[C320-list] Architecture

[Daryl Hunt]

Hi all,   I'm new to this group, just bought hull #660 Believe in June.  I respect Graeme's raising the question, and I tend to agree with the forum approach vs email.  I haven't seen anyone threaten to leave the group over it.  Change is hard and it seems the status quo's have it.   I hope we can get back to the C320 topics soon.  I've been learning a lot!

Regards, Daryl HuntBelieve #660

-------- Original message --------
From: pat reynolds <lorasalum at yahoo.com> 
Date: 08/02/2015  3:46 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: C320-List at Catalina320.com 
Subject: Re: [C320-list] Architecture 

Jeff,  keep up the great work,  Graeme, Bruce and Larry, good luck where ever you end up.  
 


     On Saturday, August 1, 2015 6:32 PM, Larry Smith <larrywindsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
   

 I wholeheartedly agree with Graeme & Bruce.
On Aug 1, 2015 2:01 PM, <c320-list-request at lists.catalina320.com> wrote:

> Send C320-list mailing list submissions to
>        c320-list at lists.catalina320.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.catalina320.com/listinfo.cgi/c320-list-catalina320.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        c320-list-request at lists.catalina320.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        c320-list-owner at lists.catalina320.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of C320-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Forum "architecture" (swampcreek42)
>    2. Re: Forum "architecture" (Jeff Hare)
>    3. Re: Forum "architecture" (Joseph R Aberdale)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:32:31 -0400
> From: swampcreek42 <swampcreek42 at yahoo.com>
> To: C320-List at Catalina320.com, c320-list at lists.catalina320.com
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Forum "architecture"
> Message-ID: <n611v8lx1mrurr2pphpb7ohs.1438439551073 at email.android.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> I agree with Graeme on this, a forum type media would better. I deeply
> appreciate the work and time that the people put into running this site and
> wouldn't want to offend but IMO the email list isn't what most people are
> used to in an interest group. It might even hold some back from
> contributing. I find it more problematic compared to other specific
> interest sites ?(forums) that I belong to. I made this suggestion when I
> first joined as well but the prevailing responses were to keep it as it is
> so I didn't discuss or bring it up anymore.
> Bruce Hunter?Nauti Time #719?
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Graeme Clark <cg at skyflyer.co.uk>
> Date: 07/31/2015  3:19 PM  (GMT-05:00)
> To: c320-list at lists.catalina320.com
> Subject: [C320-list] Forum "architecture"
>
> An earlier post by me generated a question about responding to list
> messages without having to cut and paste.
>
> Until now - as a relative newcomer - (from foreign shores, too) - I have
> remained silent, but at the risk of incurring the wrath of the volunteers
> who look after this list I am now going to mention this ?elephant in the
> room?!
>
> Why on earth are we using this outdated, email-list type of forum
> architecture?
>
> It is clunky, and frequently, undisciplined use means that many responses
> are posted with the inclusion of the entire list message or the entire
> thread, making it difficult to follow. (Not least because responding is not
> a simple matter of just hitting ?reply' in your email program. You have to
> fiddle around and edit the subject title, remove messages from other
> threads and so on
>
> You cannot even post messages from the web interface in Google groups
> either, it?s ?read only?
>
> You cannot add rich text features like bold or italic, except like *this*!
>
> and its all so ancient an un-necessary!
>
> take a look here at the C34 owners site
>
> http://www.c34.org/bbs/index.php
>
> This is a standard message board format (available as freeware); you can
> subscribe to receive new emails, choose to follow certain threads or not,
> and so on.
>
> Guys and Girls - at the risk of upsetting someone,? this froum is the
> technical equivalent of hemp rope when everyone else has moved on to
> Dyneema, we are the typewriter to everyone else?s iPad, we are the sextant
> to everyone elses?s GPS!
>
> I am more than willing to help us move into the 21st Century if its help
> thats needed.
>
> Or am I missing a trick - is there some perceived benfit to the email list
> that I haven?t understood or some trick to using it that would make it less
> a labour of Hercules?
>
> (tin hat on, for incoming!)
>
> Graeme
> #366 Jaskar, England
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 12:11:28 -0400
> From: "Jeff Hare" <Catalina at thehares.com>
> To: <C320-List at Catalina320.com>
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Forum "architecture"
> Message-ID: <050b01d0cc74$b9900340$2cb009c0$@thehares.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;      charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear members.
>
> This is long but important as it marks a turning point.
>
