bodger
|
What do people think aboutHave the powers that be considered amalgamating the fishing and the hunting sections ?
They are both failing badly and are very quiet. There's a slim chance that combining the two might work but I doubt it.
Would the out and out foragers be able to get on with the hunters and fishers ?
|
marigold
|
What do you mean by "failing badly" bodger? Some sections are busier than others, but both fishing and shooting are used. At a quick glance posts seem relevant and the tone friendly. There probably aren't that many hunting/fishing DSers, so those sections will inevitably be quieter.
|
wellington womble
|
Lots of the sections are quite seasonal, too (grow your own is pretty quiet atm, naturally). I don't know much about hunting, but I had an idea that it was more of a winter thing, so it might be just getting going.
On balance, I favour more sections, rather than less - it makes things easier to find.
|
Mary-Jane
|
| wellington womble wrote: | | On balance, I favour more sections, rather than less - it makes things easier to find. |
Me too - but I don't see any problems with having a 'Hunting, Shooting and Fishing' section.
|
bodger
|
The hunting and fishing sections are hardly seasonal. They don't have posts for weeks at a time . Thats what I mean by failing badly.
They are the two areas that I have most interest in and try as I have along with one or two others , to keep them active, its been to no avail.
|
mochyn
|
Speaking as someone who doesn't hunt, shoot or fish but does eat game, does it matter if no-one has enything to say on those topics for a while? Could be they're too busy out hunting, shooting or fishing...
WHat I mean is that the options are still there for people to open old threads or start new ones, even if it's been a bit quiet. One for all three seems a good idea, though.
|
hedgewitch
|
I don't mind them being combined. But I'm not sure 'failing' is applicable to parts of a forum. If people use downsizer, then it's working as an online community, surely?
I don't see the problem with some sections being busier than others.
|
Jamanda
|
Same here. They aren't sections I use myself much, but it's good that they are there for others. Don't have a view on whether they should be one section or two.
Veggie foragers (don't know if we have any) mightn't like being lumped in with huntin' shootin' and fishin'.
|
bodger
|
I'm quite obviously referring to the sections rather than to the forum.
Other forums of a similar type to this have thriving hunting and fishing sections, I'm merely suggesting, as I have every right to, that by combining the sections we might be better able to breath a little life into it.
I think that the simpler a forums format is, the more user friendly it is.
|
hedgewitch
|
| bodger wrote: | I'm quite obviously referring to the sections rather than to the forum.
Other forums of a similar type to this have thriving hunting and fishing sections, I'm merely suggesting, as I have every right to, that by combining the sections we might be better able to breath a little life into it.
It would be nice if the enthusiasm shown for this thread was transferred to a hunting and fishing section. |
I am interested in hunting and in fly fishing. At the moment, I am not doing very much of either due to other commitments. I therefore have nothing to post on those subjects.
If other forums have sections that are more active in your areas of interest, post there too? 
|
hedgewitch
|
| bodger wrote: | | Not a very nice attitude Hedgewitch. It does not do you credit. |
The section of your previous post that prompted my response seems to have vanished. Which puts my response out of context. 
|
Mary-Jane
|
| hedgewitch wrote: | | bodger wrote: | | Not a very nice attitude Hedgewitch. It does not do you credit. |
The section of your previous post that prompted my response seems to have vanished. Which puts my response out of context. |
Well, whatever happened here (and I did see the post myself so it did exist) could I just remind everyone about the DS ethos of settling to differ on occasion and respecting others' points of view without getting hot under the collar?
|
gil
|
Re: What do people think about | bodger wrote: | | Have the powers that be considered amalgamating the fishing and the hunting sections ? |
Yeh, we have been discussing, in response to a PM that was received (yours prolly ??).
Wouldn't bother me if Hunting and Fishing were amalgamated, and can't see why that would upset vegetarians. Dunno where the idea of combining Hunting, Fishing and Foraging came from - Foraging is quite active, between the 'shroomers and fruit-pickers.
