Motto:
Better is the enemy of good enough
Italian aphorism, later attributed to, among others, Voltaire and adm. Sergei Gorshkov.
Few of my thoughts, divided into two groups: those about the features of
this revamp idea and those more about any revamp attempts.
1) Thoughts on Colosseums proposal.
First of all, I consider this idea, in itself, a very good one, and I'd like to thank Colo for putting this forward.
As for the contents of the "mockup":
-category (battleships etc.) - I wonder if that revamped organization would consist also of simple "list of all files" - like by default it looks currently?
Categorization is tricky issue and frankly while in the "drawing information" (below the drawing) very detailed category (MSI, CVS CLGN) would be sensible, I wonder if in the heading (and therefore understood as a grouping of files) wouldn't just a simpler category be useful (like capital ships or mine-warfare ships)?
-class vs. ship - at least in some folders (most notably Russian, but not only) many drawings are supposed to represent a class or sub-class, rather than particular ship. That makes me wonder if, say, Pr.1241.1 and Pr.1241.2 (and so on) would be - in this mockup - treated as separate classes or as separate ships?
-personally I find the part USS, HMS, ORP, SMS, ARA etc.etc. redundant. But that's just my opinion.
-available view(s) - given the established practice of making top and left-side views sort-of-mandatory only for carriers, and treated just as (rare) bonus for other types, is it really practical?
Re: Acelanceloet's comment:
-I hope that by engine You mean just things like CODAG, COGAS etc. not S2W reactor... etc.?
-If that suggestion of having the searchable parts (armament, sensors) were to be linked with sheets with pictures of these parts, then it implies the need for "official" sheets - and so far Gollevainen has resisted idea of any "official sheets" (though I believe in the past he also resisted idea of nation-specific parts sheets at all
).
-pre-existing list of classes and one-offs - I guess that such vessels could be simply categorized in some catch-all groups like "other specialized warships", "other auxiliaries" or something like that.
Re: Heuhen's Upload Page
-IMHO having two separate windows for Real-Designs and Never-Built Designs is redundant. I think it would be simpler just to click either category. After all, the pictures would be submitted one at a time anyway. And some of these data is again repeated in Drawing information.
Another thing - if the upload would be done only (and I guess it's only reasonable option) for "logged-on" members, then "author" window in drawing information creates to me a small issue - for the uploader the name could be filled automatically (by virtue of logon), but when there are more authors (usually meaning use of some older drawing as base) then typing it by hand could lead to unintentional mistyping etc.
Re: Apdsmith comment:
Soviet classification would have to be kept simply for the relevant folder. But that would mean the need for proper enforcement of rules - but that applies to everything else as well.
2) General thoughts
While In the first part I was generally on "yes", here I'll be more on "no?" - though perhaps better expression of my mood would be "LOL?"
(In other words: time to get downgraded from "Elite member" status and banned for Crimen laesae maiestatis
)
Whereas for the new drawings artists would have to enter all the "new" data when uploading, at least some of it would have to be done for all older drawings as well (and I imagine most work would have to be done with "parts").
Who do you expect to do that?
Three years ago a team of volunteers (which I was part of) made an effort to clean-up the Archive. But over time the "mess" has crept up into the archive again. (Leaving aside that folders of Denmark and Finland - both Real-life and Never-Were - were actually never cleaned-up. When some time after the "big clean-up" I offered to do that, I heard from Gollevainen that I must not because he wants to do the Finnish ones and Thiel wants to do the Danish ones. It was nearly three years ago and they are still in the same state as they were then.
)
And I can say (though it's not just my opinion) that it's rather disheartening. (another thing is that month ago I mailed Gollevainen about archive - though mostly FD one - and still got no reply - not even "you're boring, go f... yourself"
)
So now I imagine that our Dear Leadership would again ask volunteers to do the job and have them (the volunteers) hope that their effort won't start going down the drain soon after because Admins won't enforce their own rules.
Also, in general that idea of revamp would introduce many more "rules to follow" (meaning: brackets to fill -
properly).
So who's going to enforce these rules, execute all the change etc. etc. if already much smaller set of rules isn't really enforced?
P.S. And no, I'm not saying "I'd do it better" or "we need other Admins". I'm saying: "It's most likely too ambitious. Maybe better stick to keeping properly what's already in place, as there already issues even with that".