# A bit of WF nostalgia



## Baron (Sep 7, 2010)

This is what WF looked like at the very beginning.  There were 4 registered users.

WF in 2002


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Sep 7, 2010)

Wow. It's weird seeing a forum so barren, Baron.

It's certainly thrived since then eh?


----------



## Eluixa (Sep 7, 2010)

That looks lonely and precarious.


----------



## garza (Sep 7, 2010)

What are the statistics for forum success? How many continue for five or ten years, how many make it for a short time, and how many wither and die almost immediately?


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Sep 7, 2010)

A few years is good for a niche forum.  A few decades would be nice for a forum like wf.


----------



## Baron (Sep 8, 2010)

I like the way the forums were laid out and the headers that were given on the original site.  It was much cleaner and more writing specific, which is always good for searches with differing queries.  It would do no harm to remodel the site along those lines.


----------



## Deleted member 33527 (Sep 8, 2010)

Ew.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 8, 2010)

Baron said:


> It would do no harm to remodel the site along those lines.


 
I'll drink to that. Especially the 3 moderators bit.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 8, 2010)

By all means, let's be critical just for the sake of getting in some lame dig.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 8, 2010)

Given that the whole flipping chimera is only a virtual world anyway, what more could you expect? 

http://www.mysmiley.net/freesmiley.php?smiley=animated/anim_27.gif http://www.mysmiley.net/freesmiley.php?smiley=animated/anim_26.gif


----------



## Baron (Sep 8, 2010)

Redefining the boards could be a positive move.  Over the years the site has had a little added here, a little chipped away there, and it's lost a lot of its clarity.  Re-ordering the boards into clear categories again and making the titles clearer can only make it easier for newcomers to navigate and avoid a lot of the confusion they have about where to post.

Edna: People on the net are still real people with real lives and real feelings.


----------



## Like a Fox (Sep 8, 2010)

Having real feelings is Un-Australian.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 8, 2010)

iDrew said:


> or like a crippled archaeologists
> 
> 
> It's a fair point, after all nothing new has happened since 2002 and this site reflects that.
> ...



   No, it’s not a "fair point." There’s something to be said for the simplicity of the design and layout. That’s the point. It has nothing to do with being conservative or safe or any of that nonsense. 

  It’s about readability. Whether or not it could work, given the more complex features of the current site is another matter.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 8, 2010)

Since it's clear you're not getting the point, further explanation would be a waste of your time and everyone else's. So good call.


----------



## Foxee (Sep 8, 2010)

Looks kinda like any other forum starting up.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 8, 2010)

Well, on the new design for vBulletin, there are a lot of extraneous elements -- radiused corners and boxes and drop shadows, extra icons -- more visual layers than are necessary. 

The older design actually does a better job using shading and color to separate the different sections. The gridded approach is a better way to organize the information. It's just easier to read.

I sometimes have to design complex forms or or things like product specs or financial information. I approach it more like the original WF design. I'd choose different colors and I'd certainly spice up the header. But the old design definitely has some things going for it.

A cleaner, more readable and user friendly design in no way would represent a step backwards -- the opposite in fact. Even if it was  reminiscent of the original WF design. But I'm sure it's limited by vBulliten anyway -- you're probably stuck with using something like what's in place now.


----------



## garza (Sep 8, 2010)

Isn't the content of the posts more important than the index layout? And if a cleaner presentation would make finding the right board easier, would that not be an advantage? 

Just a thought.


----------



## Baron (Sep 8, 2010)

garza said:


> Isn't the content of the posts more important than the index layout? And if a cleaner presentation would make finding the right board easier, would that not be an advantage?
> 
> Just a thought.



A cleaner presentation, or a more logical order and clearer titles for the forums, is what I'm thinking about.  I'm no way considering reverting back to that style of forum, just making the one we have a little more user friendly.  I wouldn't object too strongly to changing the colour though.  We still have the green because Pawn has a sentimental attachment to it.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Sep 8, 2010)

The old appearance isn't bad, but I like the new one.

Also, I side with Pawn on the green.


----------



## Baron (Sep 8, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> The old appearance isn't bad, but I like the new one.
> 
> Also, I side with Pawn on the green.


 
Don't you think that the boards could be more tidily organised?


