Archives

[Dustydog]

Parksy /Damian

I find it ridiculous that eve with our antiquated system we cannot even view posts for just under a year ago. As new members join the same old questions arise. No problem with that but with all the effort that earlier members have gone to in giving comprehensive answers the lack of an "archive retrieval" facility is very poor show.

I know it's not your fault but it is something Lord Hezza and Nigel Donnelly should resolve please.

Cheers

Alan

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hi Alan,

I agree the lack of a long history file is a disadvantage, but in some cases it may also be unintentionally beneficial.

Some questions are about technology which may have changed between then and now, and what was not possible say 12 months ago may now be achievable.

It also should keep contributors a bit more on their toes and up to date.

 

[Parksy]

Hi Alan

The situation creates difficulties for us too and we've had online discussions with admin about this problem.

Apparently the new forum was being developed and work was at an advanced stage when Lord Hezza's credit was crunched so the new forum has been shelved for a while.

Where possible I will try to retrieve posts from the archive but I can't promise that I'll succeed every time.

 

[Damian]

I agree with all said so far.

Not being able to pullup older topics is a real nuisance, which of course is not going to be made any better in the short term.

I think that was part( but only part) of the problems in getting a new website - how to tranfer the thousands of previous posts and in some semblence of order.

As Parksy has said, if we can find any of the topics wanted we will, but may not,,,,,no,will not be successful every time.

 

[Guest]

While I fully agree with the benefits of having an 'archive' system that would allow easy access to information I would also suggest care needs to be taken. I admit there are times when having seen the same question for the umpteenth time, or it seems like it, the response you often want to send in is 'Read the b..y manual etc etc' Not tactful I agree, but re-inventing the wheel is fun only so many times.

If the Forum was to develop a 'technical' archive then that would be fine, but it would require someone to edit all the information to ensure that what was available was correct, not just a personal opinion, and could withstand any possible liability. I doubt that Haymarket would wish to get into that area at this time.

What may be an option would be to have a section with suggested 'links' to the technical sections provided by the main Clubs, for example and any other source that provided objective technical advice. The 'links' could be offered on a 'free from responsibility' basis and would remain the responsibility of the subscriber to ensure what is followed is the correct answer for his/her situation. There could also be links to books such as 'The Caravan Manual' which gives a large amount of information for the beginner. This is not a Haymarket publication I know, but a general link to it would be helpful I am sure. The author is a contributor to a Haymarket publication, so there is a link there, if tenous. The issue of copyright is another minefield and again, I feel that identifying, and acknowledging the source of the information at least sidesteps that problem. I know for example some of the trailer Companies provide objective information for towbar wiring that could be very useful to people, without necessarily making a commercial offer.

Anyone that follows such a 'link' enters the website of the Company concerned and is basically outside the remit of Haymarket. I note that 'links' to various Clubs are already offered.

Of course, there are many topics that fall outside general technical advice and if your question does want to know 'how to fit a new whatsit to a 15 year old van with whatever problem' then a personal answer is probably the only recourse. But I do think that there should be a 'health warning' attached to all replies, that these are merely the opinion of the contributor and carry no legal authority

 

[Parksy]

The links idea suggested by Scotch Lad is a good one and so long as the links are not blatant adverts posted by commercial suppliers of goods there is no problem when including them in a post.

Haymarket already absolve themselves and the forum as far as the accuracy and provenance of posts are concerned.

I copied this from the bottom part of forum etiquette:

'Practicalcaravan.com takes no responsibility for the accuracy of information transmitted in this forum. The opinions expressed in the forum are not those of Practicalcaravan.com or Haymarket Publishing Limited.'

Much valuable sound advice is freely offered by contributors to this forum and any inaccuracies are often hotly debated on the forum by our experts so that their threads often resemble the 'brains trust'.

It's up to the individual to decide which advice to follow if they wish to do so but links to other sources of information are permitted on this forum.

 

[Dustydog]

Thanks for all that Parksy,

It is noticeable that certain questions are raised on a regular basis by newcomers.

eg, I collect my new caravan saturday what should I look out for?

I just cannot believe Haymarket can allow the fountains of knowledge input to this forum to just disappear down Lord Hezza's plug hole in less than a year.

In computer terms we are noy talking about much space a

are we?

Cheers

Alan

 

[Parksy]

Hi Alan

All of the archive will be transferred if and when (!) we get an updated forum so it's not lost forever.

Apparently the information was being transferred when work on the forum update was stopped recently.

The existing search facillity on this forum only goes back six months or so as you have said but to look on the bright side it gives us all something to talk about during the cold dark months ;0)

 

[Dustydog]

Parksy

My pocket Seiko Britannica encyclopedia crossword solver does better!! It only cost

 

[Guest]

My comment on links was to have a separate section of the Forum where this type of information could be stored on a 'permanent' basis. It would only be able to be added to by the Mods, who would insert new information/links as and when they became relevant.

It would sooner or later build up a library for all concerned.

However, if my understanding is correct and there is a natural 'drop dead point' for all information of about 6 months, then that would need to be bypassed.

 

[ProfJohnL]

The concept of a technical database sounds good, but:

If the database is to have any value, the content must be accurate, and unfortunately the role of verifying the validity of the supplied data would have to fall on the database manager. Would it be fair or even reasonable to expect our mods to take on that role?

The sheer variety of answers we see make it almost impossible for one volunteer person to have sufficient overall knowledge to be able to sift the gems from the dross. And we have seen some submissions that have suggested illegal solutions, such data would need to be excluded.

Anyone using such a database as a source of information would have a reasonable expectation that the information is accurate, free from undue bias and robust.

 

[Guest]

Agreed, and have already made the pont regardin verification of data. However, we need to start somwhere and if at the beginning it only contained links to already validated information from respected sources, then at least beginners have somwhere to start looking.

If information from members was factual, and confirmed, then it could be added as time goes by.

 

[Dustydog]

John L,

I think I've missed something here.

I fully understand the sensibility to have all stored data verified for technical accuracy but why is that different to what we have now?

As you say there are gems and dross at the moment.

I just saw the archive as a simple method of going back further than the current six months.

I agree it is unreasonable to expect anyone person to validate all data. All that work!!

Cheers

Alan

 

[Damian]

Taking up John L and his point about accuracy of posts, I know where he is coming from, as do probably most other users.

It sometimes happens that postings are made which fly in the face of regulations relating to a particular part of the caravan "bits and pieces", and I have noticed that it quickly gets attention from those who know what is right and a suitable posting is made to try and right a wrong bit of advice (which does not always go down well!!).

Ther is already in place a disclaimer that all postings are not necessarily those of Haymarket and they neither approve or disprove of any advice give, or words along those lines.

I think that users must only ever take any advice as in good faith and that most replies are from like minded caravan users who have found fixes to problems which work, but are not "expert" views or solutions.

 

[Dustydog]

Accuracy under "technical" is good common sense but surely the "the uk parks and touring" and some others fall outside of being technical, rather they are and always will be a members view.

eg ukcampsites site is just that,the members view of a site.

I just think it's a shame that so much good stuff ceases to be accessible after 6 months.

Cheers

Alan