maybe just a clean up of every body who has less then a reasonable amount of posts for a given time
or in my case to many!
Yes
No
Don't Know
maybe just a clean up of every body who has less then a reasonable amount of posts for a given time
or in my case to many!
http://www.medpot.net/forums/
daily volcano demo`s
find out the truth
tell`em morbo sent you
mention lansing heritage for 10% off
Yep, let's start to this end. I suggest we all post our #1 concern.Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Personally I consider the lack of simple means to collect reference type of information an order of magnitude more troublesome than occasional misplaced posts or interleaved OT in "serious" threads.
By "simple means" I mean a database and/or hierarchy with distinct "nodes" for every relevant Lansing product, for all major projects undertaken by forumites, as well as for other frequently discussed topics, whereupon we can collect the important bits and pieces on the fly and also tidy up the information as time allows.
In short: The forum is excellent for discussions, but conclusions and results belong elsewhere IMO.
Going back to some earlier comments, let's get things organized before we restructure. The critical issues here are the how and the who.
Clearly there has to be a method that's consistent with the forum's current software, and clearly it's more than a one-man job. The job certainly can't fall to Don or John while everyone sits back and waits.
Out.
I think this is a very good starting point. It may not be the absolutely ideal scenario, but it is easily implemented and gets us closer to our goal of lessening the confusion. It would also add a level of control we don't currently have while performing searches.
It would also be possible to weed through the legacy threads and populate the new areas with threads that are clearly useful and the remainder of the old threads that meander about could simply be put in a read only (Old Technical Threads) area.
The moderators and administrators of the forum have discussed this and while we are all in agreement that we would like this functionality, it appears that we have certain technical and man power issues that make it impractical at this time.
Widget
Ti Dome goes wild
Even though I run a nonprofit corporation and don't spend money when I don't have to, I've always subscribed to the idea that you get what you pay for. When I need expertise or personpower that's outside the ken of my staff, I outsource.
I think one solution might be to pay someone to go through this site under Don's and John's supervision and make the needed fixes once and for all. The the only question is cost.
Yes, cost is a difficult question to answer, but it pales in comparison to all the ambiguity that we'll have if we try to cobble this effort together ourselves. For me in a situation like this, the cost of buying expertise is always more efficient than trying to create it (often with dubious results).
In this case the questions become, "Who will do it?" and "How much will it cost,?" followed by "How will we raise the money?"
I think Don, John, and the moderators can tackle the first and second questions. The rest of us could work on the last one.
I'm sure I've got a nice pair of JBLs and maybe an amp, receiver, or pre/pro that could factor into a fundraising effort. Anyone else? Maybe some of us can just cough up some $$ or tap a well-heeled acquaintance (personal or corporate) on the shoulder. Does Harman/JBL have somebody they'd loan us for a couple of weeks? I have a staff IT guy who could do this in a couple of weeks, no problem, but of course, I need him to work for me.
Don, do we have a 501(c)(3) from the Feds? If not, I can help us get one. This helps with tax breaks for donors.
Yes, yes, I know I'm being a bit pushy with ideas. But I'm into finding solutions to this impediment to our success. If you guys think it's too much, then simply push back.
Out.
Dome, it's been a while since we discussed it so I am a bit fuzzy, but I think one of the technical problems was the very software we use to run this forum. Of course if we want to hire a staff of local techies I am sure anything is possible, but spending say $100K to entice them away from Google does seem steep even for a nonprofit.
Hopefully Don will pop in with some words of wisdom.
Widget
Yep
Originally Posted by lfh
Repair & Restoration (was Technical Help)
Discussions on repairing, restoring or upgrading Lansing products to factory specifications
Modification & DIY (new)
Discussions on modifications, "hybrids", "clones" and new designs using Lansing components
I think its a safe course of action. It sums up and disseminates by and large what is going on and will ease the confusion and associated issues.
The more I think about it the more it makes sense to do this.
The ulimate search engine would be phase 2 of the forums upgrade.
I'm certain that the software is one of the complicating factors, but then it always is in any project. There are a lot of two- and three-man php shops around the country that bang out this kind of thing--or in fact anything that pays--for relative peanuts by Silicon Valley standards. The most I've ever spent was $25k, and that was a much more comprehensive project than this should be.Dome, it's been a while since we discussed it so I am a bit fuzzy, but I think one of the technical problems was the very software we use to run this forum. Of course if we want to hire a staff of local techies I am sure anything is possible, but spending say $100K to entice them away from Google does seem steep even for a nonprofit.
