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

Posted by Chris Walker on Mar 02, 2015; 9:36pm
URL: http://c-sng-discussion-forum.254.s1.nabble.com/C-Sn3-Blog-Articles-vs-C-Sn3-Discussion-Forum-Articles-tp1553.html

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!