Concern for the future of the forum...

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I've been offline a bit recently due to technical problems but I am disturbed by the way the quality of posts on the forum has deteriorated. Nobody expects everyone to be an expert, but it surely wouldn't hurt some users to try reading a book or two before posting.

Its worth remembering that the core purpose of the forum is to discuss unbuilt projects. Not to discuss American politics, for example.

Its also worth remembering that while some members of the forum are engineers, pilots, soldiers, authors, or journalists, others of us are just enthusiasts, and the enthusiasts need to remember their facts and opinions are often second or third hand from the front line. It can be irritating to users with real knowledge to have armchair experts pontificating on subjects they've never studied except from Google searches.

In fact, it can turn them off the forum for good.

So please, THINK before posting.

Think, is this post likely to be interesting to others? Is it related to the core interests of the forum?
Are the facts and opinions I am presenting sound, based on my knowledge or from a source I trust?
Have I put down the sources I have used, so others can verify my conclusions?

And remember The Bar is there for users to go off topic in. If you only ever post in The Bar, you are probably on the wrong forum.

 

[sferrin]

X2

 

[Farloccus]

It's the sad destiny of every good forum...

 

[Antonio]

Not necessary, but it's time for some restoration and remediation

 

[sferrin]

It's the sad destiny of every good forum...

Not here. The offenders usually get whipped into shape pronto or shown the door.

 

[Triton]

Not here. The offenders usually get whipped into shape pronto or shown the door.

I would rather see the administrator and/or the moderators handle this via PM instead of members policing the forums. Users shouldn't be chastised using Reply and an infraction becomes a permanent record in Secret Projects.

In addition, people will write ignorant or stupid posts. Sometimes we have bad days too and write things that we later regret. Can we, should we, use the "Report to Moderator" function to request the deletion of posts or should a PM be sent to a moderator to delete our posts?

 

[Stargazer2006]

If this forum is a meeting place for experts and the mere enthusiasts are not welcome, then I think this should clearly be stated from the word go so that the likes of me can go elsewhere and not waste anybody's time.

This being said, attracting the average internet user with the deceiving "Secret projects" title is clearly an effective way for you guys to encourage this forum's turning into a second-rate unprofessional chatroom: indeed, if something deserves the label "Secret" then professionals will NOT discuss it publicly on the web... and if it is declassified, it is no longer secret! "Secret projects" would therefore suit a rumor-oriented forum with discussions on Blackstar, Aurora, Fastmover and so forth, NOT a professional, fact-centered forum that deals with unbuilt McDonnell Douglas airliners or once-projected VTOL transports!

Sorry for being frank but I think there really is a misgiving here from the very start. And if my presence as a non-expert is a pain in some people's necks, then I'd rather know so I can use my energy elsewhere.

 

[sferrin]

Not here. The offenders usually get whipped into shape pronto or shown the door.

I would rather see the administrator and/or the moderators handle this via PM instead of members policing the forums. Users shouldn't be chastised using Reply and an infraction becomes a permanent record in Secret Projects.

That seems to be the way it goes though if mods want to call someone out publicly that works too.

In addition, people will write ignorant or stupid posts. Sometimes we have bad days too and write things that we later regret.

That's what the "remove" option is for. I've deleted plenty of my own posts for that very reason.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If this forum is a meeting place for experts and the mere enthusiasts are not welcome, then I think this should clearly be stated from the word go so that the likes of me can go elsewhere and not waste anybody's time.

I don't think there is any bar or standard on membership of this forum. Rather a code of conduct.

That code is that unless you actually have something of value to contribute about a 'secret' project then keep your mouth shut. What is considered valuable is new information - not yet available publicly on the internet - about aerospace and military projects that were at one time or another considered secret with a focus on this projects or proposals that never entered service.

This code does not require someone to be an engineer or defence professional and does not preclude enthusiasts. The reality is everyone here is an enthusiast though some of us may work day jobs in this domain. There are many professionals who don't give a damn about this kind of thing and would never 'waste' time on this forum reading about the complex and interesting history of aerosapce and defence engineering when they could be riding jetskis getting drunk or whatever.

