A few days ago I made a rather lengthy thread with above title, basicly a plea to excersise caution when submitting information especially to the Reference Gallery. However, this thread has disappeared from this Discussion Forum and has been relegated to the Feedback and Problems Forum, a section more geared towards the functioning of this site. Had that correction been my sole aim, I could have asked for an adjustment in just one sentence, but that would not have expressed what I see happening about information on lamps available and provided. Mind, my word is no gospel, but I do think that any thoughts about lamps and condensing information about them on this site should find place in the Discussion Forum. Mike
I see your point but it's a fine call. I don't see it as a relegation. That section is for both site suggestions & technical issues. The title of the post made it clear where it should go. Maybe the more general point you tagged on could have been a separate post for discussion? I read it at length & replied as I thought your point re Bialaddin was initially misinterpreted. It now looks like we have a conclusion to act on. If you see any further instances happy to do the same.
What's in a name, Ross? I remember reading an article in a german motorcycle magazine about (my) Yamaha SZR660 with the title "Sushi mit Spaghetti" or similar. A title about food if ever there was one, yet I bet no-one was fooled into thinking we were being treated with a surprise recipe. But I will heed your suggestion and will copy same reflections under a new title. Mike
I only can agree with mike here. Here points to a "problem" which is worth a discussion. The result may effect the reference gallery but that is not the issue at all. It is how we share information about lamps, dating and putting a label on them or put them in a family line up.
I'm not disagreeing with Mike - just suggesting the wider discussion & reporting specific actions required by admins are best kept separate. Perfectly good to have that debate but would suggest a thread title that informs members what's under discussion may be helpful. So far we have decided on action for the Bialaddin gallery. Good result. If any ongoing debate highlights more changes that are required please report them in a new post. Or we could try Sushi mit Spaghetti.
Exactly. It was a clear forum feedback post since it asked for a change in the forum itself. And of course it's not a relegation. There aren't any status rankings between forums. The post and its content, just as the following discussion, isn't really affected by which forum it is in as long as it isn't moved to any of the more restricted areas.
Well, I am surprised how much reaction there is from the 'staff' of this forum. And what is it all about? Appearantly my lenghty thread that I consider a discussion, is seen just as a question to correct a detail in the Reference List. That detail only gets some merit if seen in what I argued in my thread, something Neil acknowledged. I admit to chosing a rather 'tabloid-style' of a title, figuring most if not all of you could place it within the context. I am very much surprised my title made it a request for an administrative correction and urged two administrators to explain this. Wow! Initially that thread was left where I put it in the Discussion Forum, including some reactions by Carlsson and then by Ross. It then was whisked away to a category I have never visited so far. I used the word 'relegate' as to express lesser value if a topic is moved under an illogical banner, harder to be found and to contribute to. "Forum Feedback & Problems" does not strike me as a corner of this site where views are invited and to be discussed at large. Also, to place it there does not serve anything imo, as I see no point in archiving my lenghty thread only to add an X to a lamp model in the Reference List: just do it - if there is consensus - and be done with it. Or do you feel such a correction needs to be motivated at lenght in that section? Who cares? By the way, I am not going to discuss administrative purity. This has become a funny turn of events. So be it. I will follow the advice to put same thread under a different title. Regards, Mike
Funny, I think the only surprising reaction here is from you by starting this second thread, and then it turns out that you really didn't want us to respond to it at all! What a strange thing to do. We just try to do our job, and I bet that if we hadn't responded to you questioning it, the surprise you found in our 'reactions' would have been a surprise over us not responding instead. Oh, well.
Not sure what you mean with "after only a few replies". But I can tell you that your rather superfluous contribution prompted me to express my surprise. What is so important for you to put more emphasis on, if Ross already explained the view of the moderators or site? What do you think you made more clear for me - and others? It only helps me to think you are making much more of this than it deserves. As I said, I will put same article up for discussion, or just to read, on the Discussion Forum. I hope you can leave it at that, as I can. Mike
Those lists of models in the galleries were compiled in 2010 by a few of the founder members and in many cases lifted by me straight from the PLC. The lists are certainly not all me but the Bialadin/Vapalux was and they reflect what we knew or thought we did at the time. Things change though and we learn stuff so now and then we have to review lamp models and other info. That is why the PLC is updated about once a month and indeed the next update will reflect this change in the Bialaddin model numbers. So this time the mistake was discovered by Mike and prompted a discussion. If I had found the error there would have been no discussion just a request to the moderators for the change. Matters not who finds mistakes but the truth does and I am always grateful when we can inch just a little closer. ::Neil::