I'm undecided. Community Matters, for example, is also quiet at times, as is Seasonal Shopping.
I only start shooting around now, so for me it is deffo an autumn/winter thing. Fits into the year after Growing My Own, Preserving, and Homebrewing, once the pheasants are big enough and the midges have died off.
I don't find I have that many queries about shooting - I've got my air rifle and pellets, and I tend to do the same thing each year. Not in the way I grow different veg, make various beers/wines, and forage in different places.
|
Treacodactyl
|
| bodger wrote: | | I think that the simpler a forums format is, the more user friendly it is. |
Doesn't the site you're involved with have separate fishing and hunting sections? I'm not sure how merging the shooting and fishing sections would help make them more active?
Personally I like them separate as you can look just at the fishing section if you like fishing, for example. Also they are easy to merge but would be very difficult to split out so I don't think it's necessary unless there's a very good reason to do it.
|
bodger
|
I like to post on this forum.
If the two sections were to be put together there would be no problem in people telling which posts were fishing or hunting orientated. A lot of people of course wouldn't see the need to, but as I say it would be easy. My only reason for suggesting this move is to try and encourage more people to post on the subjects.
There are obviously other forums that cater for my interests but after nearly 4000 posts on here I very much see Downsizer as one of my two homes. I don't want to have to post a way from home. 
|
alison
|
How do you look at the site Bodge?
I always go through latests posts, and never notice which section they are made in anyway.
|
Jamanda
|
| alison wrote: | How do you look at the site Bodge?
I always go through latests posts, and never notice which section they are made in anyway. |
That's pretty much what I do too. It's only if I want to return to something I go through the index. Then I often have to try a couple before finding the right one.
|
Nick
|
Why would amalgamating them make either, or both, of them less 'failing'?
|
Jamanda
|
| Nick wrote: | | Why would amalgamating them make either, or both, of them less 'failing'? |
I thought that.
But really I don't think they are failing. They only get used for serious threads rather than the inconsequential guff (a fair proportion of which comes from me) on many of the other sections.
The reduce, reuse, recycle or finance and property don't get hundreds of threads every day either.
|
bodger
|
Rather simply Nick ! The people who post on the two sections tend to be the same people and we could have two weak sections made into one stronger one.
Its notable that with the exception of TC the people who have taken an interest in this thread have either never posted on these sections or havent done so since the word dot.
|
tahir
|
| alison wrote: | | I always go through latests posts, and never notice which section they are made in anyway. |
Me too
|
Marionb
|
| tahir wrote: | | alison wrote: | | I always go through latests posts, and never notice which section they are made in anyway. |
Me too |
Same here 
|
wellington womble
|
I always use VLP as well - I only go in via the index if I'm looking for something I saw earlier - and that's why I'm in favour of keeping them separate - it makes it easier to find stuff.
I also don't feel that a section is failing, just because it's not all that busy. I have nothing to post in either section, because I'm not involved in either activity. I can't say I'd be gutted if they were merged, but in general I think it's better to have more sections than less.
|
Sarah D
|
Some folks who hunt have no interest in fishing; some folks who fish have no interest in hunting; some do both, some do neither.
I think, on the whole, it's easier to find relevant posts when the sections are kept separate - hunting under hunting/trapping for the pot etc and fishing under fishing.
I can't see any useful purpose in amalgamating them, myself.
|
mochyn
|
Bodge: I do occasionally read threads in those sections, although I don't post because I don't know enough!
It isn't that I'm particularly interested or otherwise in those sections but in the health of the site as a whole. I don't post in the Finance section either, but I'd be interested in how the section was progressing.
|
hedgewitch
|
| Mary-Jane wrote: | | Well, whatever happened here (and I did see the post myself so it did exist) could I just remind everyone about the DS ethos of settling to differ on occasion and respecting others' points of view without getting hot under the collar? |
Fair enough - point taking from my perspective.
|