There are multiple web forums that encourage people to come online and post their opinion, belief, whatever about aerospace and military projects real or imagined. On those webpages people can debate, argue, etc to their hearts content. A quick list that I know of includes:

www.militaryphotos.net
www.strategypage.com
forum.keypublishing.com
www.defencetalk.com
www.whatifmodelers.com

By filling this forum with posts that offer no new information, un-informed opinions, reposted data from FAS or wikipedia or off-topic ramblings the guilty few are simply driving away those very people who can provide new information and cluttering the system so its harder to find the very stuff this webpage was set up to support. Frankly I don't thing anyone's ego is so freaking valuable that I'm willing to tolerate that kind of posting.

This being said, attracting the average internet user with the deceiving "Secret projects" title is clearly an effective way for you guys to encourage this forum's turning into a second-rate unprofessional chatroom: indeed, if something deserves the label "Secret" then professionals will NOT discuss it publicly on the web... and if it is declassified, it is no longer secret! "Secret projects" would therefore suit a rumor-oriented forum with discussions on Blackstar, Aurora, Fastmover and so forth, NOT a professional, fact-centered forum that deals with unbuilt McDonnell Douglas airliners or once-projected VTOL transports!

This is a great example of the kind of pointless post that this forum really doesn't need. Secret Projects is an accurate name for this forum because the great majority of projects detailed here were at one time or another classified secret or restricted from public knowledge in some way. Which is why most people don't know about them.

By the failed logic presented above it would be inappropriate to call a veteran a soldier after they are mustered out from the service. 'Because they are no longer a solider!' Please stop wasting my time with your opinion when you clearly don't understand the very basics that underpin this webforum.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I would rather see the administrator and/or the moderators handle this via PM instead of members policing the forums. Users shouldn't be chastised using Reply and an infraction becomes a permanent record in Secret Projects.

There's nothing wrong with public discussion; refer to Aristotle's public and private polis.

Something which I wish to add to the public record is why the hell is Triton filling this forum with posts of data ripped off from Wikipedia or FAS? Secret Projects doesn't need to replicate these already publicly available resources of information.

This question is slightly complex because in some areas Triton's reposting of public data has resulted in a bit of churning and forum members responding with new information, which is good. On the other hand it has also generated a lot of the pointless ill-informed opinion posts, which is bad and the very problem this thread is attempting to address.

 

[sferrin]

That code is that unless you actually have something of value to contribute about a 'secret' project then keep your mouth shut.

My thoughts exactly though I don't know that I'd have put it exactly like that.

What is considered valuable is new information - not yet available publicly on the internet - about aerospace and military projects that were at one time or another considered secret with a focus on this projects or proposals that never entered service.

Just my two cents on this. Sometimes there are things of value that are already on the net but very obscure. For example I'd asked "jaglavaksoldier" on youtube if he had a clip of the MX buried trench test (he's posted a lot of rare video clips). He eventually posted it but then over on the side was a clip in Japanese text that had an hour or so program on the whole MX developement program. I'd never found it because I don't speak Japanese. I knew neither were here so I posted links to the Japanese program. Now while it is on the net it's also got footage of the land vehicle that was to carry the mobile MX (among a lot of other interesting stuff). Most probably didn't know such a thing even existed, let alone seen video of it. So while it's on the net I would still consider it relevant to this site and think it would be of value to others.

There are many professionals who don't give a damn about this kind of thing and would never 'waste' time on this forum reading about the complex and interesting history of aerosapce and defence engineering when they could be riding jetskis getting drunk or whatever.

I'd change that to "most" professionals unfortunately. To many it's "just a job". It is funny the looks you see though when one professes how revolutionary something is and ya tell them it was already tried 40 years ago and show them pictures.

By filling this forum with posts that offer no new information, un-informed opinions, reposted data from FAS or wikipedia or off-topic ramblings the guilty few are simply driving away those very people who can provide new information and cluttering the system so its harder to find the very stuff this webpage was set up to support. Frankly I don't thing anyone's ego is so freaking valuable that I'm willing to tolerate that kind of posting.

I wonder how hard it would be to have a "trial period" where a new members posts are evaluated by the mods for merit before letting the posts through and thus having to "earn" the right to post? That might sound draconian but it would cut down on the noise and perhaps encourage better behavior. Just a thought.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Keep in mind, this is a limited field of study. Look at luft46.com: for a couple years it was a hoppin' website, with constant updates. But after a while the updates crawled to an effective halt. Because they'd pretty much dug up all there was to dig up. "Secret Projects" as a whole is of course far larger than "Luft '46," but the easy stuff has been done.

 

[AeroFranz]

Not here. The offenders usually get whipped into shape pronto or shown the door.

