|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 12, 2011 11:30:51 GMT -8
Thanks Canadian-Viking for the encouragement to get this forum page better organized.
The simple first step is that I've created a new sub-board for all the retired ships which were NOT part of the BCFerries fleet.
Next, I've added a sub-board for ex BCFerries ships that are Mid, that are Large, and that are Small in size.
- there were too many ex-BCFerries ships to leave all together in one place, so I divided them by size.
Next I created a separate sub-board for the big 3 "steamship companies" on our coast: CP's BCCS, Union Steamships, and Northland Navigation.
Next, I created a leftover catch-all "other" subboard for things like minor dept of Highways ships, and inland ferries.
-----------------
Let me know your thoughts on this.
ps: I don't really care about the fine-line between whether a ship is "Large", "Mid-Size" or "Minor". You'll find your favourite ship in one of the 3 categories, but we're not going to fuss over the fine detail of the division. ;D (really, we're not). ;D
|
|
Nick
Voyager 
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078 
|
Post by Nick on Oct 12, 2011 12:06:55 GMT -8
I honestly don't really see a lot of point in this re-organization. I've never had a problem finding a relevant thread before... and I find the sub-boards tend to glitch and make the forum more cumbersome. I find that scanning a few pages of threads is faster than clicking on each sub board, trying to find out which category your boat fits in.
I participate in a number of other forums, most of which are organized by much broader subjects. For example, the truck forum I participate in organizes discussion based on engine. All discussion centred around vehicles with a particular engine are located in one board. This makes it easy to find something without being absolutely certain the specifics of the particular thread. Also, on that forum, we use the search tool extensively, since it's fast and useful.
Anyway, my $0.02
|
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Oct 12, 2011 14:26:30 GMT -8
Would the CN Prince Ships count as one of the big players?
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 12, 2011 14:34:58 GMT -8
Would the CN Prince Ships count as one of the big players? Yes they do. Or at least from the same era as CP & Union. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 12, 2011 14:46:52 GMT -8
One of the things that I like about sub-boards is that you can easily compare the # of threads and posts (as a gauge of activity & interest) between the various categories.
- for instance, it's an easy way to see that the history part of our forum is much much more than just ex-BCF ships.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Oct 12, 2011 19:12:33 GMT -8
I also am not very pro the split. While I don't feel very strongly, sub forums are a pain to navigate for all but the most keen, and make the site look slower than it really is. There are not actually that many ships - wasn't this section of the forum only four or five pages before the re-org?
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 12, 2011 19:32:56 GMT -8
I look at the sub-boards as something like separate shelves in 1 overall bookcase.
I think that, for newer members and people that are still learning their ship history, these sub-board categories will help to clarify the different fleets and companies and how various ships fit into the old systems.
- similar to the recent query about whether the Ethel Hunter was ever in the BCF fleet.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Oct 12, 2011 20:36:53 GMT -8
Of course, I can't say for sure, but I suspect Mr Horn's sock drawer is a marvel of organization. He may even have different drawers for athletic socks and casual socks, and perhaps even for colours. Perhaps one day Mrs Horn will do a guest post and let us know what it's like living with this.  Actually, I like the idea of the re-organization. This forum is a goldmine of information on our coast's shipping history, and as the database of information and photos grows, I would like to know precisely where to look for all the different vessels. I appreciate the effort. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 12, 2011 20:47:26 GMT -8
Of course, I can't say for sure, but I suspect Mr Horn's sock drawer is a marvel of organization. He may even have different drawers for athletic socks and casual socks, and perhaps even for colours. Perhaps one day Mrs Horn will do a guest post and let us know what it's like living with this. Haha, you've hit on some truth about the socks. Just 2 drawers, but that's important when I have work socks and casual socks. And yes, some of the clothing is on a "first in, first out" basis re laundry: when the laundry gets done, the clean items go to the bottom of the drawer....otherwise I'd never use the items at the bottom. Rotation, it's not just for the cutlery drawer..... Obsession, it's not just a mental ailment... ;D |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Oct 12, 2011 21:03:42 GMT -8
:)one of the phrases heard often these days is 'use it or loose it', and it applies to virtually everything in my retirement years as some skills are diminishing and the learning curve is steep for any new computer routines, so I guess I will need Fudge or brother wettcoast, or any other kind vollunteers to come over to my ships locker and spoon feed me on how to use the historical features or any other items on this marvelous computer of mine! I think the same thing applies to ships ramps or many other features in many working peoples lives, as lack of use, and things become in disrepair, and worse, my home is full of gadgets that could work, if the operater has kept his skills up to speed, and with the move to digital skills many others are loosing old world skills! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
|
Post by chinook2 on Oct 13, 2011 12:28:30 GMT -8
As this is the historical board, I would suggest many of the ships in the midsize subboard should in fact be classed as major ships, since they were built and/or acquired to serve either route 1 or 2. The Sidney class, Langdale and Sechelt Queens, and QoTN for instance. Also, Princess of Vancouver thread(s) should be linked to, since she was at least briefly a part of the BCF fleet.
