nordmann wrote:

Can we address the principal issues here?

Does Priscilla make a point shared by other regular members? If not, then that issue is between me and her wherever she raises it, and I will always actively and vehemently refute it where and when she does. It is important that unfounded allegations are refuted as visibly as they were made, and  much more determinedly.

If her opinion is shared, especially by regular contributors, then it is obvious that it is I who in fact is the one posing the biggest problem to the site's integrity - the public interpretation of my role and actions being far more relevant in cases such as this than whether or not it is grounded in fact. In which case everyone else must decide amongst themselves if they wish to continue with it and who among them should administer it.

Possibly another poll would give clear and concise answers to your question Nordmann? I had thought most had given their answers but they have disappeared amongst everything else.

nordmann wrote:

...grabbed Elphinstone by the bustle...

Bustles were not worn in 1792. They developed during the Victorian era. Let us get our facts correct when we describe these unseemly female altercations.


"......all the most ungainly and uncomfortable articles of dress that fashion has ever in her folly prescribed, not the tight corset merely, but the farthingale, the vertugadin, the hoop, the crinoline, and that modern monstrosity the so-called "dress improver"[i.e.bustle] ...

Oscar Wilde, The Woman's Dress 1888-1890.

http://www.oystermag.com/oscar-wildes-long-lost-fashion-essay

ID wrote:

but they have disappeared amongst everything else.

Nothing has "disappeared"!

I will not however set up a poll on the issue of administration. I prefer to get genuine feedback, and so far I have.

Ah, the bustle thing. Temp, my point was about people who termed themselves "ladies" tearing lumps out of each other over perceived slights. It is too obvious a point when made about "gentlemen", and historical accuracy was not uppermost on my mind when relating the humorous incident, rather the unfortunate consequences of an inclination to take ready offence even when one was not intended. But, whatever, prove my point if you insist ... I'm honestly getting close to past caring.

It is a simple matter to transfer the administration role, passwords, links to Forumotion, etc, over to whoever feels they can do a better job. Then I too can "flounce off all offended" without bringing the whole site down around me in doing so. We seem to have no shortage of candidates here, so we can do it as "first past the post". Who's first? I'll send them a tutorial and no doubt someone better qualified than me can send them an ethics guide.

Oh, for Christ's sake, nordmann, I was joking - hence my expression "unseemly altercations". I also, as you have requested, included an appropriate link - to an interesting History of Fashion site.

Yes - I too am now "past caring". I leave you to your friends for whom you can do no wrong.

You are losing two contributors today who have loyally supported you and this site since its birth. You show contempt for both Priscilla and myself by posts such as the one you have just sent, and I, like her, have just had enough.

You have also missed my genuine attempt to help - on previous page - see my reference to the security issue.

Over and out.

Temp wrote:

You show contempt for both Priscilla and myself by posts such as the one you have just sent, and I, like her, have just had enough.

No I do not. I have no contempt for anyone, whether it is someone who accuses me of slyly deleting their content or yourself. If I did I would certainly find that accusation itself contemptible.

Your reference to the security warning was a matter we discussed already, and if you recall I explained that there is nothing I can do about it for those whose security software warns against all non-https protocol websites with dialogue interfaces, such as this one. One simply has to be aware of it, proficient enough with one's security software to whitelist the site, and be aware also that many library machines and other publicly accessed PCs simply will not allow access at all.

Your terminology however suggests that you have your own analysis of what is wrong with this site which neither technical explanations on my part, nor insistence by me that this is not a clique of "friends for whom I can do no wrong", will alter how you should react when one of that group with whom you have been conversing and to whom you have been loyal says anything to which you choose to take umbrage.

If I were Mrs Elphinstone I would now expect my bustle to be gripped violently, except of course I would be in the wrong century, and these days Lady Braddock would seemingly anyway prefer to exit hard stage left with a withering "over and out" hanging icily in the dusty void between her fast receding non-bustle and her company.

nordmann wrote:

that was the first such instance I recall also. You will see that I refuted it twice quite quickly afterwards and when the accusation was then slightly altered suggested an apology mightn't hurt. None came, and I foolishly decided to forgive it and move on. In fact what I did was to leave the allegation on constant view, without it being visibly retracted, on what was at that time one of the most universally viewed topics by outsiders.

Yet, as you have demonstrated, it was not deleted - not by the person who made the allegation, and certainly not by me!

That would seem to be clear to anyone reading those exchanges from October 2015.