I would rather see the administrator and/or the moderators handle this via PM instead of members policing the forums. Users shouldn't be chastised using Reply and an infraction becomes a permanent record in Secret Projects.

It's been my experience that moderators have a pretty good idea of what constitutes valuable posting (in many cases they are the originators) and what's best for the forum. I believe they would be the most effective in handling exclusion from the forum.
"Useless" posts come from a restricted number of people, mostly newbies who may not have an idea of the quality of information usually exchanged on the forum. They probably deserve a fair warning, but yes, endless posting of FAS and wikipedia articles should not be tolerated. I invite all forum members to help out and amiably point this out when such posts are made.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

If this forum is a meeting place for experts and the mere enthusiasts are not welcome, then I think this should clearly be stated from the word go so that the likes of me can go elsewhere and not waste anybody's time.

Certainly not. It *is* primarily about real, historical projects however. Anyone interested in the history of aeronautics or the also-rans of technological history is welcome, be they beginner or expert.

This being said, attracting the average internet user with the deceiving "Secret projects" title is clearly an effective way for you guys to encourage this forum's turning into a second-rate unprofessional chatroom: indeed, if something deserves the label "Secret" then professionals will NOT discuss it publicly on the web... and if it is declassified, it is no longer secret!

Funnily enough the reason for the title was the extremely well known Secret Projects series of books, published by Midland Counties for many years precisely on unbuilt aircraft projects including the British, Soviet and American Secret Projects by Tony Buttler. I could have registered www.unbuiltprojects.co.uk but frankly its a much less cool sounding URL. All the projects within *were* secret once and information on them often remains classified for many years; without the patient work of professional authors and archivists they would have often been lost.

"Secret projects" would therefore suit a rumor-oriented forum with discussions on Blackstar, Aurora, Fastmover and so forth, NOT a professional, fact-centered forum that deals with unbuilt McDonnell Douglas airliners or once-projected VTOL transports!

That would be ATS. Not here. Not that informed speculation on current secret projects is forbidden here but if you want to talk anti-gravity discs or the like, ATS is a better place.

Sorry for being frank but I think there really is a misgiving here from the very start. And if my presence as a non-expert is a pain in some people's necks, then I'd rather know so I can use my energy elsewhere.

No-one said anything to that effect, as far as I am aware.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Keep in mind, this is a limited field of study. Look at luft46.com: for a couple years it was a hoppin' website, with constant updates. But after a while the updates crawled to an effective halt. Because they'd pretty much dug up all there was to dig up. "Secret Projects" as a whole is of course far larger than "Luft '46," but the easy stuff has been done.

You are correct, Scott. Not that there isn't more to find, but the pace of new finds will certainly slow.

Perhaps we need to find a way to split the forum into two, a strictly factual reference database section and a more free discussion area?

 

[GTX]

There are multiple web forums that encourage people to come online and post their opinion, belief, whatever about aerospace and military projects real or imagined. On those webpages people can debate, argue, etc to their hearts content. A quick list that I know of includes:

www.militaryphotos.net
www.strategypage.com
forum.keypublishing.com
www.defencetalk.com
www.whatifmodelers.com

Whilst I agree with the majority of Abraham's post, may I ask that people please don't consider www.whatifmodelers.com as being an area to "argue ... to their hearts content". .

Regards,

Greg

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The thing is, anyone can contribute, not just "professionals". Look though photos released by NASA, USAF, DoD or similar sites. If you happen across a pile of old aircraft magazines at a garage sale, flick through and you'll probably find something interesting. Find out if there's a museum near where you live which has old prototypes, wind tunnel models or documents that you can photograph or read. Visit a decent library and look through what they have. Maybe its not exactly your favourite project, but someone out there will be pleased to hear about it, and maybe they'll visit that museum in Germany you always wanted to see in return.

 

[Hoo-2b-2day]

All internet forums go through periods of problems, its part of the downside of the environment. The most important consideration is how to handle the problematic issues and Overscan has taken the right first steps in the initial post on this topic.

Recently I posted comment about another forum in which fictional and fantasy “projects” have swamped the intentions of the forum creators. It reached the stage that any realistic critique of the “designs”, wether from an historical, engineering, military aspects etc, would be “howled down” by so called enthusiast. It was very clear that many of the latter were quite young and that nearly all their information came from the internet with blind acceptance of believing what they what to believe. It appears that some of contributors to Secret projects may be of this ilk. (Eg I have encountered a large number of people in various naval and military history folders really believe that the “Tillman” series of design studies (US battleships) were intended for production and only stopped by the Washington Treaty of 1923 and please don’t get me started of “H44 battleship supporters club”.)

