the section on women had become invisible, especially to new members. Thank you for coming up with, what seems to me, a sensible solution. Regards Myrtle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 2 August , 2009 Share Posted 2 August , 2009 I previously suggested a separate category for women with this current sub-forum being moved as it stands. I have therefore, for now, created just the category and sub-section (with no live forum access) to gauge if this is more to your liking. You will find it directly below the "The soldiers and armies of the Great War" category. That looks very good to me - rather more than (I/We/Everybody) hoped for. Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 2 August , 2009 Share Posted 2 August , 2009 I'd just like to add that I only ever look in a sub-forum if I am starting a new thread. If I am searching, I search everywhere and generally, I look through recent posts using the "View New Posts" function. I place my new posts where I think they should go and wait to be corrected if it's in the wrong place. Therefore the re-organisation means almost nothing to me and will neither benefit me, nor cause me angst. Do others do something dramatically different that makes this such a contentious issue? No, not me.This more or less mirrors my use of the Forum. I seldom scroll down a Forum/Sub forum looking for post headings of interest. If I want to find one of my threads I go to View Topics in My Controls [Plus what John said but I'm not allowed three quotes on one posting] Which goes to show that three members with 15 years forum experience and 13,000 posts between them can find their way round the board pretty well But the section is used a great deal by new members and I don't feel they would ever have found their way there - well, rarely - and would have ended up posting in Soldiers, Other or other. But as infrequent visitors to 'Women' - welcome to Ken, Hywyn and John Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfaulder Posted 2 August , 2009 Share Posted 2 August , 2009 It may make sense to just put everything about women back where it began then. This, of course, would place it under Soldiers & Armies again. Would this make everybody happy? Well you have "Ships and Navies" under Soldiers & Armies, so why not? Or rename this section "Participants and the Units in which they served"? Logic would then say that any Nursing etc. type postings go there (in suitable sub-forums), as can sailors and airmen, whilst details of Munitions Work, Wives/Widows at home can live under "Home Front". I would also like to see "Home Front" opened out a bit rather than having every-thing crowded into sub-forums; the single "At Home" forum looks superfluous. And why does Away from the Western Front have to be in a section all on its own and not as a Forum under Battlefields etc. (like The Western Front)? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 2 August , 2009 Share Posted 2 August , 2009 David, I agree with your comments in your first paragraph. Such things will be looked at in future phases. To all: Have we found a solution to the Women issue which we can all be happy with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGM Posted 2 August , 2009 Share Posted 2 August , 2009 Yes, thank you very much. Best regards CGM (#38) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old-ted Posted 2 August , 2009 Share Posted 2 August , 2009 To all: Have we found a solution to the Women issue which we can all be happy with? Thank you Andy. It looks spot on to me. Regards John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pighills Posted 2 August , 2009 Share Posted 2 August , 2009 The new placing is excellent!! Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 2 August , 2009 Share Posted 2 August , 2009 But as infrequent visitors to 'Women' - welcome to Ken, Hywyn and John Thank you. I've always enjoyed visiting women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.