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Sep 8, 2010)

Compared to AW, it's pretty navigable, and I think AW is pretty well organized.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 8, 2010)

Baron said:


> A cleaner presentation, or a more logical order and clearer titles for the forums, is what I'm thinking about.


 
Something I’ve always noticed, with forum sites everywhere, is the ambiguous or misleading or insufficiently-described names for individual forums.

This is borne out by the huge number of comments from posters along the lines of, “Don’t know if this is the right place to post this.”

Just as a ‘for example’, AW have a forum named Roundtable, and the small print says, “For those more peripheral or general discussions”. I once started a thread there on a non-writing topic and got into a fire-fight with someone who said Roundtable was for writing-related topics. They must have complained to a mod who agreed as the thread was subsequently moved. But my point was and is that the small print is totally misleading. 

At one time I belonged to a forum that went through a redesign, and learnt that the chief monkey apparently took it on herself to come up with new names without any input from others. The end result may have made sense to her, but it was Rafferty’s Rules for everyone else.

A lengthy round table (!) discussion might go a long way towards alleviating this problem.


----------



## Baron (Sep 9, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> Something I’ve always noticed, with forum sites everywhere, is the ambiguous or misleading or insufficiently-described names for individual forums.
> 
> *This is borne out by the huge number of comments from posters along the lines of, “Don’t know if this is the right place to post this.”*
> 
> ...



This is my point and people are free to use this thread to add any suggestions or to discuss changes which might make the site more user friendly.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 9, 2010)

Now we sit back and watch people get killed in the rush to offer suggestions *insert sarcasm smiley here*


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 11, 2010)

Okay, I've given this some thought.

My assessment is that online forums are not for people who are serious about their writing. So it doesn't really matter about the mess the site's in.

If people are serious about their writing, but still want to use an online facility, they need to be considering something like this:

http://sydneywriterscentre.com.au/


----------



## Baron (Sep 12, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> Okay, I've given this some thought.
> 
> My assessment is that online forums are not for people who are serious about their writing. So it doesn't really matter about the mess the site's in.
> 
> ...


 
Why on earth do you waste your time here?  You're obviously so superior to we mere mortals.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 12, 2010)

Baron said:


> Why on earth do you waste your time here? You're obviously so superior to we mere mortals.



Where does it say that I'm serious about my writing?


----------



## Like a Fox (Sep 12, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> My assessment is that online forums are not for people who are serious about their writing.


 Certainly it's not the only facility one should use, but this forum does a lot for people who are serious about their writing. This site nursed me into being a writer. And I'm deadly serious about it. *Insert scary-serious face*

So quit being a negative Nelly.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 12, 2010)

Like a Fox said:


> quit being a negative Nelly.


 
As it happens, young Kath, it was your post about your mentor and your eighteen writing companions that triggered my comment. I had been going to suggest that if “someone” wanted to make their site really user-friendly, it needed more facilities. I had started to outline what that might entail and then remembered something I’d read on the Sydney Writers Centre site. So I checked it. And what I found, when I went right into it, opened my eyes to what’s already available online for the serious writer.

I’m not being superior as the Captain suggested, nor negative as you suggest. I’m simply trying to steer _serious writers who want to use an online facility_ to a site that really helps.


----------



## Like a Fox (Sep 12, 2010)

But this site _does_ really help. I've come leaps and bounds in such a short period, I think almost entirely thanks to what I've learned here.
Two years ago I was writing crap poetry. Last week I got to pitch my novel to a publisher and she said she'd like to see more.

Granted I have taken on all kinds of other things in real life. I'm a member of the Victorian Writer's Centre, have done two short courses which included a lot of real life workshopping, and am now doing one of the most renowned courses for writing in the country.

But this was the kick off point, and gave me the confidence to go out and try those other things. I just don't think this forum should be belittled so.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 12, 2010)

Like a Fox said:


> Two years ago I was writing crap poetry.


 
You haven't learnt yet to avoid tautologies, I see.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 12, 2010)

Like a Fox said:


> I just don't think this forum should be belittled so.