From a lot of the posts there also appears to be lack of understanding of project methodology of which the designs and design studies are but a small part of. There is often little comprehension of capability assessments and needs, research and development, design requirements, design studies etc. A possibility is more use of referencing to give the forum readers guidance to good information/knowledge sources, Reading one of Norman Freidman’s works such as US Cruisers a design History can give a sound understanding of the processes that (sometimes but sometimes does not) lead to the building of a piece of miliary (or civilian) hardware.

Yes the forum will attract enthusiast with lots of time and little real knowledge but these are controllable with guidance, such as a quite word from one of the moderators, then, if appropriate, further actions such as suspending posting rights.

I believe that the basic format of Secret projects is very good and do not believe it needs any great changes. The “knowledge bar” may seem high but is not intimidating. This forum has shown the ability to manage information in a way that can only educate people about projects in the real word as opposed to the now normal acceptance fictional/fantasy projects that dominate the net. The best way ahead is through mutual education and encouragement.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Hoo-2b-2day, a good post. Thanks indeed.

Great as the internet is, it is changing the way we access information, for bad as well as for good. Users have to learn to assess sources, sift through conflicting information and understand that just because someone posts something on the net that doesn't make it true. Too many young people seem to end up other cynically disbelieving everything or credulously believing everything, neither being useful or productive.

Google "moon Landings faked", and you will find many different sites questioning the legitimacy of the moon landings. Some might even seem convincing to a layman. That doesn't mean we can't find the truth; you simply have to learn to judge the value of different opinions and theories.

Getting back to the forum, I will freely admit that my knowledge of Naval projects is largely zero, so I will rarely intervene in that forum. In fact, I am happy to consider nominations for additional moderators for Naval, Missiles, Space and Army Projects sections. These are spin-offs from my original site idea that make perfect sense, even if they aren't *my* area of interest.

I'm sure there are probably a lot more projects remaining to find in these areas than in the aircraft sections.

 

[Skybolt]

My opinion: Scott naturally is right. The easy stuff is (almost) done. Apart archives (difficult stuff by definition), there are things left in periodicals (both trade and academic), though. They are difficult to access (or costly), expecially if before the 80's. And this translate in another type of "cost": time. If I personally had a different job than the one I have (e.g. working full time for a corporation), my research would have been a tenth of the one I am able to do. This seems to have nothing to do with the forum but it has: the amount of info going on the forum from personal research (even from "open" sources, mind you) is naturally a fraction of what one'll discover. And I don't even mention the problems that arise when one tries and gets a living form those researches (not my case).
As for restricting the access, I'm vacillating, no firm idea. The Private Discussion area could be used to propagate findings to an inner circle in addition than calling for advise. Anyway, this is an Internet medium, and typically the number of people tha post with the end of posting something will increase. In computer forums the customary sentence by experts to newbyes is: "read the manual before asking". I don't know what the "manual" for secret projects could be. Like in astronomy, though, there is plenty of room for "backyard enthusiasts" contributions. Instead of posting unmeaningful sentences, go and find old issues of "Rockets and Missiles", "Spaceflight", "Space/Aeronautics" (easily forgotten, I own a couple of years' issues from 1968-1970 and it was very interesting) and look in them. Your library may have that collections. Another potentially large research are juvenile literature and news magazines like Collier's, Fortune, Time, Life and the like in individual countries: a beautiful full color high resolution inboard view of the NAA NAC-60 you'll soon or later see in one of the Scott's publications comes form an article in 1967 Epoca (Italian Life look-alike). Look at what user Hesham, just to mention one, has been able to do using only Internet sources. In other words: be "really" enthusiast, it doesn't take of being an insider to make this forum rock. BTW, it is the only way I know of becoming in time an insider (expert).

 

[Justo Miranda]

In my opinion , the tax payers' decreasing interest for the aerospace industry will produce more projects and less real stuff.
The future of the forum is ensured.

 

[bobbymike]

IMHO forums like Secret Projects will always walk a fine line between too much non-relevant discussion and too much esoteric discussion. It is always difficult , especially when discussing unbuilt yet very capable projects, to limit ones comments too purely technical issues. All it takes is one person to innocently ask, "Why was that not built?" and pretty soon it is McNamara this or Gates' that!!

