|
Post by sumgai on Apr 30, 2007 11:17:20 GMT -5
In this thread, I'm looking specifically for suggestions about how to re-organize the lay out of the various sub-forums. Within those guidelines, nothing is sacred - if you wanna add something, fine, if you wanna remove something, also fine. Move a forum elsewhere.... perfectly acceptable, provided you can make a case for it.
Anything new, you should write a tentative description (to show your intent). If you have a new description for an existing forum, let me know.
The whole point here is to make this place more 'newbie-friendly'. IOW, some things just don't make sense to a newcomer, and I'd like to fix that.
johan has already submitted a small fistful of ideas, anyone else?
Thanks.
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Apr 30, 2007 13:30:52 GMT -5
I would propose that we organize the Wiring and Electronics thread with some new focus.
First, I would like to solicit member's input on a common CAD'ish tool to be used by all for wiring diagram representation. It should be a shareware/freeware program that any can use.
Fairly simple editing is all that is needed for what we do. While Paint could be used, it's a pixel-based and not an object-based tool. What this means is than once a wire is drawn in Paint, it's just a trail of colored pixels. In an object-based design, that wire can be erased, moved, stretched, edited, etc without impacting any other object.
Drawing a drawing is easy, editing it is another story.
Once we have identified and selected a tool, we can develop a few basic templates for common wiring footprint types (Strat, Tele, LP, SG, etc) that represent the basic electronic components used therein. We can also include a header block on each that indicates GuitarNuts2 as the framework source, and includes a link to our site!
We would also develop basic wiring object templates that would enable one to change the electronic components objects in the dedicated (Strat, Tele) templates.
The object blocks that would be of use would be pickups (with manufacturer wiring colors, magnet polarities and electrical phase indication), switches (with positional/pole designations), pots (with rotational min/max/wiper designation), jacks, and etc.
All blocks must posses all info needed to use and understand the rotation, connections, and effect without any inferred or assumed prior knowledge. In other words, the info must be factual and hard and not just warm and fuzzy (or just pretty).
Having such a common framework would expedite the interchange of ideas and edits.
In the Wiring and Electronics thread one could get the templates, find the link to the tool, download the tool, edit their design, post proposed schemes, and have other's vet and suggest edits, all within a common framework.
The finalized designs are the stuff that should be the basis for the Schematics thread.
There are at least three types of Schematics posts that are needed. Maybe these go in three different sub-threads.
The first is a basic explanation of modules. These are akin to plumbing fixtures in a room and not the whole-house plumbing design. If we decouple the modular approach to wiring subsections (series/single coil/parallel or basic tone controls or basic volume controls or basic switch functionality) from the overall wiring diagram, we can truly teach many more to fish.
We also need to explain and teach the difference between wiring representation and schematic representation. While a wiring representation is of use to many more folk (show me, not teach me), only a schematic-based framework allows one to freely "see" the real possibilities. A wiring diagram is just only one of many possibly encapsulations of a schematic.
I believe that all of these can be addressed by posts on each that explain the mechanical and electrical use and interaction of each type with a picture, a wiring object (a physical representation), a schematic object, and a short text section.
The second is the expanding collection of solved design requests. This would house the common(er) requests that seem to repeat in occurrence. We would probably request that one read this section first before asking for a custom wiring scheme. I would suggest having a links post to other wiring sites (gasp!) such as the Duncan one. We could even include others, but I'm somewhat put off by the scattered-logic approaches that one finds a'web.
The third is that demented world that some of us inhabit with our comprehensive approaches to all possible combinations and such. While these are most challenging and often the reason that some of use are even here, only a handful of folk follow such "exercises" and even fewer implement them.
If we can make this easy to do, we can fix or at least narrow the area that one has to look in to find stuff.
Those new a'board would be encouraged to mine (or at least read) here first.
Any opinions or takers?
