EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
It might be a good idea for us to consider how best to identify threads with substantive information, or true scholarship that should be preserved for some means of transfer to new OS or format.
My first thought is the effort we shared to move threads forward to searchable status following the Ã¢â‚¬Å“great outageÃ¢â‚¬Â� a couple of years ago. We may need to earmark threads in some way so that a similar effort could be done again to transfer significant threads to a new platform. For instance, I used the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“keywordsÃ¢â‚¬Â� in the posts used to move the individual threads forward...a consistent but uncommonly used word like that might enable threads worth keeping to be culled from the countless threads of little significance. The trouble is, at times there are gems of info buried in seemingly insignificant threads.
Just putting this out there.... I believe we will inevitably need to think about a method to save and carry with us what we have created, formats online donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t last forever.
At some point in the future, our current Forum software will break down to the point of non-usabilty. When that occurs there will be no gathering place - and - all past history will be lost. The Great Outage of 2017 was our warning.
Dan, do you happen to know if there is any current movement - or will - in the Conservancy to improve the Forum situation?
My opening salvo for this effort was for us to devise a means to systematically identify the archive worthy information and be able to separate it from the inconsequential chit chat threads so that it might be copied or scanned for archiving or insertion to a new platform. I don't know if the text of the threads can be pulled or saved in Word or PDF format and inserted elsewhere...that is beyond my knowledge base.
At this point, I think it would be wise for us to identify what threads are significant and be able to search and list them easily on a moment's notice.
The Chat search for the term "keywords" pulls up the threads I moved forward a couple of years ago. Do we agree that "keywords" should be posted to each thread we deem valuable and we each think of important threads or topics or whatever, and Google search them using "Wright Chat" + (insert topic or name here), then click on the desired thread and post the word "keywords" plus topical names or other identifiers for the specific thread such as Geiger, Peters , Aaron, etc?
I guess if we used a topic-identification-and-archiving thread every day, it would stay at the top of the list, a visible reminder of the project . . .
The Conservancy is literally a 4-person team, so expecting them to find time for this is unlikely. I would support the idea of reaching out to the developers to see just how difficult a process it would be to upgrade the board and database to the current software version, and establishing a fundraising methodology to allow the users to finance the effort.
Humble student of the Master
"Youth is a circumstance you can't do anything about. The trick is to grow up without getting old." - Frank Lloyd Wright
current phpBB version---rather than moving everything to another platform. "Dragging" might turn out to be an exaggerated description of the process . . .?
Unless, of course, something is "broken." I have engaged with several phpBB fora over the last dozen years, and know that there are options available
that aren't "turned on" here; some of them would enhance our experience, as Stan suggests. (Do platform subscribers pay more for the extra bells and whistles ?)
I haven't visited Stan's site as I'm not on facebook, in part for ideological reasons and also because, after changing my email address, I am apparently no longer welcome there.
Stan's work on behalf of Wright and Wrightians is recognized and appreciated. It's unfortunate that there aren't more options for those wishing to be part of the Wright community ?
As far as the house, another phase of restoration starts next week. I'll try to get some things posted on here to show the progress.
I respect what Stan has done with the FB group, and enjoy when the thoughtful regulars like yourself contribute photos and insights. But boy, there's also a lot of noise on that group. Just the other day I read through maybe two dozen complaints of the blue paint on the Carlson House. Not to mention one member who decided to make a tasteless (and just plain dumb) joke about gay people in the Fellowship being responsible for the paint color.I find myself spending a fraction of time on this site than I used to. I have found other sites, such as Stan's site on FB to be quite a bit livelier, and much much easier to post photos.
This site, while of great value is kind of like 8-track technology in an iPhone world.
And that's the thing about Facebook, it invites quick and easy commenting. People are glued to that site throughout the day, seemingly just waiting with hair-trigger "quick" comments. It functions for the culture of smartphone users, people who want to read one line texts. FB's template is essentially designed for posting selfies and having a hundred people quickly comment with emojis and 3-word responses.
Bringing any sort of architectural "conversation" to Facebook, in my opinion, feels awkward and abrupt. While Wright Chat has its obvious drawbacks (difficulty posting pictures being numero uno), it still offers so much more in terms of depth of conversation. Additionally, Facebook is an instantaneous platform, in which anything someone posts quickly gets swallowed into the sea of historic nothingness. On Wright Chat, these threads can be added onto for years, creating a wonderful "scholarship" from the Wright community.
My hope is that the Wright Chat figures out its technical issues, and that contributors like yourself become regulars again.... (Or maybe Stan opens up Wright Attitude on its own dedicated site, which might filter out some of the FB noise, while still welcoming a wider-ranging community? I know he's discussed the idea in the past.)