> I'm really not trying to be a brick wall here, but since this is and has
> been essentially "my baby" whether I really wanted it or not for the past
> 12
> years, let's clear up a few things. I'm a professional software engineer by
> trade with a background in electrical engineering. I sit in front of a bank
> of monitors and write software for web startup companies 10 hours a day as
> I
> have for years. I completely understand this stuff inside and out at a
> level
> that makes most people run screaming from the room.  :)
>
> So, first I'll state the obvious so we're all on the same page.
>
> Today we have an email based discussion list, not a browser driven forum.
> We
> also set up a Google Discussion group that is Read-Only for searching (
> **for now** ). Google is the undeniable expert in search. The reason for an
> email discussion list is partly historical and partly because it is
> incredibly easy for members to participate, even when out on your boat in a
> harbor with very slow Wi-Fi or poor cell coverage. Try browsing or
> searching
> a web forum from your phone or tablet with only a single non-4G bar on your
> phone. Talk about frustrating!!! Text based email on the other hand will
> come through quickly and you're likely to get an answer to urgent questions
> just as quickly.
>
> If you want a place to carry on categorized social discussions, forums are
> great vehicle for that. This was really intended to be an owners technical
> support forum, not a social forum. So CLEARLY we disagree on the intended
> goal here.
>
> I will add that searching most BBS/web based discussion forums can be a
> frustrating experience because nearly all BBS systems rely on the database
> engine text matching for locating results. That totally stinks for finding
> quality results in context. Good contextual search is *very* hard. The
> C34's
> forum is no different there. Quality historical search is the reason for
> setting up an archive history using Google Groups.
>
> Our discussion list *CAN* allow pictures, attachments, rich text, all that
> and more.  That opens the door to viruses, inappropriate posts, etc.. (a
> tradeoff).  We (I) deliberately operate it in plain text mode because of
> the
> List's builtin archiving feature.  You can download all the discussion list
> history to your laptop or tablet and have it available off line.  These
> archives go back to October 2005 and cover everything that was ever
> discussed here. You can see this in action here:
> http://lists.catalina320.com/pipermail/c320-list-catalina320.com/
>
> The intent was that some volunteer or team of volunteers could use these
> text based archives to produce a solid knowledge base of information and
> best practices that has been captured in discussions over time. Because
> they
> are plain text and require no special software to read, that makes them a
> snap to copy/paste into any article or knowledge base.  So that's something
> anyway that isn't *useless* as I keep hearing.  I intended to write some
> software that would organize and keyword index these to use on our website.
> Best laid plans...
>
> Ok, Great, or Terrible depending on which of the many sides of this
> discussion you happen to fall on.
>
> The plan is (and has been for some time now) to enable social media Single
> Sign-On into our website so that if you're signed into Google, Facebook,
> Twitter or a myriad of other options, we'll be able to authenticate you as
> an association member and allow you to participate without having to sign
> in
> all over the place. Then we would make the switch over so that you can
> participate in the discussion list through the Google Group web interface,
> through email or both.  And it would be second nature and just work.
>
> Just "wanting it" isn't enough to make it happen. There are many safeguards
> that have to fall in place to keep things restricted to owners and those
> who
> have a genuine interest in the Catalina 320.  This means writing and
> testing
> more custom software. No out of the box system does this completely today.
> None. It has to be programmed into existence and maintained, or you have to
> decide which of the features you have now you're willing to give up in
> exchange.  There is nothing but a large set of trade-offs to make here.
>
> A new mobile device responsive version of our website was in development as
> I write this. Frankly, it'll still take months more of my time to complete,
> but it was coming together.  Our website is a unique among most of the
> other
> association websites out there because it was architected as a community
> site where individual members or groups of members can be granted rights to
> enhance the site, its content etc.. The new site work in development would
> be a major visual facelift and also add new set of community features where
> members can more easily add/remove content, articles, share documents,
> pictures, videos and other knowledge base information. Does it need a
> content reorg, absolutely. Are all the right features set up so that
> they're
> easy to use? Not yet. Is the site searching up to google standards? No, but
> leveraging google site search instead of database search is a feature I was