There are a couple of further points worth noting. Firstly, Paul does indeed have a post dated Thu 15 Oct which was addressed to ferval which mentions 'social groups', 'social mammals' and 'the codifying of the religions'. One wonders if this was the post he later referred to on Wed 21 Oct when he said it was about 'the evolution of the social codes within societies'. Secondly, (again in that post on Wed 21 Oct) Paul mentions 'the Tintin in Congo thread' which was The things we learnt from children's literature ... thread onto which he made a further posting on Sat 24 Oct. In that post he suggests that he’s minded to open a new thread about colonial attitudes in the Thirties which he then duly did on Fri 30 Oct on the Civilisation and Community Board. And here’s the thing – at no point on the Religions/Benefits thread or on the Children’s Literature thread or on the Colonial/Thirties thread does he mention having had a post deleted of even engage in any discussion relating to same despite such a claim having clearly been made on the Religions/Benefits thread.

As you say nordmann, despite your immediate refutation given on that Religions/Benefits thread on Fri 23 Oct, no retraction was forthcoming. There was not even the most basic of acknowledgements from Priscilla that maybe a misinterpretation could have taken place. I have to say that that struck me as being decidedly untoward at the time and still does.

nordmann wrote:

Your reference to the security warning was a matter we discussed already, and if you recall I explained that there is nothing I can do about it for those whose security software warns against all non-https protocol websites with dialogue interfaces, such as this one. One simply has to be aware of it, proficient enough with one's security software to whitelist the site, and be aware also that many library machines and other publicly accessed PCs simply will not allow access at all.

I remembered quite well the advice and information you had given me when I raised the certificate issue on a previous occasion, but I did not know that machines in public place such as libraries would block a site such as this at the Google stage - all my warnings have come when I have actually accessed the site. It just seemed a worrying thing that students, say in university libraries, would not be able to get beyond the google stage to get onto this site, and I thought I was being genuinely helpful in alerting you to my experience in Exeter's main library. Believe it or not, I was really trying to be "generous" and thought, in my stupidity, that you would have had the grace to acknowledge that. I was wrong.

You always have to win, don't you? Well, be satisfied, you have certainly carried the day here. But, after 4956 posts, believe me, this is a very unhappy day.

Hardly "icily" by the way - icy is not my style and never has been. Not that it matters.

I'm scunnered!! I see people whom, despite the fact I would pass them in the street, I consider as friends seemingly losing all sense of proportion and, more importantly, humour. Get a grip - it's not the UN and nobody has died.
If this ends up with the death of Res Hist, you'll be sorry and perhaps all this angst just indicates how much it means to us. I gave my opinions, perhaps strongly, but I assumed we were all grown ups and could be frank here without all these huffs and flounces. And rather po-faced statements don't entirely help either. If we restrict the memberships to the utterly perfect, nordmann will be here on his own (JOKE!) so let's try to get along without all these recriminations - it's getting like a family Christmas when someone drags up a festering grievance from 20 years ago. "She said, he did", it's just silly and unnecessarily divisive.

I would miss you all dreadfully if this ends badly so can we please try to resolve this without any more emoting or pontificating?

It does all mean a lot to us, ferval, that's true and always has been true - that's why I have edited out my comments above (which probably only you saw) about it all being a "waste of time and energy". That wasn't a fair thing for me to say, because I have enjoyed exchanging views and arguing here as much as anyone. All the jokes and silliness too. I just don't know what's happened today, but it has, and things have escalated badly. I do not know now whether we can turn the clock back. I don't honestly think we can.

I can't help "emoting" - I do get terribly upset, but we women mustn't admit that anymore, must we, for fear of being thought weak and emotional? Well, OK - I am weak - no not weak, but certainly emotional.

Can someone lend me a hanky? But not one of nord's snotty ones, please.

EDIT: RE emotion. I have calmed down a bit, and I acknowledge that this is not the place for emotion such as I have displayed today: Res Historica is, of course, a forum for dispassionate if robust debate, and for the exchange of information, not for whingeing. It is unfair - and quite unreasonable - of anyone to expect otherwise. That is said sincerely: excessive emotion is inappropriate and causes massive irritation. Things have been unhappily heated here today: it has certainly not all been my fault, but I have undoubtedly contributed to the bad feeling and I am genuinely sorry for that.

I'm not deleting my membership in foolish haste, but it's probably best I take some time out to let things settle down.