 
And stop saying I'm belittling it. I told you where I'm coming from. I had been going to suggest it was what this site needs. Then I found out it's already being done. And so it's an alternative.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 12, 2010)

The things that struck me were that practically all the elements of the present forum are there, a few things have been amalgamated or deleted but there are very few new elements in the present forum, also how much of the original wording has survived "Don't be shy step up and introduce yourself" for example. It would seem the first job was very well done. Did you also notice "Most users on line" was all four members a few days previously on Christmas Day , there's dedicated for you.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Sep 12, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> As it happens, young Kath, it was your post about your mentor and your eighteen writing companions that triggered my comment. I had been going to suggest that if “someone” wanted to make their site really user-friendly, it needed more facilities. I had started to outline what that might entail and then remembered something I’d read on the Sydney Writers Centre site. So I checked it. And what I found, when I went right into it, opened my eyes to what’s already available online for the serious writer.
> 
> I’m not being superior as the Captain suggested, nor negative as you suggest. I’m simply trying to steer _serious writers who want to use an online facility_ to a site that really helps.


 


That's not a site for serious writers. It's a site based on fleecing poor naive beginners.


I suppose I shall have to inform *Stacia Kane*, *Kelly Meding*, and several other folks I hang out with over on AW that they are not serious writers, despite being multi-published and well-reviewed... No doubt they'll rush over to SWC to shell out their $395 for a smidgin of respectability. Kelly will probably find it necessary to cancel her book signing, and I have no idea what the store will do with the forty or so extra copies of her book they stocked for the occasion.


----------



## Kat (Sep 12, 2010)

What's AW?


----------



## JosephB (Sep 12, 2010)

Absolute Wankers.


----------



## RoundEye (Sep 12, 2010)

Like a Fox said:


> ...Certainly it's not the only facility one should use, but this forum does a lot for people who are serious about their writing. This site nursed me into being a writer...


 
The site has been a tremendous help to me. I’ll never be a professional writer or rank myself as a top writer but this site has helped me become a better writer. When I decided to get serious about my writing and further develop my skills, this place appealed to me.

In my journeys across the net I kept bouncing back here. I read tons of articles that are posted here and it definitely helped me further develop my skill as a writer.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 12, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> I suppose I shall have to inform *Stacia Kane*, *Kelly Meding*, over on AW, that they are not serious writers


 
Don’t talk to me about your friends at AW. I posted a question there wanting to find out how to create an ongoing atmosphere of low-level, repeat low-level, sexuality between two characters, and one of your friends went way off-topic with a huge treatise on how to bring on the heavy breathing.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 12, 2010)

RoundEye said:


> .



That's not Tourette's, it's echolalia.


----------



## garza (Sep 12, 2010)

I notice that Sidney site wants money to teach people about magazine article writing. All you need to know about magazine article writing you can find for free in the writing magazines and on the Web.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Sep 12, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> Don’t talk to me about your friends at AW. I posted a question there wanting to find out how to create an ongoing atmosphere of low-level, repeat low-level, sexuality between two characters, and one of your friends went way off-topic with a huge treatise on how to bring on the heavy breathing.



Just because you can pursue serious writing on a writing forum does not make every person on it a good, or even serious writer.  As I have not seen the discussion you allude to, I'm afraid mentioning it so vaguely really doesn't have an effect on my opinion.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 12, 2010)

Okay, no one has yet responded to Baron’s request for ideas about this site.

I had been intending to, and sidetracked myself.

So now I’ll get back to what I was going to say the first time.

In another thread, LaFox drew a comparison between what’s available here and what’s available in her writing group. She made it plain that a real life group is the better of the two. What she said was 


> Originally Posted by *Like a Fox*
> 
> 
> I'm luckier than a lot of people here, because I have a mentor and a class full of novelists who are with me nearly every step of the way on my novel. So when I start to doubt things I have 18 other voices who either agree with me, that I'm being terrible, or disagree passionately and help keep me on the right track


 
Key word: luckier.

Right, said I. How can that situation be utilised online? How can online writers function as a group?

Once the question is asked, the answer begins to form.

You’ll have to excuse my technological ignorance. I’m fumbling here. What I need is someone like Sigg or Moderan to prop me up, but of course they’re elsewhere.

What I have in mind is something for dedicated and serious writers only, _who would pay a fee to participate*_, and who are also totally computer-savvy.