How about "suggesters"?
|
|
|
Post by dd842 on Apr 30, 2007 13:53:19 GMT -5
The whole point here is to make this place more 'newbie-friendly'. IOW, some things just don't make sense to a newcomer, and I'd like to fix that. sumgai, I'll give it some thought. I suppose there are a few things that jump out at me: Maybe a "Forum Related / Newbies Section" - for instruction on simple stuff like: what and how to post (e.g. images) how to search, what is karma/exalt (I didn't know for months) (e.g. Chris' "how to post" article here: guitarnuts2.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=music&action=display&thread=1157117934. ) On occasion, I'll see a link to something that - in my view - seems to be germane to a lot of what is discussed here. These are useful reference type articles to know about. A good example is Chris's electronic symbol templates diagram here: guitarnuts2.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=schem&action=display&thread=1158705194&page=1#1158705194 . (I see Chris has just made a suggestion on a universally accepted program to faciliate better sharing and understanding of ideas - great idea) Unk's "tables" post could also qualify: guitarnuts2.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=suggs&action=display&thread=1138739422 . There's loads of it hidden in here, and some of you guys might know where the good stuff is ... what about digging it up and plopping it in a subcategory in the reference articles section? Why are there two amps sections? Maybe they could be subdivided once you click on it ... sort of like electronics/schematics? I think we should eliminate acoustic guitars ... ... as much as I hate to say that. Not that it saves any space, but how about an expiry date on hock shop posts? Dan
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Apr 30, 2007 15:08:50 GMT -5
Talking about expiration dates, we need unexpiration dates for stuff.
I can't imagine more that 50 reference module posts on potentiometers whether for volume, tone, or blending, so a Pots sub-category with sticky threads would keep things visible.
The same sub-categorization for switches, pickups (there are many makers of many pickups, but far fewer wiring color codes and intrinsic types of pickups), jacks, etc. would also work.
And then there's that whole shielding category needing centralized focus.
I know that in order to keep things from falling off of the bottom of the Schematics sub-category, RandomHero had the number of visible threads increased to 50. Up to 50 "stuck" threads in each (sub)category would encompass much.
None of the reference categories would be a free-posting zone. Any post therein would be put and/or kept at the discretion of the board's administrators.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on May 1, 2007 1:06:08 GMT -5
First, I would like to solicit member's input on a common CAD'ish tool to be used by all for wiring diagram representation. It should be a shareware/freeware program that any can use. i've used Tiny Cad. i've been fairly happy with it. unless a better cad-nidate is found... The third is that demented world that some of us inhabit with our comprehensive approaches to all possible combinations and such. i've always thought of my self as a new world man. now you tell me i'm a third world man.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on May 1, 2007 1:43:28 GMT -5
....... Why are there two amps sections? Maybe they could be subdivided once you click on it ... sort of like electronics/schematics? That's one of the things driving my decision to overhaul this joint, it's been bugging me for awhile too. One of the Amps sections is labeled for 'thermionic valves', and that's nice - but it's surrounded by guitar topics..... doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The other Amps section is of a general nature, which can certainly encompass tube amps, and is under Gear, which I happen to think is the more appropriate place for such a topic. But before I do anything rash (combine the two topics, in the Gear forum), let's see if there are any valid reasons to further divide Amps into sub-topics. sumgai
|
|
|
Post by johan on May 1, 2007 5:56:54 GMT -5
The strenght of any forum is its focus. With the inital intent of John A's website, I would expect more specific subdivision on guitar wiring. It's the essence of this forum although only one subdivision among other stuff.
And then we have a whole gear section that is hardly visited. And if I want to know about Lutherie and Repair, I go to Projectguitar.com
And what really makes me sad is to see moderators endorse OT conversation, it degrades the forum.
My recent Booster thread really makes me leave this place. - I'm fine with Wolf's redrawing which was completely unnecessary. The discussion that followed about titty witty details was just typical. -Greeting other member when they post, isn't that for teenage fora? - When I post some clips somebody goes on re-processing it to a joke.