I am an aviation and military technology enthusiast (20+ years of retained and stored Aviation Week magazines can attest to that) but I don't want to "only discuss" the number of rivets on an F-106's wing.

I think a warning for inappropriate posts is the best way to go but also not to be too restrictive in order to foster participation of "informed amateurs" like myself to this great website.

 

[Barrington Bond]

I contribute what I can when I can and try to keep my "Way cool!!" type comments to a minimum. This is a very good forum but it is getting a bit more difficult to seperate the wheat from the chaff - I do not profess to know what a viable solution is.

But back to another comment about splitting the forum as it is getting a bit unwieldy to try and find information about particular projects or manufacturers. How about a new section (perhaps only available to members over a certain amount of postings?) where we can condense (take out the waffle), clarify (written evidence or oral evidence) and index posts into a more coherent and easier to find format. Perhaps books, magazines or archives could be mentioned as to the sources of the information.

A way to do it could be by listing manufacturers and then by project number. Other manufacturers projects to the same spec could be listed within the details of that particular one. In that way you could look up one particular aircraft and within its details you will know what the competitors projects are to look up.

I would suggest for starters only aircraft and space stuff be done first.

Regards,
Barry

 

[sferrin]

I contribute what I can when I can and try to keep my "Way cool!!" type comments to a minimum. This is a very good forum but it is getting a bit more difficult to seperate the wheat from the chaff - I do not profess to know what a viable solution is.

But back to another comment about splitting the forum as it is getting a bit unwieldy to try and find information about particular projects or manufacturers. How about a new section (perhaps only available to members over a certain amount of postings?) where we can condense (take out the waffle), clarify (written evidence or oral evidence) and index posts into a more coherent and easier to find format. Perhaps books, magazines or archives could be mentioned as to the sources of the information.

A way to do it could be by listing manufacturers and then by project number. Other manufacturers projects to the same spec could be listed within the details of that particular one. In that way you could look up one particular aircraft and within its details you will know what the competitors projects are to look up.

I would suggest for starters only aircraft and space stuff be done first.

Regards,
Barry

I think at least part of the reason (other than time) that it isn't already more organized is how do you do it? Does it make more sense to organize by manufacturer or by project? For instance having all the ATF stuff in one location would be more convenient than going to seven different locations to round it all up. But then you don't want it all stuffed into one folder higgly piggly ether. There doesn't seem to be a "best" answer.

 

[Matej]

I think I should better explain the original splitting idea: It is not about organizing the stuff by manufacturer, project, etc... It is about making something, what I called "dual topics". Practical technical solution is not chosen yet. Then we will have one part of the topic, where we post only facts, estimations from the insiders or highly educated brains and so - so it will have some form of database. The second part of the topic is for the discussion about the first part, it means truly forum. The idea is, that in the second part you can say your WOW! without spamming the factual database part of the topic. Of course, antigravity discs, politics, etc. will not be allowed as usual, but there you can discuss the facts and go a little bit offtopic, while in the first part you will still have high quality database of the information without the useless posts.

As was said before, we already found the easy information, so this should be the way, how to keep the number of the posts on the current level, while in the same time preserve the quality of the (database part of the) topics.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I've considered this before, and it needs some kind of database. That way you can view in many different ways. Just not sure exactly how to do it.

 

[Jemiba]

Are you thinking of something like that ?
Don't know, if it is technically feasible with the forumsoftware,
but generally it seems to be a good idea. But I think, the rights to post
in the database part, or to move post to this section, should be restricted,
so it probably would increase the workload for the admins ..

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I was thinking of a project database where moderators and chosen senior members would have the ability to add articles and then tag them with relevant tags (manufacturer, date, country, spec/requirement, role etc). You could then have multiple views to the same articles - via manufacturer, country of origin, timeframe, role.... - or search.

I don't think such a system exists off-the-shelf however.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The web forum based collation of data works just fine with the search engine and the attached images. Just as long as nine out of ten posts aren't nonsense like:

i hope they don't disappoint the world. fanboi's may eventually become an angry mob

??? : :-[

 

[SteveO]

Keep in mind, this is a limited field of study. Look at luft46.com: for a couple years it was a hoppin' website, with constant updates. But after a while the updates crawled to an effective halt. Because they'd pretty much dug up all there was to dig up. "Secret Projects" as a whole is of course far larger than "Luft '46," but the easy stuff has been done.