It should be possible to attach a facility such as I have in mind to this existing site.

It would be based on something similar to a chat-room, a facility where a group can interact in real time. Naturally it would be accessible only by registered, financial members. A _suitably-qualified_ group leader/tutor would control each individual gathering. Every member plus the tutor would have sound connection via microphone and speakers. Writing topics would be set just as they are in real groups. Class members would be required to attend (log in) at set class times. Assignments could be both posted and discussed.

* A fee ensures that only genuine people use the facility, and could go towards attracting suitable tutors.


#​ 
Those few ideas should be sufficient to get a few other minds ticking over.


Come on, you lot. Get serious for once. The captain wants to improve the site. That’s my suggestion. How about you? 

(So you want to quote time zone differences as a difficulty? Well, boo-hoo. Life wasn't meant to be easy. That's not a difficulty to a determined person.)


----------



## Foxee (Sep 13, 2010)

This is very similar to the cyberschool my daughter attends. Her school uses something called Elluminate to make it work...I'm not sure of the nuts, bolts or costs but I do like the idea for here quite a bit. One thing is for sure, I don't think it could be set up as a free service but perhaps it could be inexpensive. That we wouldn't know till we research it.

What are your criteria for qualifications, Ox? School degrees? If the tutor is published or not? Perhaps if they hold a position as an editor?

Edit: If we make this work there could be different classes for different time zones. Elluminate also makes playback possible if you miss a class. (Using 'class' here for lack of a better word. 'Session' perhaps)


----------



## Baron (Sep 13, 2010)

I've checked out the cost of Elluminate and it's prohibitive.  For up to fifty participants it would be $49.95 a month.  For fifty plus it would be $499.00 a year.  Add this to the costs already incurred by the site and then add payment to a professional tutor and we're going into the realm of fantasy unless there is sufficient interest from those who would be prepared to pay an amount which would meet the costs.

I would like to view this positively but I'm viewing it with the awareness of the number of members who are willing to pay anything to support the site at the moment.  Those who do are greatly appreciated but they are few.


----------



## Foxee (Sep 13, 2010)

Is there any possibility of a chatroom, perhaps? We could have guests in for chatroom discussions. Is that a more economical option?


----------



## Baron (Sep 13, 2010)

Foxee said:


> Is there any possibility of a chatroom, perhaps? We could have guests in for chatroom discussions. Is that a more economical option?


 
That is a more economical option.  Depending on the features we want we could do that for between $150.00 - $200.00 a year.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 13, 2010)

I’d never heard of Elluminate or any similar program previously.

What I’d been thinking of was someone both sufficiently dedicated to writing and sufficiently possessed of the technological know-how to set up something like this from scratch. 

That way it becomes a love job. 

And I still believe it’s possible, for a determined person.


Baron, if you want to think positively, just look again at that SWC site and at the testimonials from previous pupils. Regardless of what people like Ilasir and garza say, there are those who happily pay to learn to write. Ask young Kath here also. She pays. 


Foxee, to answer your question about qualifications, I don’t know. But I’m sure such a question would eventually resolve itself.


----------



## Baron (Sep 13, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> I’d never heard of Elluminate or any similar program previously.
> 
> What I’d been thinking of was someone both sufficiently dedicated to writing and sufficiently possessed of the technological know-how to set up something like this from scratch.
> 
> ...


 
I wonder if you have any idea what it takes to develop even the most simple messaging system?  Something with reasonable features and that would be workable with guest speakers would need proper technical support.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 13, 2010)

So?


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 13, 2010)

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."


----------



## garza (Sep 13, 2010)

So, that kind of technical support costs money. The people who can provide that support are employed. If they are not employed there is a reason. Today's business world cannot function without its computers, and come hard times or good times, the competent people will already have plenty of work. You will need 'a fistful of dollars' to lure them into setting up such a programme and more dollars for them to maintain it.

I'm paid 25 dollars a week as a retainer by each of two companies to maintain their websites. Nine weeks out of ten that means I check on the site a couple of times a day to be sure everything is okay. When one of the companies needs changes, that costs extra. And I'm talking about simple websites, nothing difficult. And that 25 dollars a week did not include initial design and set up. 

What you are talking about would be a far more complex project both to set up and to maintain.


----------



## Baron (Sep 13, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> So?


 
So one of the hosted and maintained options that are already available is the best way to go.


----------



## garza (Sep 13, 2010)

A clever saying, but rarely true. 

The companies that made parts for buggies and waggons at the end of the 19th century had a choice. Adapt to the coming of the automobile, or go out of business. In the fifties some electronics manufacturers refused to adapt to the coming of solid state devices. They went out of business. The companies that embraced the new technology, who adapted to the way the world was going, are that companies that made progress. The major publishing houses today face a similar problem. Adapt to epublishing, or go out of business. 

A free site such as this, competently run, with consistent moderation of the boards, can be the springboard to a writing career and a welcome meeting place for anyone interested in talking with others about writing. We have people here throughout the age spectrum, from quite young to people even older than I am and that's well, never mind. We have beginners and we have professionals drawing to the end of their careers. Every one can have something to contribute. 

Some house cleaning may be in order to make the site easier to use, but nothing beyond that is needed.


----------



## Baron (Sep 13, 2010)

garza said:


> A clever saying, but rarely true.
> 
> The companies that made parts for buggies and waggons at the end of the 19th century had a choice. Adapt to the coming of the automobile, or go out of business. In the fifties some electronics manufacturers refused to adapt to the coming of solid state devices. They went out of business. The companies that embraced the new technology, who adapted to the way the world was going, are that companies that made progress. The major publishing houses today face a similar problem. Adapt to epublishing, or go out of business.
> 
> ...


 
You've lost me.  We were discussing adding a chat feature to the site for specific events.  I simply pointed out to Edna that using an already available option is better than trying to create something for ourselves, which is really not a realistic idea.


----------



## garza (Sep 13, 2010)

Baron - We are out of sync. I was responding to his comment about reasonable and unreasonable men. You got your post in between.

I should have made clear to whom I was addressing my comment. 

The fact is that any site needs to adapt itself as needs change, so a revising of the boards might be in order. But given the continued influx of new members, both young and old, the forums must be pretty much on track for what people are looking for.


----------



## Farror (Sep 14, 2010)

Sorry to sidetrack from your excellent suggestions, but reading this thread and seeing that image from the archive has made me realize that I've been a member here for seven years. I joined when I was thirteen years old. That seems very strange to me. I still remember googling "place where other people can read your writing" to find lit.org, and then writingforums.com through there. How's that for writingforums nostalgia?


----------



## RoundEye (Sep 14, 2010)

Can I request a “word for the day” feature? Not some obscure word that we’ll probably never use when writing but some word and its definition to help increase our vocabulary.

I think I have a decent vocabulary but when I’m painting a picture, it would be nice to have more colors.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 14, 2010)

RoundEye said:


> Can I request a “word for the day” feature? Not some obscure word that we’ll probably never use when writing but some word and its definition to help increase our vocabulary.
> 
> I think I have a decent vocabulary but when I’m painting a picture, it would be nice to have more colors.


Dictionary.com have that feature. There's prolly heaps of other sites too.


----------



## Baron (Sep 14, 2010)

I've been looking at some possibilities and I am considering adding a chat room to the site as a first step towards putting Edna's suggestion into practice.  There are a few considerations at this time.  There are free options available but they lack the kind of features and technical support that we would want.  I'm therefore inclined to go for one of the paid options which raises the question of covering the cost of it.  My first thought is to make this available to those who subscribe via Friends of WF.  This would add another benefit to subscribers and sufficient interest might help meet the cost involved.

As a second option it could be thrown open to all members and people could be asked to make voluntary donations.  Experience so far shows that this isn't a guaranteed way of covering costs as there are few who donate, though even those amounts are greatly appreciated.

The third option is to make this an entity of itself with its own subscription.

I'm open to members' views on this.

Roundeye:  I'll see what's possible in respect of your suggestion.  Of course someone could simply start a thread with that in mind.


----------



## Chrispian (Sep 14, 2010)

I missed who set it, but saying looking at how the site was done before and how it is now has nothing to do with moving backwards. The current admins are trying to undo damage done by previous owners who did a good job of trying to kills this place with neglect. I like to see everyone putting their input in and suggesting where the site should go. And I'm glad to see the that members of the site now run it. The sites more alive than I've seen in a long time. I'm not suggesting going back to the old design, but if you want the original theme, I probably have it on a backup somewhere!


----------



## caelum (Sep 14, 2010)

The original layout doesn't look like a step backwards to me.  In many ways it looks a lot more streamlined, concise, and neat.  One thing I kinda like is how it fits in my screen.  The present WF is like eight minutes of scrolling on the index.

Making the chatroom available to Friends of WF sounds like a great bet to me.  With that happening, I'd foresee a huge increase in FoWF members.  At the very least, I don't think the chatroom should be open to just anybody.  There's gotta' be some kind of limitation on there, whether a paid subscription or even the less-financially-friendly route of minimum post-count.  Just something to make sure determined members of the community are the ones who are in there.


----------



## RoundEye (Sep 15, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> Dictionary.com have that feature. There's prolly heaps of other sites too.



Wow, no s**t?!?! They really have sites like that? Man, the net has everything! Next you’re going to tell me that they have a site that helps me search for sites I’m looking for. Wouldn’t that be a trip?


----------



## Baron (Sep 15, 2010)

RoundEye said:


> Wow, no s**t?!?! They really have sites like that? Man, the net has everything! Next you’re going to tell me that they have a site that helps me search for sites I’m looking for. Wouldn’t that be a trip?


 They call it Google.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 15, 2010)

RoundEye said:


> Wow, no shit?!?! They really have sites like that? Man, the net has everything! Next you’re going to tell me that they have a site that helps me search for sites I’m looking for. Wouldn’t that be a trip?


 
Are you attempting to emulate KLM's success with the one about Hitler and the Jeep? If so, it went over like a lead zeppelin.


*RoundEye rushes off to Google "lead zeppelin"*


----------



## caelum (Sep 15, 2010)

lol, a bit of identity confusion for the bovine one methings xD.  And Lead Zepplins are impossible.  They would fall.

Okay, catch yourself in the edit window of grace then.  Be that way.  See if I care.  Two can play that game.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 16, 2010)

Baron said:


> I've been looking at some possibilities and I am considering adding a chat room to the site as a first step towards putting Edna's suggestion into practice. There are a few considerations at this time. There are free options available but they lack the kind of features and technical support that we would want. I'm therefore inclined to go for one of the paid options which raises the question of covering the cost of it. My first thought is to make this available to those who subscribe via Friends of WF. This would add another benefit to subscribers and sufficient interest might help meet the cost involved.
> 
> As a second option it could be thrown open to all members and people could be asked to make voluntary donations. Experience so far shows that this isn't a guaranteed way of covering costs as there are few who donate, though even those amounts are greatly appreciated.
> 
> ...


 
Your third option is the one I had in the back of my mind from the beginning.

For such a venture to be a commercial success it might need some aggressive sales promotion.

If it was me wanting to get something like this off the ground, I’d be determined to include a voice component. Proper instructional classes are only going to work where there’s total understanding. Text alone will NEVER achieve this.

Something that surprises me is the apparent lack of interest in this topic. A little over two days ago there’d been 500 views. Now there are close to 800. So people _are_ reading it, but they’re insufficiently interested to say anything. Strange.


----------



## RoundEye (Sep 16, 2010)

Baron said:


> They call it Google.



Got link?


----------



## RoundEye (Sep 16, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> Are you attempting to emulate KLM's success with the one about Hitler and the Jeep? If so, it went over like a lead zeppelin.
> 
> 
> *RoundEye rushes off to Google "lead zeppelin"*



You should be a prophet. I did go to that site that I just found about. I know nothing about Hitler or a Jeep.

I can’t find much on that new site called Google, except for info on a rock band spelled Led Zeppelin.


----------



## Baron (Sep 16, 2010)

RoundEye said:


> You should be a prophet. I did go to that site that I just found about. I know nothing about Hitler or a Jeep.
> 
> I can’t find much on that new site called Google, except for info on a rock band spelled Led Zeppelin.


 
Do you know why they spelled "Led" that way?  When they decided on the name for the band, which was the suggestions of Keith Moon of "The Who", Peter Grant (Zep Manager) said, "those bloody Yanks will never pronounce it right, they'll say 'leed'.  We'd better drop the "a" and make it Led Zeppelin."


