Content

[Pennine MC]

Jamie, I dont want to be presumptious, you might have thought of it already, but what are your thoughts on carrying over existing content? Obviously the admin team can do this if the threads are flagged via the report system, but do we want any sort of vetting system? Should it be a free for all, do you want overall say (it is your gaff after all), or should we have some sort of consensus? If the last, we could even post the links in here for consideration.

[Jamie]

I only sparked it off, I want the membership to take ownership and develop the group (cos I have other things, like Black Fives, to be doing).

 

What I wanted to develop, briefly and I'll probably come back to the undernoted, is:

 

- a summary thread bringing in the Scottish layouts. One thread, with one post per layout linking back into the main forum. Each post contains 1-3 photos, a link, and maybe a one-line description. I like this idea because it won't steal all the layouts out of the main forum. "Scots we hae" was the title I was working on

 

- other topics could at the OP's discretion, be brought across wholesale. Again, let's not steal threads but I thought - to pick a recent example - 'Chard's Baby Sulzers thread could find this an appropriate home, as it goes beyond the Wavey route but remains primarily ScR content.

 

 

That's about as far as I've got so far.

[Andy C]

I think the one post - one link is a good idea, particularly if those who dont want to join the group wish to read whats going on - I know for example theres at least 3 of my associates who won't be joining in here who will wish to see the upgraded posts on my North Ballachulish thread. The more specialist stuff - Chards Inverness 24s maybe less so as they are more specialist.

 

Its how though things like appeals for help etc are held - whilst within the group i daresy there would be an answer to everything I wish to know, id hate to miss out on others knowledge - do you dual post?

 

Andy

[Jamie]

Wouldn't double post, no. You'd end up with either thread clutter or two parallel discussions.

 

For me, the location's pretty much irrelevant as I use the Active Content to bypass the confusion of the forum structure and (hypocrisy, I know) subdivisions. But others might just go into Questions/Help, and not see a query posted here.

 

I think the call on that sort of thing has to be left with the individual poster. I wouldn't object to its presence here though, either in full or in a brief "Looking for info on XXX, thread here: {link}" post. Which could optionally be locked, to keep discussion in one place similarly to how Admin handle the rest of the forum.

 

If you take the Beattock topic that Blobrick posted in the general prototype queries. He got the answer from folks who aren't AFAIK principally Scottish prototype fanciers, so could have been less well served in here.

 

In fact, (where's the lightbulb smiley) maybe once a query is resolved, it can perhaps be moved here for future reference. I like that idea - for the moment at least.

[Pennine MC]

If you take the Beattock topic that Blobrick posted in the general prototype queries. He got the answer from folks who aren't AFAIK principally Scottish prototype fanciers, so could have been less well served in here.

 

 

Mmm. It did occur to me that some of the onetime problems with CAG, of information potentially being missed, could arise. I''m good at identifying problems, not so good at solutions

[Kenton]

Wouldn't double post, no. You'd end up with either thread clutter or two parallel discussions.

 

For me, the location's pretty much irrelevant as I use the Active Content to bypass the confusion of the forum structure and (hypocrisy, I know) subdivisions. But others might just go into Questions/Help, and not see a query posted here.

I have to agree, there is enough duplication as it is and that just leads to confusion.

It was difficult enough as it was to decide where something fitted in the overall site - let's not make it worse.

 

From my perspective any thread that has a topic principally in "Railways of Scotland" should be started here - especially prototype details. However I don't see this as a place for RMWeb member's to place their layouts - even if they are physically "located" or represent a "location" in Scotland. Fine post a link, but I still think the obvious first place to look would be under layouts.

There could also be other topics that contain deviations from the main subject but still have a great deal of relevance to "Railways of Scotland" these too could be linked to in some way rather than duplicated, and moving a topic principally about say GWR just because it had a few important posts about say GNoSR would be daft.

 

[Ed] Reassuring I can still post inside a group even though there appears to be no way to actually join it !

[Jamie]

Kenton, I think it boils down to the application of judgement and, hopefully, common sense. There's a worst case for everything but with a bit of care we can avoid it.

[Russ (mines a pint)]

Having now got away with ships, which are I suppose in part railway related on some crossings anyway, do you think we can get away with a 'sunsets thread' I've got a few from within a few hundred yards of a certain narrow gauge railway that has ceased to be, but its a bit tenuous!!

[Penlan]

I doubt if in the short term I shall be contributing much to RoS, but my family are Arbroath based and I try and keep an eye on Angus railways, etc.,

 

Of course my interests are mainly pre-grouping, LNWR and South Wales, so I shall probably have even less to add to the sum of knowledge of RoS.

 

But, I do have rather a nice original unpublished photo print from the 1860's, so will try and get it sorted before the print completely disappears and post it here.

 

Sandy Croall

[Matador]

" However I don't see this as a place for RMWeb member's to place their layouts - even if they are physically "located" or represent a "location" in Scotland."

I cant understand your logic on this one Kenton ???

David Cooke Sr

[Kenton]

I cant understand your logic on this one Kenton ???

David Cooke Sr

Perhaps because that part quote is taken out of its context?

 

I have a layout (stalled like so many) which was started in a blog. Although not pure prototype Scottish, it was (is) intended to be based on - to some extent - a flavour of Edinburgh Haymarket. If the groups had been around when I started it, I would never have posted it in the group. I don't see any layout "belonging" in the group but in the "Layouts" forum - when the majority of the site would first look for layouts.

 

Sure if it was probably more true to prototype I would provide a link in here. Possibly will if I ever get round to some of the buildings being representative enough. I also probably would consider asking any related questions here. But I have a much wider interest than just Railways of Scotland. I have joined nearly every group (now the bug that was causing issues with joining has been kindly fixed) but still do not seek out the Groups. If a topic of interest pops into "Active Content" I will read it and contribute if I can - to me the Groups are a total irrelevance - neither positive or negative, they simply have no impact.

 

I will continue to look for layouts in the Layout Forum and Workbench topics on the "Workbench" Forum.

 

I just think if we start to have a layouts sub group on every Group the whole place will begin to loose any hope of co-ordination. But I can see how it helps those with only a very single focused interest. They could simply hang out in the Group of choice and ignore the rest of the site.

 

I am already a little annoyed at the way topics are being poached into groups without any reference to the OP. I have had at least one of my WB topics moved and TBH I would rather it was put back where it was. But then who am I to protest if that is the way that Andy want to rearrange the deckchairs?