Vizzer wrote:

nordmann wrote:

It is important that unfounded allegations are refuted as visibly as they were made, and  much more determinedly.

In full agreement and, as you said earlier, this is critical to the whole ethos of the forum, its good character and the pleasant nature of it which we enjoy. The allegation regarding deleted posts does seem unfounded. I've certainly never experienced it. As far as I can see it stems from a comment made by Paul on the Religions – The Benefits thread on Wed 21 Oct 2015:

PaulRyckier wrote:

Nordmann, if you find back my message from Thursday evening...?

Now allowing for language translation and syntax etc then this comment could refer to or mean any manner of things and only Paul would probably be qualified to clarify exactly what. The following day, however, Priscilla took it to mean:

Priscilla wrote:

There is also stuff going on in posts that disturb - for instance, Paul says his last post is missing - he did not delete it

It seems to be that this assumption regarding the meaning of what was written is at the root of the matter. What we really need, perhaps, is for Paul to clarify exactly what he meant.

Yes Vizzer,

I still remember and as you mentioned it I had a look to it:
"

PaulRyckier Censura Posts :  1413 Join date :  2012-01-01 Location :  Belgium

Subject: Re: Religions - The Benefits   Tue 20 Oct 2015, 21:45 Read all the recent messages of the thread and I am a bit trembling   (Sp? French "trembler") to add yet another message to this thread... Thursday evening I was preparing for the Tintin in Congo thread and my eye was catched by the discussion about cannibalism and the modern killing in this thread and I think I sent something to Priscilla or was it to the others too about the evolution of the social codes within societies... I'll try again... Priscilla, Temperance, Meles meles, Ferval, when one looks at the history of mankind I have the impression that there is an evolution in social behaviour within the wider societies earmarked by codici which were by trial and error fine tuned for the benefit of the whole...? Codici of behaviour inspired by practical empiric experience or by "thinkers" which were said that they were yes or not guided by a non human "God"...? For me prove of that evolution is for instance the latest trial for "good behaviour and codification" and yes with all its flaws and deficiencies: the United Nations...? Nordmann, if you find back my message from Thursday evening...? Kind regards, Paul."

That's exactly it, Vizzer. It can be that I posted a message in "preview" that Thursday evening and that it disappeared when, as I many times do, searched for an outside link in Google, and returned to my "preview". As I had it all still freshly in my mind, it was as if I had it effectively posted. Hence my question to Nordmann if there wasn't a trace of my message somewhere, but I think if the preview is deleted for some reason there is no possibility to find it again. I made no strong point about it and if I recall it well Nordmann didn't reply either on this sentence. And all was already forgotten, but as you mentioned Priscilla picked it later up and mentioned it in her context. And that seems indeed to be the start of the whole controversy.
And I apologize for unwillingly to be the source of such a long running row.
As a matter of fact I had the same expertise yesterday when after I had composed a whole new message about "The French expedition in Egypt and Syria" it completely disappeared when inserting a link. I will start again with it this evening.
Nordmann tried to help me by suggesting to edit my messages in an apart window and to copy and paste it afterwards, but as it is for a dummy as me a bit complicated and for once that it happens...

Someone mentioned it here in this thread, me too, have many times now a warning as if Res Historica is a dangerous site , and I have to click "yes I go further", sometimes up to two times, before having access again to the boards... Nordmann?

Kind regards, to both of you, Paul.

Nordmann,

Again there is trouble for access to the site. There is a message: (I translate from Dutch) "Security warning The identity of this website or the integrity of the link can not be controlled. Do you want to go on? Yes or No." And I have to press two times Yes before having access again

As you asked about our opinion about the website modification to have more access from the general public. As I already said, if you ask me, as an old fashioned one I prefer the actual status, no face book fuss. But if you can connect us into a wider entity without losing our present autonomy...and with you as webmaster to lead discussions in an appropriate manner...and yes, as I have seen on a French forum it is not easy to be at the same time webmaster and contributor.

My message to all the contributors of this messageboard. Please go on with the good work.

Kind regards to all, Paul.

Paul R wrote:

Again there is trouble for access to the site. There is a message: (I translate from Dutch) "Security warning The identity of this website or the integrity of the link can not be controlled. Do you want to go on? Yes or No."

As I explained to Temp this is only going to happen with increasing frequency as browsers use security add-ons by default that query use of non-https URLs having a dialogue interface on their first page. Res Historica has a logon option on its main page and does not use https (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol Secure - ie. unencrypted data transfer between you and the hosted site) so will raise warnings where such has been turned on.