being gai is no excuse
|
|
|
Post by dd842 on May 1, 2007 8:24:35 GMT -5
Good point. What is "OT"? Sorry, I don't know. Come on Johan, don't do it. You've stirred the pot a few times too, and you were called on it. I understand that you would like it to be what you would like it to be, but if we start distilling this down to a point where it gets generally cumbersome, it will not work for everyone. It was input ... on balance, that's gotta be a good thing. No, it isn't. That was me, and I absolutely did not mean to offend you. I really did like your playing and the retro sound you were able to generate with the use of germanium - well done. I thought the gallium thing was funny, and it was intended as a lighthearted look at a complex issue. Clearly, you did not. Thinking about it, I may have been offended also. So I've stirred the pot on this one (unintentiionally) and you're calling me on it. That's cool. No offense intended, and I can go and delete the post if you wish. What about tequila? KIDDING! ;D Again, my apologies Johan. ATB Dan
|
|
|
Post by DarKnight on May 9, 2007 16:08:53 GMT -5
I've been using ExpressPCB-software which is freeware for designing circuits and pcb's... so the schematic designer(ExpressSCH) would be the needed one... anyhow it is pretty easy to learn for newbie... and you could post schematics that one can edit easily... haven't had time truely experiment with it's potential, but it would give chance to make component/module templates as own component-package which could be hosted somewhere in the net... so everybody would be using same way to mark things... Dunno, but give this soft a try and throw in some opinions... Dark
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on May 10, 2007 20:11:13 GMT -5
DarK, Link, please. ;D
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by DarKnight on May 11, 2007 2:14:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelcbell on May 11, 2007 11:59:45 GMT -5
I agree that the electronics and wiring section is by far the most utilized in this forum, so maybe some sub-categories might be nice. I also suggest a seperate board for shielding as it seems to always fall under E&W, while not really being a wiring question (although it could be a sub-board of E&W)
My (very preliminary) thoughts on sub-boards for E&W: Completed Schematics (only admins/Global Mods can put anything in there) Schematics "under observation" for development of final schematics until ready for promotion. Perhaps include schematic requests here or in a seperate sub-board. Modules for all the little nuts and bolts that are fun, but not confused by inclusion of the rest of the schematic Schematic Basics I agree with ChrisK on this one in that I think it would be good to give some basic symbology lessons (for myself as well). If we get a board-wide schematics solution (which I think is a great idea), this wouldn't be as necesary for development, but just as necessary for reading of schematics
Let me take a little break to voice my opinion that all schematics and the like be posted as images, and not just CAD files, so the average visitor can still enjoy all that this board has to offer.
other E&W topics: General Wiring Questions for all the little "what is a cap" questions and the like.
My take on previous opinions: newbie's section: yes! (include a note on +1) acoustic guitar bye-bye: yes. tubes section re-locate: yes. component explanation: I think this is a great idea, but maybe the component section of the orginal guitarnuts page would suffice. Maybe just a very hard to miss link?, or just repost the whole darn thing here.
And on one last note, I really enjoyed being welcomed here, and I don't know if I would have kept comin' 'round if I hadn't been, so I am all for welcoming each and every person who is brave enough to show their....face? here. ::shrugs:: just my thought.
sumgai: +1 for just basically ruling
|
|
|
Post by dd842 on May 12, 2007 8:06:00 GMT -5
..... And on one last note, I really enjoyed being welcomed here, and I don't know if I would have kept comin' 'round if I hadn't been, so I am all for welcoming each and every person who is brave enough to show their....face? here. ::shrugs:: just my thought. sumgai: +1 for just basically ruling Michael, Amen to both sentiments. To speak to that: using posts per thread as a measure, the coffee shop rules. Apparently, we still do value the human aspect of the forum Sumgai, Another example for the noob section: I remember seeing an informational/instructional post on photobucket and image posting (about six months ago) but I can't find it now. (edit - talk about not seeing my nose in spite of my face ... guitarnuts2.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=forum&action=display&thread=1114450295 ) Dan
|
|
wesman
Apprentice Shielder
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
|
Post by wesman on May 12, 2007 11:49:22 GMT -5
+2 Michael, I wolud like the moderated "Completed Schematics" section, however I'm not too good with schematics, so I would prefer a corresponding wiring diagram. I would also be willing to draw some of the diagrams in my free time, This was done in Microstation, (don't ask it's waaay to pricey) then conterted to a PDF: mysite.verizon.net/vze7ums8/id14.html
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on May 27, 2007 5:49:07 GMT -5
Hi there - three weeks later, I only just noticed this thread.
My mistake, but it highlights the benefit of keeping to a small number of main posting areas. Usually, when I look in, I just go to E&W, and occasionally to the coffee shop. Heres a few thoughts:
I like how we do the schematic section, keeping all main info in the first post, then open discussion. Now that there are quite a large number of schematics, Id suiggest sorting them in a simple way, such as 'modules and single pickup', '2 pickups' and '3 pickups''. The 2 and 3 division I think would sort the Strat based designs from the LPs and Teles, while allowing one thread to cover designs that can morph from SSS to HSS or HSH etc.
I think anyone should be free to post them, but the mods can shift those which are half baked or just questions, as they do now.
Join the two amp sections into one.
I think there is not the slightest chance of getting everyone to use one CAD program, even if an excellent one is available for free. The only industry I know of where this works is aerospace, where Boeing insists that all supliers use a single 3-d system. It wont happen on a free internet forum! I actually like to see the variety of styles.
That being said, I use the drawing features of MS Word to make my schematics, which is an object based system that everyone has. Id be willing to share the .doc files, and Runewalker made a great collection of Word drawing objects which we use, and they save alot of time.
A links section should be prominent
If I think of more I'll post again
cheers
John
|
|
|
Post by dd842 on May 28, 2007 12:00:44 GMT -5
Because the number of members has risen above 1,000, you can no longer view the top posters. I don't know if there are other functions that may also be inaccessible for the same reason ...
But it got me thinking, and so I sifted through the stats on the number of postings ... and there is a great number of "members" who have never posted.
Why are they members? You can view everything that goes on here as a guest ...
Despite the blow to our collective ego (by attrition), I wonder if there should be an "expiry" date for inactive members? Maybe one year of (complete) account inactivity and your account becomes dormant?
Sort of like ... guests, be our guest to be a, well, "guest" ... I guess?
Dan
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on May 28, 2007 14:51:40 GMT -5
Why are they members? You can view everything that goes on here as a guest ...
Despite the blow to our collective ego (by attrition), I wonder if there should be an "expiry" date for inactive members? Maybe one year of (complete) account inactivity and your account becomes dormant? hi Dan, Many people come here thinking there might be something more to see if they are members. Then find out first hand there isn't. There was also a time when people were making multiple accounts, because the verification forms were not e-mailed to them. This went on for a couple months, so there are no doubt quite a few of those. I'm all for deleting accounts with 0 posts, and I wouldn't bother making it a year. A month or two for those accounts would be sufficient. Deleting accounts with posts would be another matter entirely. I'd like to think if one of the early members with several useful posts came around again, it would be better to allow them to return and retain their identity. Instead of automatically deleting a long dormant account, flagging it for review might be a better choice. Certainly a member who came a long time ago, asked one question, got his answer and left, will probably be worth deleting too. The post can stay, but will show as "guest". That's all i can suggest. maybe some of it is useful. Unk
|
|
|
Post by dd842 on May 28, 2007 15:21:29 GMT -5
I'm all for deleting accounts with 0 posts, and I wouldn't bother making it a year. A month or two for those accounts would be sufficient. My main reason for mentioning it is so that active members can regain control of the entire member search function. So whatever it takes, I'm for it. Good point - from what I have been able to see, I think that we wouldn't have to delete those, and wouldn't necessarily even have to flag them. There are a lot of "no posts" on here ... enough that if they were deleted we would likely be well under 1,000 members who have ever posted. edit - having thought about it for a minute, deleting accounts with posts could really disturb the flow of a thread ... better not to disturb them, if possible You should consider that, but again ... it's the "zero posts", many of whom have not even logged on since the day they registered, that comes to mind for me. Useful? You betcha ... as always. ATB, Dan
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on May 28, 2007 15:52:08 GMT -5
I'm living proof that once a member has "signed off", he/she can't come back and regain the old start date - the software just doesn't allow it. (The topic has been brought up in the support forums, several times. The authors have "put it on the back burner"..... you know what that means, right?) Fortunately, the same name will re-activate old posts such that they no longer read "Guest" for their status. Again, you can see that I first showed up here in January of 2006, not December. That said, I think it only fair to post a policy, which I'll do in a moment, stating basically that membership status will be reviewed once a month, and members with Zero postings will be deleted after a month of inactivity. In big bold letters, I'll remind them that they can read everything as a guest, they can even search the archive, but they just can't post, publicly or privately. I don't have a problem leaving a member as active if they've ever posted, even only once. Reason being, their PM data will remain active, and a newcomer can contact them if they have any questions. (And providing that said member logs in once in awhile.) Dan, I asked a very similar question over a year ago, look here and see what unk had to say, it might answer some of your questions for you. Sadly, note the number of posters in that thread that are no longer showing up, a year later. HTH sumgai p.s. Channelman, you got yer ears on OM?
|
|
|
Post by dd842 on May 28, 2007 16:04:10 GMT -5
..... Dan, I asked a very similar question over a year ago, look here and see what unk had to say, it might answer some of your questions for you. Sadly, note the number of posters in that thread that are no longer showing up, a year later. I am sure that you will not be surprised that I have read that thread previously ... Yes, quite a lot of drop-off, and some who are forever faithful. PM coming your way. Dan
|
|
|
Post by dd842 on Jun 6, 2007 17:12:27 GMT -5
sumgai, I like what I am seeing - literally, as I write - in the re-design. Great job! Dan
|
|
|
Post by pollyshero on Jun 6, 2007 19:04:43 GMT -5
Hmm... Maybe keep in mind that not everyone has something to contribute right off the bat, and some may be too shy to ask what they think might be a dumb question. Back when, I was a member for quite some time before I joined the fray. I'm not sure I ever would have if I'd been forced to decide whether I would post or not.
Sumgai, is there any way to track log-ons & weed out inactive accounts that way?
I know it's a little late in the game, but it's worth considering, isn't it?
Nice work so far - keep it up.
PH
|
|
|
Post by johan on Feb 29, 2008 10:11:26 GMT -5
Blah blah blah and nothing happened, forum is still in a rut. Really sad, I'm sorry, there are so many ways to make a forum work.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Feb 29, 2008 12:08:43 GMT -5
johan, Nice to see you back! Yes, there has been a shift in focus, I'm no longer the hot-to-trot young stud who's out to make a name for himself. Most folks here seem pleased with what they're seeing, or at least, no one is complaining publicly or privately. The few suggestions we've gotten over the last few months have been implemented, and I think they've been well received. Since UnklMickey stopped coming around, the Links topic has languished, I admit. The one member I was going to tap for that job has also had to drop off, a double whammy to the board and the community. I need to do something about that....... Also, the Forum software doesn't give me full Administrator privileges. RandomHero (who is back, in a low-key way) assures me that he did what he was told to do when he turned over the keys to the kingdom. I've posted several times to the ProBoards Support Forum, and only once did I get an answer, something along the lines of "we're aware of that, please stand by....". No results yet, of course. So there are several things I'd like to do, but can't. And they're just small enough an irritant that I don't feel like making an issue of them with the members. In reality, all we could actually do is pickup and move elsewhere, and I don't think that'd be in our best interests. Hence, we have some deficiencies, true enough. If the Forums don't make you happy, I won't ask you to stick around. But if you can stand the mess, then we'd sure like to have you back, 'cause we can certainly use your expertise! ;D sumgai
|
|
Air-Guitar
Rookie Solder Flinger
Travel Guitar
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
|
Post by Air-Guitar on Jun 7, 2010 23:57:40 GMT -5
Member Charles (aka chase ...) recently responded to a post of mine on the offset guitars (OSG) forum, and was kind enough to refer me here for background on a novel wiring approach in whose development he played a role: The California Mod to the Ultimate Utah Switching Schematic. Browsing that thread and several others here prompted me to become a member here myself. So as a newcomer, what I think would help me get the most out of the collective wisdom in these forums, more than anything, wouldn't a "Re-org" -- but rather a "scorecard" or "cheat sheet" or "index" prominently featured as a sticky. With reference again to the preceeding paragraph, a newcomer isn't likely to know what the heck the "Ultimate Utah Switching Schematic" (let alone its intials UUSS) is all about, let alone the "Californa Mod". I'm not objecting to these colorful titles, but as a newbie coming to this site with a guitar wiring question, it would be helpful to know which threads apply to 3-single-coil guitars, 2-single coil guitars, 2-humbucker guitars, HSS, HSH, etc. So if there was some "registry" (call it what you want) one could consult that would tell somebody looking for ideas on how to Mod their 3-single-coil Strat that UUSS and the California Mod threads (along with undoubtedly dozens more I've yet to discover) were applicable to that situation, this site would be immensely more useful to a newbie coming here seeking ideas/examples relevant to a particular guitar project of their own. The "GuitarElectronics.Com" site's breakdown into "1 pickup guitars", "2 pickup guitars", and "3 pickup guitars", followed by descriptive subcategories specific to Singles or Humbuckers and the number of Tone pots and Volume pots is an example of an accessible roadmap that can take a newcomer to the material of greatest relevance to them with a few mouse-clicks. But it's not the only solution, nor necessarily the best model for this site (I've not been here anywhere near long enough to have an opinion on that). Even if individual thread titles could carry a standardized suffix like "(HH/1V1T)" if the thread concerns a project guitar with two humbuckers, 1 volume control, 1 tone control ... AND if the forum search tool permitted searching thread titles for (HH/*), the "registry" or "index" might simply be the results generated by the existing/expanded search tool, if exercised in some appropriate (and well advertised) rule-driven way that enables tapping into the most relevant threads. The forum moderators and/or veterans here can probably come up with how best to flag threads with keywords in the least onerous fashion (or accomplish something analogous, if "flag" and "keywords" don't even best describe it), and that solution could then drive the index/registry/search-engine/filtering scheme to best help the non-veterans navigate the collected wisdom here. Any fans of the "digikey" on-line catalog's filtering scheme for parts searching ? (Me neither -- but in concept, if not in practice, it is rather intuitive ... and returns all matches for those attributes where one doesn't make an explicit choice, and it supports <ctrl><click> for making multiple selections within a given attribute ...) But I digress ... Bottom line is rather than undertake a "Re-org", my suggestion is to somehow make it easier for newcomers here to access the past forum threads most relevant to their project/question that brought them here. On the other hand, maybe being "the Wikipedia of guitar electronics and wiring" shouldn't be the goal (i.e., having a popular site where 99% of traffic is "readonly" access from visitors using this as an on-line reference), but rather the goal is to better engender "community" and encourage new threads and reply posts (while reducing the number of threads started in the "wrong" discussion category). If the latter, then carry on with whatever "Re-org" plans may be brewing, and archive this post to the "circular file" ! Again, I'm perhaps "too new" to apprecaite what the majority of members here want/need and aren't getting from the site as it stands. In any event, thanks for listening. If there's an existing thread somewhere on "how to find what you're looking for here" that I have yet to find (!), any pointers/tips woud certainly be appreciated ... this thread may not be the best place for my remedial education. Best wishes, -- Jim
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jun 8, 2010 5:54:57 GMT -5
Air Guitar- You've resurrected an old discussion. Some of the suggested changes have already been implemented. Sumgai did later combine 2 "Amps" sections into one, for example. When I came on as Admin, I undertook to try to reorganize the "Schematics" subboard along the lines suggested by ChrisK in reply #2 above. Unfortunately, in my ignorance of the details of the forum software, I did so in a ham-handed fashion, resulting in several broken links to things therein. But the new(er) categories remain in place, at least to subdivide things going forward. Point is, it's not always a benign exercise to start renaming stuff or moving stuff around. Your suggestion that designs be labeled as "SSH", "HH", etc. is a good one, similar to what JohnH suggested in reply #14 above. For the reason stated above, we can certainly implement that going forward, but I don't want to go back and change existing titles. Basically, the way it works now, people ask their questions in the "Electronics and Wiring" area. If a known design does the trick, someone will point them towards it. After vetting, the "good stuff" gets reposted in "schematics", under one of the 3 subcategories therein. It's far from perfect, admittedly, but it more or less works. All of this really comes down to a single question- Are we a resource, or are we a community? We try to be both, but there is a built-in tension between those two goals. Communities get messy, which detracts from the resource aspect of things. We try to make up for that by being welcoming. Someone may not be able to find what they want or need, but if they post and ask for it, we'll get them squared away, and we generally don't bite anyone in the process. Since most posts into the Schematics area are by invitation, I will in the future ask folks to designate the nature/purpose of their schemes, as you (and JohnH) both suggest. Also note that, while we have tried to limit the posts in Schematics, I have pretty much given up on strict enforcement of the rule as to subject matter. I do move general questions out of there, but it's simply impossible, as well as too heavy-handed, to restrict discussion therein on a consistent and stringent basis.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 9, 2010 11:38:07 GMT -5
AG, First off, you're correct in that we can't "tag" or assign "keywords" except as an inclusive in a thread's title. But by it's very nature, we as a community tend to go off the first-intended beaten path, and suggest alternatives that relate only marginally to the original question. That has great potential to make a mess of any labeling schemes. And consider that at least half of the new sign-ups here ask the question "What can I do with this (pile of parts)?", that certainly requires someone to re-name the thread's title after the fact, which might make things confusing from another viewpoint. newey and I started out to categorize the place a little better, but it hasn't come off, at least not as well as either of us would like. It has improved quite a bit (johan notwithstanding), but as a reference, it suffers, no doubt about it. So me thinks this would be a good time to call for volunteers to help with the job of cataloging various topics into a yet-to-be-created "Quick Reference" main category (as in News, Taming The Tone Beast, etc.). Let us staff folks kick this around for a day or two, and we'll get back to this thread with some more input (or to ask for more input ). And thanks for thinking well of us! ;D sumgai
|
|
Air-Guitar
Rookie Solder Flinger
Travel Guitar
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
|
Post by Air-Guitar on Jun 9, 2010 20:50:11 GMT -5
Thanks newey and sumgai for your informative replies. If my post came across as a criticism or complaint that certainly was not my intent -- rather, I was just rambling off ideas for how the wealth of material here could be more easily acceessible to a newcomer.
In the Electronics & Wiring area (my primary interest here so far), I've since come to better understand and appreciate the "Schematics" sub-forum as a distillation of the main forum's design results. Given that there are "only" 66 threads in the Schematics sub-forum, last night I had actually been thinking about creating a post with a "Registry" with brief descriptions of, and short-cuts to, those 66 contributions ... but instead I got side-tracked reading & studying "The Big Ugly". Plus, I wasn't sure of the best location to submit such a post ... so I'm happy to hear of discussion among the moderators on an analogous "Quick Reference" section of the forums.
So I'd certainly be willing to volunteer to create cross-referenced content to help populate that area, when the time comes.
Thanks much,
-- Jim
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jun 9, 2010 22:17:51 GMT -5
Jim-
It's like the military, when we ask for volunteers . . . ;D
We'll certainly kick this around, but I can see a "Registry" of designs as a useful idea. Perhaps a separate sub board called "Index of Designs", suitably broken down by pickups (SSH, HH, etc.) as well as by style or type (series/parallel schemes, etc.)
No offense taken whatsoever. We're always open to suggestions, except for those that start out "You blood-sucking spawn of Satan . . . " ;D
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Jun 9, 2010 22:48:03 GMT -5
I can see where it would be nice (as a new visitor) to have a quick reference to find the schemes that do what I want with the parts I have (or am willing to get). I don't honestly think it needs a whole forum, though. I think a well designed (and maintained) sticky on either Electronics and Wiring or the Schematic sub-board (or both) would serve this purpose just fine.
I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, but from what I've seen around here this forum tends to lean toward teaching rather than spoon-feeding. We'd rather help you draw your own design which does what you want - and make sure you understand why it does it - than just hand you a paint-by-numbers, ready-to-wire template.
One of the most important things we try to get across here is the modularity of these systems. There are some innovative designs in the Schematic board which are rather difficult to pull apart and apply to other systems, but if we really look closely we start to find that most of them are just permutations or some few pretty basic modules. Seems like presenting these things in a monolithic "Scheme" undermines this idea to an extent.
Then (and partly thanks to modularity) there is some ambiguity and overlap in these things. A 4-way Baja Tele mod could be labeled SS, but it works just as well for a guitar with a single bridge HB. I was working on my SHS mini-strat at the same time newey was working on his 4-caster (SSSS) and either of these schemes would have worked relatively well in an HH (both 4 wire) guitar...
That, and I'm NOT going to be the one who sorts through this big mess! Be willing to pitch into the beer fund for whoever does, though.
I am not voicing dissent, just attempting to contribute to the discussion.
|
|