C&Sn3 Blog Articles vs C&Sn3 Discussion Forum Articles.

[Chris Walker]

Dragged from elsewhere to avoid derailing or cross-pollination of that thread, I address this issue here.

Derrell Poole wrote

You know there has been a certain amount of noise on this forum about staying on topic and the complexity of finding information on a subject. It sorta confounds me that this subject - Idaho Springs Mill Studies - is spread out all over the Discussion Forum in spite of that aforementioned noise. This should have been a series of Blog Articles, Chris, with discussions on the topic there. That would have made Keith very happy - and not made derrell look so irascible... (hint - derrell would be irascible anyway - its my hobby).

Darel gave me the option of putting this Mills of Idaho Springs stuff into either the blog or here.  

After some thought and noting the differences on constructing and sorting the photos, and attribution links into a workable manner, as I don't have Word setup on my computer, and the NGDGF format works totally different from that of the Nabble format in relation to the DPL archive, it has been much easier to just put it in here.   There is just one problem, the Mills of Idaho Springs has become rather expansive and as I have found in various books the changes made over the years were considerable.   Therefore it has become quite clear to me that the various sections of that expansive Yard Limits m.p.35.2 through to m.p.39.8 would be better served if it took a considerable number of parts dealing specifically with each area.

If Darel thinks it better served by migration of the information over to the C&Sn3Blog then by all means.  The only difficulty I see in that is the addition of important comparitive views contributed by other knowledgable parties who know of other sources and/or have access to expansive collections of their own cannot, without more work from Darel, be intertwined into the"archival" blog post easily.  Unless Darel is happy to await the thread conclusion before migrating, that is.

My personal view is that switching back and forth from Blog to Discussion to refer to whatever picture someone-else is discussing will lead to mis-interpretation and further muddying of the Clear Creek.  This already happens here and seems to be a detractable norm on the Net.  Someone will inadvertantly point out another part of the photograph which may be part of another planned post, the result of which waters down the desired intention of that said post.

Fire away!

[Derrell Poole]

The only option I wish to give anyone is to act in your own best interest or within the limits you experience and ability. The idea of writing articles is one I naturally gravitated toward when see the volume of high quality information you are providing and the distress of others when they consider the disorganized nature of our discussions.

Nevertheless, I certainly understand your arguments for doing it this way.

[Chris Walker]

You've now got me wondering just what effect does it have if I re-title the initial post of seperate threads into something like "Mills of I.S.part Blah"  I had considered that approach in the begining but thought it too much like Harry Brunk's "Up Clear Creek on the N.G."    

Also I am very wary about messing with the post controls, something I don't yet understand. {:))

Any moment now Roper will come racing over the hill into town.

[Jim Courtney]

There is a 3rd option.  Chris, post your topics, photos and interpretations as you have been doing on the forum.  Allow subsequent discussion, posting of photographs, etc. as you have been doing.  Then at some arbitrary date, declare post discussion finished.

Thereafter, the primary author could edit the material:  Place photographs (primary and submitted in discussion) in chronologic order with captions, links etc.  Add additional information submitted in discussion ("Rick Steel added. . ." or "Derrel Poole pointed out . . .".  Edit out any personal disagreements with some sort of resolution if possible, delete emoticons and Godzilla photos.

Then with Darel's help, repost an archival version for future reference by all, linked under a new heading on the Home Page.  You could archive your overall topic in segments:  "The Mills of Idaho Springs, The East End".  "The Mills of Idaho Springs,  Downtown", etc.

As I pointed out earlier, the Forks Creek Post and Thread was fabulous, but is receding into the past.  A new viewer might not know how to look for it or even of its existence.

Just thoughts.  Roper's Dog House is more than just another narrow gauge blog and forum.  It is already the largest online collections of information and photographs on the C&S and Predecessors in existence.  The folks contributing to this discussion collectively know more about this topic than anyone on the planet, and we're all growing older (at least I am!).  This collective knowledge needs to be permanently recorded.

When the Clear Creek Line has been exhaustively discussed and all rare photos discovered, perhaps "Roper Publishing" could be formed to allow hard copy publication of the material (a collective effort, perhaps?).  I mean, really, this stuff makes "Bogies and the Loop" look like comic books.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Keith Hayes]

I think there is nothing wrong with doing something as Mr. Harry Brunk would have done.

I have the highest respect for him, a dreadnaught combination of research, documentation, drawing, modeling and writing all glued together with some stick-to-itiveness that many of us could use a dose of. We would be hard pressed to name ten other railfan modelers who can claim such a long series of articles with such tight focus.

I am certainly a better modeler for his contribution.

Please join me in a Huzzah! for Harry.

<Oh, I guess this is off topic. Oops.>

[Rick Steele]

I agree, Keith!!!

Three cheers for Harry and further on the off-subject line, the late Bill Sheldrick who was Harry's partner when they wrote under the pseudonym of Leighton Slough for the old Slim Gauge News.

Stream of conscious was good enough for William Faulkner, so it should be good enough here. Let the anal-retentive worry about the discipline of the thread.

Rick

[Robert McFarland]

Huzzah for Harry?Is that anything like Hurray for Hazel?

[Rick Steele]

Nope, because She Put me Down....

Rick

[Darel Leedy]

Sorry, I've been out of town and now have a chance to respond. Thanks for the kind comments Jim. I'm just the one hosting the forum.You guys are the ones making it happen!

Regarding blog articles vs forum articles; it is the blog articles which draw visitors to the site, period. Without new blog articles, the hits and readership drops for both the blog and forum. One of the original intents of the forum, was that conversations could be carried over from a blog article to the forum. I have been extremely busy lately and haven't had anything to blog about personally. Thus Roper must step in and he's wearing a little thin himself, lol.

So we are always welcoming of new material for the blog from anyone wishing to help. Many of the posts in the forum would make for a great headline blog post. So please keep that in mind before posting on the forum. Again, the thought was that the conversation could be carried over to the forum from the blog.

Jim's idea of combing information from the forum into one article is great. And anyone wanting to help do that would be much appreciated. Copy, paste and organize it into a word document or email and get it to me. I will create the permanent blog article from there.

Ropers Dog House; I like that name!