This is just one of the reasons I would wish to move the community into a more secure hosted environment - or, as stated yesterday, someone else might wish to do if everyone hasn't flounced off in a huff. Anyone interested in taking up the challenge can get in touch with me - I will give them a crash course on how to design a website using established protocols, hosted tools, database management procedures, and po-faced logic.

One thing is certain - use of "naked links"* and pictures hosted by third party sites will eventually be blocked by most security add-ons if they do not use encryption as standard, so I am presently (when not risking the ire of members) attempting to package the database as it stands now in a manner which can be transferred. It is not looking likely, to be honest, but I am trying. I would also welcome some practical help with this exercise.

Paul R wrote:

But if you can connect us into a wider entity without losing our present autonomy...and with you as webmaster to lead discussions in an appropriate manner...and yes, as I have seen on a French forum it is not easy to be at the same time webmaster and contributor.

Our present autonomy is based on what are now ten year old security principles and older which do not look like they will survive much longer. If I can get some positive feedback and help from our current membership I will certainly do all I can to retain it - hence this thread. By the same token, we should also address whether I am the person to do it - the strongest expressed opinions yesterday would suggest the opposite (says he in as po-faced a manner as befits the sentiment). But seriously, any constructive help would be more than appreciated at this stage.

* "Naked links" are the ones that you tend to use, Paul, and which Temp also says she has problems avoiding in posts. It means that the link is expressed as a straight URL and no attempt at encryption has been made. As guidance to you, and as a belated answer to Temp's earlier comment on this problem, this is the recommended manner to post links (we discussed this before, Paul).

In the post submission area when composing a message there is a symbol just to the left of the You Tube button that looks like a chain's link. If you click on this you get a drop-down box with two available fields for text entry. The first is where you put the URL address you have copied from elsewhere on the internet. The second is where you put your own text to describe the link. This is then converted, upon entry, into HTML code which allows your voluntary text, when displayed afterwards, to replace the URL in the displayed post while retaining the link function and target. In other words it has been automatically obfuscated within the thread's own HTML code and therefore security apps and hackers etc do not interpret the thread as an open door with undisguised links to other sites when its source HTML is examined.

ferval wrote:

I'm scunnered!!

That brought me back! Sitting in on a wet and windy Sunday afternoon watching the 1966 World Cup Final through the snowy interference on an atrocious black and white 14 inch Philips TV with the Glaswegian cousins who were over on their annual exotic holiday to Dublin - all of them cheering for West Germany. And then "that" goal from Hurst. I learnt a lot of "foreign language" that day ...

Temp wrote:

I'm not deleting my membership in foolish haste, but it's probably best I take some time out to let things settle down.

You wouldn't believe how jealous I am, Temp.

Vizzer wrote:

As you say nordmann, despite your immediate refutation given on that Religions/Benefits thread on Fri 23 Oct, no retraction was forthcoming. There was not even the most basic of acknowledgements from Priscilla that maybe a misinterpretation could have taken place. I have to say that that struck me as being decidedly untoward at the time and still does.

Ditto. And yet I'm the villain - life's just not fair, it seems. (If there is any ambiguity about the tone of voice in which I made that remark, folks, then I should explain that my po has extended well beyond my visage and has "icily" - also exclusively my word apparently - encompassed the vittals).

To return somewhat to the OP .... I am pleasantly surprised by the viewing figures Nordmann gives: thousands just browsing this thread and large numbers coming back to some of the long running threads. So clearly there is potential for increased membership and participation outside our current group. I suppose I could probably have looked up this data myself or I could have asked, but it does make quite a difference to my own interaction here. You mention that I seem to have stopped posting on 'Dish of the Day' which is essentially true but it wasn't from personally losing interest in it, but rather that after 18 months it was getting increasingly hard to come up with suitable entries. And of course, although I was posting as much for my own benefit and because I'm interested in delving into the subject, there is a difference between addressing a small unchanging group of two dozen compared to an audience of a few thousand. And I am fully aware that such a repeat audience takes time to build up but can very rapidly depart once the posts seem to stop. There is a food history blog site The Old Foodie - A food history post for every day of the year that I used to check nearly every day, but after some years of daily postings, she has now, quite understandably, reduced this to once a week, and I'm afraid I now much more rarely go there. So I'll certainly try to fire up 'dish of the day' again. It's nice to feel one has a regular readership ... I would just prefer they weren't all anonymous and that some of them might actually respond and post something themselves ... after all I'm doing it for my own education as much as anything. And although some above posters do not seem unduly worried that the active membership here is small, I'm afraid it does make us vulnerable to extinction and besides I find it somewhat frustrating: I like to read other's thoughts and opinions but with so few of us these come only rather slowly.