----------



## Martin (Sep 16, 2010)

Hmm... a chat room doesn't sound very attractive to me. Wouldn't it just spawn heaps of unconsidered replies rather than the more thought out ones already here through the regular forums? Quality replies takes time to prepare, right...

In terms of getting more friendly (or hostile) it might be a feature, though then I suggest people could move it to msn, gmail, facebook or all the other chat possibilities out there. If people want intimate group sessions with selected participants, then as well might just go on msn. I really don't see it's worth the buck to implement it here.


----------



## Baron (Sep 16, 2010)

Martin said:


> Hmm... a chat room doesn't sound very attractive to me. Wouldn't it just spawn heaps of unconsidered replies rather than the more thought out ones already here through the regular forums? Quality replies takes time to prepare, right...
> 
> In terms of getting more friendly (or hostile) it might be a feature, though then I suggest people could move it to msn, gmail, facebook or all the other chat possibilities out there. If people want intimate group sessions with selected participants, then as well might just go on msn. I really don't see it's worth the buck to implement it here.


 
If you'd read the whole of Ox's suggestion you'd see that the idea isn't simply to have a chat room it's to have organised events, such as tutorials or guest authors, with question and answer sessions.  We would try to arrange this so that the speaker is coming through on a video/sound link.


----------



## Baron (Sep 16, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> Your third option is the one I had in the back of my mind from the beginning.
> 
> For such a venture to be a commercial success it might need some aggressive sales promotion.
> 
> ...


 
Can't get into heavy promotion, mate.  We'd have some outback drongo accusing us of being sticky fingered pirates.


----------



## Foxee (Sep 16, 2010)

Martin, I think your considerations are right on if it was simply an unmonitored chatroom that was open all the time...that does tend to suck the life out of the forum discussions. However, the general idea here is to have guided chats, ideally with a guest like a published author and the discussion would be headed by a monitor who would keep everything orderly.


----------



## Martin (Sep 16, 2010)

I did read it, same respond goes, especially since you mention tutorials.

Getting some famous authors to spend time with WF members' questions I think is a very good idea indeed. It could be done forum-wise as well, like a Q&A and would probably attract many old and new members. Would be stellar, a very good suggestion I think. Should get the authors to volunteer of course...

If it's a paying option for the few friends, live with camera, speech and such, would probably be sweet for those few. I'm just trying to see it as something for the general forum user...


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Sep 16, 2010)

Famous authors? doubt it. And if that's the case don't invite Anne Rice, she's mental


----------



## Baron (Sep 16, 2010)

Bruno Spatola said:


> Famous authors? doubt it. And if that's the case don't invite Anne Rice, she's mental


 
Why doubt it?  Famous authors need to work to promote their books in these trying times.  A question and answer session on a writing forum gives them a good audience and is a lot easier than a book signing.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Sep 16, 2010)

Isn't it really difficult to get famous authors to appear on a forum? That's what I meant.


----------



## Baron (Sep 16, 2010)

Bruno Spatola said:


> Isn't it really difficult to get famous authors to appear on a forum? That's what I meant.


 
Not if you go through the right channels.  Anything is only ever as difficult as you choose to believe it to be.


----------



## Foxee (Sep 16, 2010)

I didn't mention 'famous' authors though I suppose that's not out of the question. I think I'd even settle for a successful but lesser known author or a professor who teaches writing, or an editor...there are plenty of possibilities.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Sep 16, 2010)

Baron said:


> Anything is only ever as difficult as you choose to believe it to be.


 
I can see this site is in very good hands. . .

If you have the option of getting a well-known author or (much more appealing to me) editor, that would be incredibly helpful. Maybe we all get two questions to ask or give examples of our work and they can give us pointers. 

I don't know but, that still sounds quite hard. Again if it can be done, that would just be fantastic.

Edit: very good suggestion Martin.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 18, 2010)

Baron said:


> Redefining the boards could be a positive move. Over the years the site has had a little added here, a little chipped away there, and it's lost a lot of its clarity. Re-ordering the boards into clear categories again and making the titles clearer can only make it easier for newcomers to navigate and avoid a lot of the confusion they have about where to post.


 
Perhaps, as it was I who dragged this thread off down a branch line, I should now shunt it back to the topic above.

From the time I joined, never mind the present incumbency, I have perceived a confusion regarding Workshop vs Fiction. Forget the “first rights” nonsense, my guess is that with many members it’s a flip of the coin whether they create their threads in one or the other. I have done it myself.

So, if you agree, possibly this specific matter could be looked into.


----------



## RoundEye (Sep 18, 2010)

Bruno Spatola said:


> Famous authors? doubt it. And if that's the case don't invite Anne Rice, she's mental



I tend to agree with you. She and Al Copeland of Popeye’s Chicken fame had a public dispute over one of his restaurants he wanted to open. Each one of them took out full page “adds” in the local newspaper for about a week. They aired some dirty laundry about each other. It was hilarious some of the things they would say about each other. It was like a nasty forum flame war.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Sep 18, 2010)

I thought you said Al Capone for a minute there lol. She's had a few incidents now, very arrogant woman.

Maybe they don't have to actually be here live on the site and can just do some interviews with people from WF, and them post the videos here. I don't know how expensive that would be. . .we could all post our questions on the site and the best ones get asked etc. Maybe.

I've just realized that's probably much trickier so, forget it.


----------



## Baron (Sep 18, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> *Perhaps, as it was I who dragged this thread off down a branch line*, I should now shunt it back to the topic above.
> 
> From the time I joined, never mind the present incumbency, I have perceived a confusion regarding Workshop vs Fiction. Forget the “first rights” nonsense, my guess is that with many members it’s a flip of the coin whether they create their threads in one or the other. I have done it myself.
> 
> So, if you agree, possibly this specific matter could be looked into.


 
That's very unusual for you, isn't it? *Insert sarcastic smilie of your choise*

Tidying up the descriptions of the board is definitely on the to-do list, as is seeing what boards might be merged or lost.

As for the guest appearance idea; if we get the software it really isn't that difficult to set up but I think this should be a subscribers thing.  As well as helping to meet costs this might help discourage trolls.

Another idea is to set up a forum wiki.  An add-on is available that would give a separate area to the site, as with the new classified section, and would not add to the number of forums on the main page.  Articles and information could be published by members in the same way as the main wiki site but it could be more writing, and WF, specific.  This is probably one for Olly to get his teeth into.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Sep 18, 2010)

You could call it Authorpedia or something. . .sounds like an aid for the elderly on second thought.

So it would be in sections like:

Blogs>
Community>
Related Sites>
Distinguished Users>
Tips & Advice >

That sounds like a great idea in my opinion, it's proven helpful with many other sites. Can only be a good thing really, unless some users decide to fiddle about with it. If it's just staff then that's okay I think.

Do you think it would be wise to implement ratings into the site? A rating system using stars or thumbs for the stories, threads, comments posted here.  That might get way too competitive though.


----------



## Baron (Sep 23, 2010)

I've added the free trial version of add-on chat in the Tavern for a test period.  There are obviously limitations to this version.  If feedback on it is good then it will be upgraded.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 23, 2010)

Is it possible to log in and lurk?


----------



## Baron (Sep 23, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> Is it possible to log in and lurk?


 Your username shows as logged in.  You can lurk but people will know you're there.


----------



## Kat (Sep 23, 2010)

Wait, there isn't an option to remain hidden? I thought there used to be. Then only mods could see you.


----------



## Baron (Sep 23, 2010)

Kat said:


> Wait, there isn't an option to remain hidden? I thought there used to be. Then only mods could see you.


 
There's still the option to remain invisible on the main site but not in the chat room, which is what Ox was asking about.


----------



## Baron (Sep 24, 2010)

Discovered on Google images...


----------



## SoNickSays... (Sep 24, 2010)

I wonder who made that? It was on a blog, if that helps. Any ideas?


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Sep 24, 2010)

SoNickSays... said:


> I wonder who made that? It was on a blog, if that helps. Any ideas?




My first guess is Hawke, since it was posted on her blog post about wf.com being down awhile back.


----------



## Drzava (Nov 2, 2010)

Nostalgia eh?  I remember I used to be interested in writing back when I registered, now I can't even be bothered to read anything longer than a magazine article.


----------