|
|
|
|
Post by chinook2 on Oct 13, 2011 12:40:41 GMT -8
Many of the images posted or linked to in old posts are no longer available. All members should make the effort to keep the graphics cited in this forum accessible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blisswood on Oct 14, 2011 18:07:42 GMT -8
Good job on the reorganization. Thanks for doing it.
Could I make one suggestion - not on the historic ships, but the "Ferries Busy" section. Could everything before "this year" be separated into a different thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 14, 2011 18:32:10 GMT -8
Good job on the reorganization. Thanks for doing it. Could I make one suggestion - not on the historic ships, but the "Ferries Busy" section. Could everything before "this year" be separated into a different thread? Good idea on the ferries-busy thread. Change has been made.  |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 17, 2011 6:25:43 GMT -8
Many of the images posted or linked to in old posts are no longer available. All members should make the effort to keep the graphics cited in this forum accessible. I agree. The "Graveyard of Red X's" is pretty sad in lots of these threads. I'll be going through and removing the old broken-link posts, over the next few weeks. In some cases, I'll also need to remove the responding "Wow, that was a great rare photo" type of posts, because those too are meaningless without the photo link. |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 17, 2011 13:01:41 GMT -8
Mr. Fluge, I applaud all the painstaking work that you are doing to better organize stough on this here forum. However, I want to make a suggestion...
The major and mid-size categorization seems to me to be fairly arbitrary. As an example I would have put the Queen of the North & QPR in with the 'majors'.
What would make more sense to me is to have two categories for the larger vessels - Spauldings and non-Spauldings. Obviously the retired Seven Sisters and Sidney class would go into the former category. The other category would contain photos and discussion on the Pacificats, QotN, QPR, Suzie Q, Sechelt & Langdale Queens.
I would put the Queen of the Islands in with the 'minors'.
Vessels that were briefly part of BC Ferries, such as the Princess of Vancouver, belong in with the category in which they served for most of their lives - e.g. Canadian Pacific in the case of the PoVan.
PS: If anyone notices broken photo links that are mine, please let me know, and I will fix them.
|
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Oct 17, 2011 14:22:32 GMT -8
How about we instate a rule stating that if one posts a photo, they maintain the responsibility of keeping the photo active and viewable?
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 17, 2011 14:25:18 GMT -8
How about we instate a rule stating that if one posts a photo, they maintain the responsibility of keeping the photo active and viewable? Maybe not a rule, but a strong suggestion that a photo-poster should take a long-term view of their photo legacy. |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Oct 17, 2011 15:20:54 GMT -8
:)when I survey our past Pacific Coast Shipping history, over the many years I've been at this, I have tended to look at this as this Northwest coast as as geographical unit, for example the for years the CPR ran the triangle service, and a very coastal service that included Washington, and Alaska, so for mrdot., this is one coastal unit!  |
|