Hopefully Don will pop in with some words of wisdom.
Widget
You're correct, though, that we need to hear from Don. I just want him to know that I'm willing to do more than just talk.
Out.
Now we know you can talk... (look who's talking) so that is some offer!I just want him to know that I'm willing to do more than just talk.
Widget
Have the discussions resulted in some kind of design specification / requirements document (not necessarily in terms of potential SW solutions, rather a summary of desired functionality from the user perspective) you could point us to?
FWIW: I'm prepared, too, to spend some time and money to help making this happen. (E.g. I'm willing to host and hack together a simple TWiki-based framework (this time using the metadata capabilities - the Acoustic Control Corp site is admittedly pretty lame, but it was never ment to leave my laptop...) for evaluation if this approach is deemed a feasible solution.) Let's see what Don suggests as next steps.
I am one of the four "I don't knows," and I still think for good reason:
Q: "I have and EN3 cabinet with Allied drivers in it. I'd like to restore it to JBL original...."
A: "Cool. You've come to the right place, the 'Repair and restore to JBL specifications' forum. Here's the list of original component options. You'll need a 2203 woofer, or the equivalent consumer 124A."
Q: "Great! Where do I get a pair of those?"
A: "Well, they're pretty scarce, but you may just luck out an snag a pair on eBay. They show up maybe once a year or so. However, be aware that the recone kits for those have long since been discontinued. You MIGHT be able to find someone who has a couple NOS kits for around $300 each, should you need them to restore the drivers."
Q: "That's not a good choice for me, then. I was hoping to repopulate these with JBL for $200 to $300 for all of the drivers. Is there something else I might use instead?"
A: "Oh, sure, there are lots of options, but we can't discuss them here because this is the JBL technical purist forum. We only do 'correct' here. You can start a new thread on this subject over in the freeforall DIY hybrid sleeze clone forum if you'd like to pursue this further...."
I feel myself to be in part to blame for this, for reconing E140's with 2235H kits in public, and, in general, for pursuing "outside the envelope" approaches, occasionlly involving the use of a Sawzall.
I appreciate how some might find these practices offensive, though I suspect we all do it to one degree or another. The incidence of 100% "correct" is likely quite rare among the 7600 threads on the forum. I'm merely pointing out that pure vs. impure may not be the most rational choice for subdividing the current technical forum....
Zilch,
I don't think the regouping is in quite that vain.
The point being in that specific example that it would be pointed out yes / no the driver is NLA or if there was a JBL recognised equivalent such as listed in the various JBL support pdfs.
If the member prefers to take an alternative means of restoration or driver substitution then it needs to be made quite clear that it will not be to the original speciification. (that's their question after all)
This is as opposed to suggesting a driver can be adapted if you do this and that and it will be per the original driver.
In the cases we have seen recently, technically the T/L simulations tell the story.
Its about drawing the distinction, not so much being 100% correct or out of scope of the forum.
Its also about the source of technical information.
Sometimes the answer to a tehnical question is unknown or not previously discussed. Best practise is not to assume but raise a request for the querry.
We are fortunate that JBL are often in many case able to provide, confirm or clarify specific technical questions regards many of their vintage JBL designs.
Threads are often organic, and by providing the right direction or information will lead to the right outcome and that might end up in the diy forums.
We're here to inform and educate and there needs to be some order about how we go about doing this...that's all.
Ian
Maybe, maybe not. I think most would agree that it's actually good practice to start a new thread (as you suggested) whenever a discussion changes direction/focus significantly - even within the same sub-forum for that matter. Thus in your specific example the thread would be rather short - but actually to the point, and still potentially useful to someone else who would actually be prepared to do it the the "ortodox way".
That said, I would not personally be annoyed if the thread would continue within the proposed R&R forum. The objective is still "repair", and sometimes unorthodox repair methods are called for. This is so to speak "modification by necessity" rather than "modification by desire". (To make such posting practice tolerable to the structure-purist, the definition could be relaxed to e.g. "...primarily to factory specifications.")
Deliberate slaughtering / bastardization, however, should clearly be discussed in the proposed M&DIY forum.
Love the implications:
(snip)
Deliberate slaughtering / bastardization, however, should clearly be discussed in the proposed M&DIY forum.
Out.
"If it's metal put aquaplas on it!"Dome,
You need a splash of aquaplas..but not too much..just a tinsy bit
A wise person said that...
Widget
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote