INC NEWS - website, listserver, help, and so on

Thu Mar 29 10:05:30 EDT 2007

Randy, and the Inter Neighborhood Council -

I will happily step in to relieve you of your burden with respect to the 
INC electronic presence. Based on your recent email (the pertinent part 
of which is quoted below), you would like to hear about some 
qualifications.

As some here know, my background is long and varied.  One of the pieces 
of knowledge that I picked up along the way is extensive knowledge of 
HTML and web coding. Normally, I use specific tools such as Dreamweaver, 
though I have used plain text editors.  Additionally, as my current 
career is as a graduate student in a branch of computer science, I have 
significant experience with Perl, Java, Javascript, PHP, Apache, IIS, 
and many other web-based technologies, on Unix, Windows, and Mac 
platforms.  I particularly enjoy working with the Googlemaps API, as it 
is just so much fun.

An example of the work I have done for compensation is at 
http://www.renaissanceexchangemonroe.com/.

Additionally, I've had experience moderating several listserves, 
including large ones such as PAC-2, and have experience with majordomo 
setup and configuration.

I believe that my skills put me in a unique position to lift this burden 
off your shoulders with a minimum of fuss.

-Colin Crossman
Walltown

RW Pickle wrote:
> Bill Anderson is right. No one will ever explain why we changed our name
> to me or anyone else. Even before it was voted on, no one offered a good
> reason (or any) for the change. So getting one now would be a surprise.
> Usually there is a good reason for any organization to do this. But there
> doesn't seem to be one in this case. As I suggested in the last email, the
> popular way to spell it can be found by doing a search for the different
> ways it is spelled. The way it was before the vote last night wins that
> contest by a long shot when searched on Google. Even if you look at how
> folks find us on the web, the single words are used more than any combined
> words. Here's just what I pulled off the server for most recent search
> words used to find us ranked in order of number of times used:
>
>    7: durham
>    5: neighborhood
>    3: council
>    2: nc
>    2: association
>    2: morehead
>    2: interneighborhood
>    2: inter
>
> There were 22 other words that had only one search attributed to them. Our
> most popular word is durham (15%), followed by neighborhood (14%), then
> council (8%), nc (7%) and so on. Interneighborhood tied with Morehead
> which should make them proud (at 4% each). Hardly good spelling to find us
> on the web it would seem. 40% of our visitors found us by other search
> words other than those listed as being used twice.  This is just another
> consideration that was never given any thought. And I'm sure there are
> more. But as Bill said, give it up, it's a done deal. That's why
> discussion on this list is so important. Had all the facts been on the
> table, it would be hard to believe that something like this could have
> ever happened. It's easy to change something when you really don't know
> what all the factors are and you think it doesn't matter. When the fallout
> begins to emerge, is it too late to change it back? I doubt it. There's
> nothing to prohibit changing it back and forth at every meeting should the
> membership decide to do so. It's just another vote (when there's enough
> people there to do so).
>
> Bill Anderson wrote:
>
> "For two years, you have complained about what a burden dealing with the
> website and listserv have been"
>
> He's right, but he has been the only one hearing about this burden because
> I was fussing at him for causing it. He is one of the biggest human factor
> problems I have had. Fix this, fix that, change this, why won't this work,
> and the list goes on. But that's fine. I don't mind educating him and to
> some degree, it has worked. I doubt anyone else has ever heard me complain
> about anything relating to the online stuff except for the human factors
> (and maybe the spam when it comes at me at 2,000+ a day for a few days;
> that gets old in a hurry). I regularly ask for and add content. That
> hardly sounds like someone who is complaining. But I did complain just
> this week about changing the spelling of INC across the 350+ web files.
> Who wouldn't. It's a sensless change that just wastes time. It would be
> great if I could dump it all in a program and do a universal change. But
> there are several different file formats so that just wouldn't work.
>
> He also said:
>
> "while rejecting all offers to let someone else take over the tasks."
>
> This entire statement is just false. Bill is just making this up as he
> often does to further a point he is trying to make. And as I regularly do,
> I don't mind calling him on it. No one else (who is qualified and that I
> am aware of) has come forth with any offers to do anything as it relates
> to our online resources. No one. Recently I did have an offer to help, but
> our Secretary, Pat, decided it was just over her head. Other than Pat, no
> one has ever come forth and said they'd do anything to help. Perhaps Bill
> will furnish us the names of all these folks who offered to help so I can
> contact them again (since he believes they offered help before). It
> shouldn't take much time to create a list of them since there won't be a
> name on it.
>
> But let me extend an offer to anyone in our reading audience. If you'd
> like to take over a piece or all of our online service, please send me a
> note telling me what you know, what you can do, and some examples of stuff
> you've done. I'll be happy to recommend to the Board that we let you take
> it over. Workload varries with requests. Currently there is a backlog of
> work to be done and this doesn't take into consideration the senseless
> name change that needs to happen throughout the website.
>
> Despite what some would want you to believe, I'd be happy to turn the
> entire online operation over to someone qualified who wouldn't mind doing
> what it takes to keep it all up and running. Unlike those who utilize
> blogs for information on the web, the entire website of INC is just that,
> a website. It has no fancy online tools to help you do anything. You'll
> need to be able to do it all. Ken thinks it needs this, someone else
> thinks it needs that. It'll always be that way because not everyone likes
> the same flavors. You have the vanilla crowd, the strawberry crowd, and
> the chocolate crowd. Some want nuts, some are allergic to them. Then there
> are different dips and cups or cones. maybe some just like shakes. It's
> hard to get all of the flavors and options on the same website, so someone
> will always be wanting something else or different. I'd have to say, that
> in the time I have been doing it, there have been very few complaints
> about anything that has or has not been done (except for Bill; and he will
> be the first person to tell you he doesn't know anything about how it is
> supposed to work, just that it should work this way or look like that).
>
> It is an informational and resource website for INC and it works well at
> serving that audience. If there are navigation issues as Ken suggests,
> this is the first time I have heard about them and am willing to look and
> see if it can't be tightened up. But it may just be Ken. Not everyone has
> the same experience on every website. We all have learned to navigate the
> web differently and those differences become apparent when you study how
> people interface with the web. It differs almost from person to person
> when just surfing. If seeking particular bits of information, getting to
> that information quickly is important. I suppose I could add a search
> engine to the site so anyone looking for something specific could find it
> faster. But as I have said, this has never been an issue. I would say that
> it's a personal preference rather than an issue if it's just for one
> person who feels this way. Even if it were 10 people, that's still such a
> small number when you consider the number of website viewers. And as I
> said, there has been very little feedback that would require any changes
> at this point.
>
> As far as a committe to do something with the online stuff, I think we're
> all probably committee'd to death already. i have always been open to
> suggestions and have made the changes without much hesitation if it seemed
> to make it more useful or functional. Some changes, like I said above,
> seem to be personal preferences and I tend to consider the source when I
> get those. Usefulness, informative, and functional seem to have a higher
> priorities. I learned a long time ago that no matter what you do, you will
> not please everyone. And a website or list server is no different. There
> will always be someone who doesn't like something and you just can't cater
> to one person (or even a few). Members of INC should probably find most of
> the information on the website as already known. The website is for the
> rest of the world to look into our window. It's a resource of information
> and archival history of what we want others to see INC as being and how we
> might help. Anything that is considered  timely will probably be found
> here on the list server.
>
> This is the last bit of space I will waste dealing with these subjects.
> There are just bigger fish to fry...
>
> RWP
> 27 Beverly
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>   