And again it seems a very great pity that all the combined wisdom, knowledge, humour and banter here  does not reach a wider audience, or at least not in a way that we get anything back ourselves and I assume at least two of the reasons we post here is for our own education and amusement. "Terrifying" isn't the worst thing we could be described as and it probably reflects our knowledge (with is surely a good thing) rather than our blunt or sharp responses. I cannot speak for anyone else but to any of the "terrified" reading this, they should be aware that I have no higher history qualification than an O level and I only just scraped a pass in that, and I'm equally, if not more un-trained, in literature, philosophy, languages, classics etc ... and generally have the debating skills of a mollusc.

So despite being faced with some of the grim and heartfelt posts above, I have found encouragement in the viewing data. There clearly is potential to widen the membership and get more active participation. There also seems the opportunity to make more of this site - or whatever it morphs into - than just being a social chat site for a small group of people (who I suspect are all much of a similar age and background). Whilst I am content with this site as it is I would be happy to see it changed/replaced if that could widen it up. Nordmann suggested a Facebook approach - I really have little experience of Facebook and admit to a certain prediudice, probably based as much as anything on my ignorance - but am certainly open to it if it can get us to a wider more active membership. There is of course a risk that the 'flavour' of the site and its membership might well change, but I think I would be prepared to take that risk.

Anyway those are just a few comments for first thing this morning ... like Temp I'll cogitate further as I attend to my compost heap and tomato plants.

Nordmann,

thank you very much for the explanations and the input.

Kind regards and with esteem, Paul.

Meles meles,

"I cannot speak for anyone else but to any of the "terrified" reading this, they should be aware that I have no higher history qualification than an O level and I only just scraped a pass in that, and I'm equally, if not more un-trained, in literature, philosophy, languages, classics etc ... and generally have the debating skills of a mollusc. "

And me: Some higher technical chemical studies and before 3 year Latin-Greek humaniora and three year Latin-Science. Nothing to do with history. I learned it all by research and visiting the local library, but that since 15 years, first at the BBC history messageboard and a bit later on a French historyforum, later on a second French forum and then when the Beeb stopped, first the American Historum and then this (in my eyes cosy ) small forum of Res Historica (with a lot of ex-Beebers). In between I was also at a Belgian forum of WWII and a much larger French forum of WWII.
https://www.39-45.org/index.php
But one can't "do" it all...so I had to confine to some that interested me most...

As for my debating skills I learned it most on this small cosy forum Res Historica (about historical affairs)

Kind regards to you my friend .

I've been through the Facebook options available for emulating what goes on here (you know, this history stuff - not the pantomime stuff) and the good news is that it's not the solution. There's no problem with designing a snazzy "corner" of Facebook to which access can be controlled so that "members" contribute and "others" also can contribute but only in limited manner etc etc. However what we can't do is link to another hosted domain, which is the bottom line for me as the database content - even if it can be exported - must still reside on a hosted server belonging to a third party. So forget Facebook.

There is another option which might actually be the best in any case - namely to stick with Forumotion (database stays put, in other words), but convert the site to more modern programming protocols which allow easier interface with social media sites (and looks more "modern" so might appeal to more people visually). There is still a snag with the database. If I start a new site from scratch with Forumotion the database remains here - that's a rule they impose themselves to hinder people using their resources just for training up in website design and then pissing off leaving rubbish databases in their wake. "Good" databases (like ours) are liable to be misinterpreted as "rubbish" if a site's design and function goes skewy and could be arbitrarily deleted (yes, Priscilla, that's exactly how this world works - no warnings).

So this means that it is good old Res His which will need the face-lift "in situ". And what this means in all likelihood is a long period of it being locked down while muggins uses his previously infallible "trial and catastrophe" approach to web design to modernise it. It also carries a huge risk, which I don't really have to explain but here goes:

Forumotion provides a backup and restore facility which gets around most major cock-ups by allowing one to roll back to a previous version. Only once had I to do it here, very early on, and it worked ok. However this facility is probably insufficient if one has changed some of the more fundamental aspects to the site, such as moving from phpBB2 up to Invision, rewriting templates, changing to SSL, redesigning widgets and all the other stuff customised here over the years, and ... well, pretend you get the drift. It's a big risk, is the point.

So, it's a bit like going in for a brain op where the surgeon tells you that it's 50/50 whether you come out of it alive. Who's up for it?

How would this proposed change address the issue about becoming more accessible/appealing/visible etc to others, both those who stumble upon it by accident and those who we, somehow, try to target/entice in? I take it this proposed change isn't "just" a revamp to a newer snazzy look and there are some quite complex funtional operational changes to how it works and interacts with the rest of the web other than just us couple of dozen regulars? (You can tell I don't really know much about all this stuff and how it works).

There are various potential possibilities, such as if Res Historica's main page or portal can be viewed as a Facebook page by Facebook users then it can be logged into using their existing Facebook logon. They then end up in a new browser window logged in here - as normal. They need to register properly first time and so on but they've been helped along the way. As a Facebook page Res His can acquire "friends" and all that crap, but this also means it gets recommended automatically to "friends of friends" and all that other stuff too.

To be displayable as a Facebook page however it needs a rather radical overhaul, at least of its main page through which people primarily log in. But this has ramifications for every single page view generated here, and that's where the brain op scenario arises.

Facebook is just one possible integration medium though. There are others which become available once the site is upgraded. Or not available if the scalpel slips en route. This is high stakes stuff.

A revamp will entail much work that's for certain. I designed my own site entirely and that was said to be  user friendly(!) but simple without blog participation and the enormous facilities offered by this one which is a gem in style in my opinion. Much as I like it - and the entire site style, the very name Res Hist ....may be daunting. 
Would it be worth considering a section devoted to non fiction History books wherein authors may submit a 300 word blurb -  an approach would have to be made to publishing houses or possibly an Amazon ref........ I had  one  for my own stuff on my site. On res Hist we would want non fiction only.
This might bring in authors.......is that a good thing? By this  suggestion  have I shot my other foot...

(Note - I am trying to be sensible and thoughtful here with Facebook out of the way.)

My first thought today - on this forum - is to say, 'MM, what he said!'

The second, regarding this forum, why does a History related forum need to shape up to something new? 
If it's a matter of security for the users I have no problem.

Yet again, Facebook, I am not on it, I have been but found it tiresome and time consuming and don't propose to go there again.

What I described above means that the site continues as normal, if rather radically redesigned. It can be made visible for Facebook people as a Facebook page, but it is not a Facebook-hosted resource. It is still Forumotion and can be used in the way you're used to. The main problem Nielsen is that if we don't upgrade soon there's a good risk the whole thing breaks anyway.

The book review idea is good, yes. But there's no point while we're still actively restricting views through our bad design. However that's exactly the kind of stuff that can be promoted through the page we show on Facebook etc.

By the way, Priscilla - if you are competent in web design I can well use you as an accomplice in this project? We can bring Temp along as chaperone/referee to make sure we don't use anything too sharp.

I'm holding off on doing any small fiddly design changes such as new categories etc until we decide on whether we take the risk of using my heath robinson IT strategy to trundle us into the 21st century (or instant oblivion).

If I understand correctly, which always is a question, then no problem from my point of view.

If Priscilla is willing to help in defining what we need and how to do it, this will to the good of all of us.

I am hopelessly out of date on such things - and totally ignorant about what will appeal to the modern  taste. Sadly, good taste  such as we have here does not seem do it.
Making the site user friendly  begins with the initial glimpse...... big easy labelled doors that lure you in. On my stats reports it was interesting to see the paths people took to then explore further....... mark you, in one section I had made reference to the Greek 'porno' notion of its hetarae and many found that fast enough.

So I decline being of any use but might send an e-mail of my old first page

There's a lot of good ideas in what you say, nordmann, I think they are worth exploring. The Facebook page would, I think, be an asset in widening visibility.
Is navigation as straight forward as it could be? Do we really need such a mind-bending number of different categories?  When I have started a new thread I have been mightily confused as to which one was most appropriate.

Maybe it's just me but I simply cannot get the search facility to work, it constantly tells me that there are  'no posts or topics' when I search for something I damn well know is there.

Another point regarding participation might be - how does this site look on tablets and phones? I looked in on my tablet yesterday (the wean had claimed the chromebook I usually use) and it was a frustrating process because the type is so small on the wee screen and the 'home' and 'Shortcuts' pages are so crowded, it needs enlarged and then the lines need constantly swiped along to read. My phone is even worse. Given that an awfully large percentage of viewers would come across us on a mobile device, could this be an issue? I think a much pared down homepage, perhaps just the main headings (those in orange type) visible with embedded links to a (shorter) list of subheadings would look better, be easier to navigate and be less daunting to those unfamiliar with the site. I should add I'm a techno-numpty so I have no idea of how practical this all is.

Crossed posts P, but we seem to be thinking along similar lines.

Anything to do with computers is beyond me, although I am thrilled to bits that I now know how to do the link/different title thingy. Thank you for explaining that, nordmann. I must have missed your explanation the first time round.

I think we must just trust the Boss and let him go for the new snazzy look. We have much substance here - and I am perfectly happy with things as they are - but style is so important these days. When I consulted someone who knows about computers about my security issues recently, he did say this was an "old-fashioned" site. I was amazed, but obviously to the younger generation, who understand these mysteries, that's the way it now appears.

Priscilla's point about the academic-sounding Latin name being daunting is a good one- we need to lure these young ones in and that could put them off. On the other hand, if old contributors ever try to return, a new name would mean they could not find us. But that's the least of nord's problems at the moment.

I think the book suggestion is an excellent idea.

Tell me when the surgeon is scrubbing up preparatory to the dangerous procedure, and I shall pray very hard indeed - er no, I'll reword that - I shall offer up a sacrifice to the gods. Which Roman god would be interested in the success or failure of websites? Whom should I attempt to placate?

PS I'm a dead good Virgo Vestalis Maxima, aren't I? Can I have a pay-rise?

While virgins are useful, and while superstition also has its place in at least keeping the psychotics occupied while real life goes on, what we really need at this moment is an Invision expert or three. Also widget designers.

I am going to stress this again - what I am proposing (to slightly change the analogy) is DIY open heart surgery with no plan B escape route. I am not "the Boss" so much as the ham-fisted executioner here. If by some fluke it works then we end up with a secure and integratable site. If not, it was nice knowin' y'all.

The search facility never worked, ferval. That is why I added the little plug-in on the shortcuts page ages ago which does a Google search within the site. It works perfectly for those of course who haven't excluded it due to browser security settings etc.

Regarding mobile phones, why not use the "mobile phone view"? Or have you already tried it? It used to be crappy as one could only read but not send posts, but Forumotion jizzed it up a while back. It's a pared down version of the site that drops a lot of the fancy graphics etc and is very kind to phone batteries, internet charges, etc.

I don't know if this is of any relevance, but Historum have a Facebook page.

Not exactly a hive of activity:

https://www.facebook.com/historum

Not what I had in mind, Trike. I actually set up a Res Historica page that way too around the same time and then realised all I'd done was open a whole new bloody entity that required maintenance, regular posts from me, and all the other crap. What I envisage is a dynamically updated Facebook page from within the Forumotion database. This can then be distributed via news groups, rss feeds etc, to interested parties.

Fair enough.

It's all far too technical for Dinosaurs.

Well, just to be on the safe side....




This is a terrible decision for you to have to make, but we all know you will do your best.

I say go for it. Good luck, sir.

PS That looks like a Thermos flask she's carrying.

Temp wrote:

This is a terrible decision for you to have to make

I'm not going to make it. You lot are.

I feel another poll coming on.

nordmann wrote:

The search facility never worked, ferval. That is why I added the little plug-in on the shortcuts page ages ago which does a Google search within the site. It works perfectly for those of course who haven't excluded it due to browser security settings etc.

Regarding mobile phones, why not use the "mobile phone view"? Or have you already tried it? It used to be crappy as one could only read but not send posts, but Forumotion jizzed it up a while back. It's a pared down version of the site that drops a lot of the fancy graphics etc and is very kind to phone batteries, internet charges, etc.

I told you I was a techno-numpty so how does one access this mini-res? No wonder my granddaughter struggles to disguise her contempt for my ineptitude.

You've just posted to a locked thread, ferval! I told you this place is f**king falling apart

If you open the site's main page on a phone and go right to the bottom you should see, over to the right, a link that says "mobile version". I don't use it myself because the Forumotion people are always messing with it and then it's a hassle getting back to normal viewing, but it's slowly getting better and probably works better on your phone than mine (I've an android with a bad version of Chrome on it). It's worth a shot though.