Contributing Writer
Contributing WriterAt the very least put the scale (if applicable) in the title.
Editor-in-Chief
Kevin and Dave are trying very hard to name news topics taking into account the requests of the site publisher. I am the first to admit that it is harder to do than you may think and we do not always get it right; it is a very fine line between informative and eye catching to misleading. I will raise your concerns with the publisher when I speak to him later today and make changes if instructed.
I myself feel Kevin and Dave do a very fine job of keeping you all informed of what's going on and if you feel different then please volunteer to step up and help; You need to remember that they do this in their own time and do not get any payments for that time. Talking of time I know Kevin has put in as much as 20 hours a week to try and keep you enlightened; I cannot speak for Dave as I just don't know.
As for Kevin being defensive I suppose that is possible, but I suspect it is more a case of him feeling pretty unappreciated for his time and effort.
Sven, I don't know about you, but there are many people who use multiple sites, reading many different forums. At the end of the day the little bit here and there you mention can add up to a fair chunk of time and a lot of frustration.
@Sven, No problems here you, (like everyone else on here) are entitled to your opinion (as long as we do it within the rules which I guess I maybe pushing), more so when you express it so well.
@Matt, I actually have the forums tab bookmarked its where I go right too. I'm seeing these vague headings under the Armour/AFV section of the forums not the news tab.
I generally skim through 3 or 4 forums a couple of times a day over a quick break. While it doesn't kill me checking "vague topics" the time it takes to load the page read it etc. I could be devoting to something I am actually interested in or make a reply to a post before I have to get back to the real world.
It is interesting to know I'm not the first person to voice issue over this though.
@Darren and other staffers, honestly is Ausf B.(quoting Darren here) " informative and eye catching " topic heading for the Armour/AFV forum. While its debatable that its "eye catching" I think (and many may agree) its far from informative. In this latest case "PzKpfw III Ausf B" would of been informative considering panzer types I, II, III, IV and VI all had sub-variants titled Ausf B, so Ausf B would at the very least be considered vague.
It takes what, 10 seconds?
Didn't change last time we had a thread on this. Still the same silly news "headlines". Page views sell advertising, and advertising pays the bills. Why this site can't stand solely on it's own due to content is?
@Sven, No problems here you, (like everyone else on here) are entitled to your opinion (as long as we do it within the rules which I guess I maybe pushing), more so when you express it so well.
Editor-in-Chief
@Darren and other staffers, honestly is Ausf B.(quoting Darren here) " informative and eye catching " topic heading for the Armour/AFV forum. While its debatable that its "eye catching" I think (and many may agree) its far from informative. In this latest case "PzKpfw III Ausf B" would of been informative considering panzer types I, II, III, IV and VI all had sub-variants titled Ausf B, so Ausf B would at the very least be considered vague.
Quoted Text
Didn't change last time we had a thread on this. Still the same silly news "headlines". Page views sell advertising, and advertising pays the bills. Why this site can't stand solely on it's own due to content is?
Exactly.
[rant mode]
I offered some time ago to help out the news team in order to get more accurate news, I got out eventually when I realised that what was expected of me was not to get more accurate news or find exclusive information that really interest modellers but to churn out pseudo news at high speed to beat other websites to the punch and generate more ad revenue.
That is sad but more a reflexion on modern economy and contemporary society than on Armorama, just following the times I guess.
[/rant mode]
On a positive note, critical postings are not deleted/removed, so at least here you can voice your opinion. You can thank Armorama for this.
Cheers,
Christophe
Contributing WriterIt's really quite simple: Manufacturer, Scale, Subject. Just put those items in the titles of your news threads.
Yes, it's repetitive and a little dull, but it's informative which is the whole point (or what should be the point).
Just give us the facts so that we, your loyal readers, can decide if we want to know more. Don't make us hunt around or turn over stones to discover the 2 or 3 releases that we find interesting out of the perhaps dozen or so that you might announce in a given day.
A two sentence post that so-and-so has reviewed such-and-such with a link to the review is not ever going to earn a Pulitzer Prize. All the thread title needs to do is to tell us what the product is.
As Joe Friday said: "Just the facts, mam..."
If it's something that we're interested in, we'll read the review. If it's not, we'll skip it and spend our time here looking at something that we are interested in.
As it is right now, I'm like many of the others posting here - I've given up bothering to open news and reviews threads with nonsensical, "whimsical" and uninformative titles. If the intent is to inform and advertise new releases, then the current method is, as far as I'm concerned, ineffective and counter-productive.
And, yes, this topic has been raised SEVERAL times in the past. That should tell the site managers something if they care to listen.
Publisher
 |