Good point, I put all the easy stuff on Key forums years back ;D

Most of my posts here are to thank people for sharing something new, trouble is that doesn't really contribute to the thread and can seem like a waste of space. Maybe we could have a "SteveO likes this!" button or star rating to show our appreciation for individual posts, rather than filling up a thread with one line comments?

I also think new threads should be locked until approved by a moderator to prevent repetition of topics. Maybe we could all start suggesting threads that could be merged too?

 

[Skybolt]

I personally have no problem on elogiative comments, provided that the people who elogiate do some kind of research and post their results, too. I think that this is the concern on part of Paul Overscan. As as been said, the really easy stuff (i.e. looking in famous books and easily found periodicals) has already been done, but there is a lot of less easy stuff to dig out, even before going to the really dfficult stuff in publc and company archives and private estates. Procure a spade.

 

[Matej]

I personally have no problem on elogiative comments, provided that the people who elogiate do some kind of research and post their results, too.

Neither do I. But what when they dint? We have some members for sure, that have only senseless posts. I also have sometimes the posts, when I only make a joke or something similar, but I think that they are adequately balanced by usefull posts. The very complex question is, where is the border of it. Is it worth to have the member with the 50 posts, from which two are great findings of some unseen material and 48 are senseless posts?

Concern for the future of the forum is not about its end, because everything will be digged already. There is still a lot of information from the past and a lot of the new projects (compared to the luft46 for example), that we can discuss. But the point is, what we should do to keep the original quality of the forum (that is unfortunately going down). Just take a look, how much in the last weeks increased the number of the posts in the Bar and decreased in Secret projects section.

 

[Antonio]

Just take a look, how much in the last weeks increased the number of the posts in the Bar and decreased in Secret projects section.

I agree with that

 

[sferrin]

My vote would be to fix it rather than to continue to let it fester. It's pretty easy to see who's contributing and who is just adding to the noise. Set the noise makers back to "read only" for a month or two to give them time decide if they want to contribute or find somewhere else to play.

 

[Skybolt]

Harsh but measured resolution. I concede.

 

[GTX]

Not to discuss American politics, for example.

I must admit, that from my pov this

, the apparent constant 'sponging' of some members and the "I don't like this program (e.g. F-35, but could also be applied to others) so I'm just going to attack everything about it without even bothering to worry about facts" attitude that appear to be growing are my biggest concerns. I will admit that I'm not always an angel but I am at least trying (over recent months I have deliberately stopped posting many times so as not to 'contribute to the problem').

Regards,

Greg

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I am pretty happy with how the situation has improved since my original post.

 

[Skybolt]

Spongers and pesterers, too, go on vacation... ;D Ok, ok, I'm joking....

 

[Triton]

I think we still have an issue here. I believe that each section of Secret Projects should have designated and clearly identified moderators. These moderators should actively monitor the sections to which they are assigned. The administrators and moderators should maintain editorial standards of Secret Projects and they should make edit, move, lock and removal decisions concerning posts and topics. Members should not be taking it unto themselves to police the forums and make editorial comments concerning the quality of posts and topics using Reply, this is clearly an administrator and moderator function. It is not their business to set a member "straight". If a member believes that a post does not adhere to the quality and/or the editorial standards of Secret Projects, they should report the post and let the moderator(s) handle the situation, hopefully through PM. Multiply replies with the intention of "setting them straight" aren't a productive way to handle the situation and at worst become abuse especially toward Secret Projects newbies. Budding enthusiasts don't have the breadth of knowledge of the distinguished members of this forum. Over the past several months of being active on Secret Projects, I have learned a lot and have been introduced to great sources of information, such as web sites and books, and I appreciate the input of members. I just hope that distinguished members will show more empathy to budding enthusiasts before they press Reply and realize that alot of this information is new and exciting to us and we make naive comments. It is our intention to make a valuable contribution to Secret Projects.

 

[Stargazer2006]

Being myself a moderator on another forum, I can only adhere 200% to what Triton has just said. This will reinforce the coherence and accuracy of the site while avoiding some unpleasant remarks that should really only emanate from the mods, and only in private messages. I hope you guys can set this up soonest so that each section has a clearly identified person to refer to on various issues related to it. Keep up the good work!