Post by zbignievhamson on Aug 28, 2008 17:52:55 GMT 1
I've been thinking about this recently...
This is a really great site, but it's unfortunate that it features so many dead links or thumbnails that link to the wrong pictures, or even bits that aren't "live" yet. As far as image hosting goes, I have a large webspace area available to me and I would be more than happy to host all the images for the site at good quality.
I mean no disrepsect, as I know it's connected to people on this forum. In fact it's only because I love it so much, and because it really is unique, that I feel it could be spruced up a bit.
Yup, sounds like the TARDIS Library site! The OP is right, there are a lot of tidy-ups that need to happen though it's hard to prioritise doing it. The History text is effectively a draftand I know there is miles more that Anthony wouldl ike to do to to and with it but even as it stands it is the single best summary of prop history available anywhere.
It's nice to have peopel take an interest though as Scarfwearer says 'real life'has gotten in the way of doing update for about 2 years now. Hmm, maybe the time has come -stay tuned!
(not that tuned, give me a couple of weeks at least...)
Post by zbignievhamson on Aug 28, 2008 21:53:36 GMT 1
Well, like I said, it is a great site and I personally love it. I also tried to make it clear I wasn't being disrespectful or trying to criticise for the sake of it. I wasn't demanding "do it again, do more do it better!", because that would be rude considering that it is free. I was merely enquiring about whether it was going to be actively updated or not, simply because if it was we could HELP - pointing out where the dead/dodgy links are, offering to proof-read or host images, chip in with changes to the prop history section (some additional/conflicting information has been discussed in this very forum since that prop history was written, not to mention 2 more series have been made which other people here can offer extra information on).
So what I was trying to do show my appreciation for the site, and maybe drum up a bit of enthusiasm to improve it even more. As a group effort, not just telling one or two people to "pull their finger out". And I certainly wasn't having a go. I did my best to convey that.
Post by Admin account on Aug 28, 2008 22:45:48 GMT 1
The main problem with the printed word is it cannot convey tone of voice or how something is "meant" to sound. No harm done, and if you want to start on a new part of the history I'll happily forward it on to Mr S for you, when I next see him!
Post by zbignievhamson on Aug 29, 2008 0:13:04 GMT 1
I'm aware that going over something someone else wrote (especially after going to so much effort to research) and re-writing or re-drafting parts could be considered quite rude, especially without the original author's permission. But on the other hand if the original author is too busy and doesn't have time to do it, and I have time proof-read, change certain things (after checking of course), update a website etc then it just seems a shame not to suggest it.
And the other thing I thought I could help with is that a lot of the photo links lead to things like "deleted from photobucket" or suchlike. I know how difficult it can be to try and get all your pictures hosted on free image hosters for your own sites as I used to have the same problem myself. But now I have a pretty large amount of free webspace at my disposal where I could easily host all the pictures without any problems or any of them going missing. And again it seems a shame not to offer this, even though I risk it coming across as poking my nose in or trying to take over.
It's a fine line between trying to be useful and appearing to be stepping on people's toes
P.S. The "factual errors" I was talking about - these relate to the section abut the original Brachacki prop. I've been looking at as much about this as I can and a lot of photos because of the model I am making. There's a few bits of extra information on this site that could go in there, a few bits and pieces that appear to be definitely wrong (although these are minor points) and some other bits of speculation and alternative suggestions. I'd be more than happy to write these up and maybe even post them on here for vetting by everyone else. I'm not claiming to be any kind of authority, and I'd only be going on what other people have posted or what I've spotted in photos from the public domain, but if it can add a bit more detail or sort a few things out then I think that would be a good thing
Post by anthonysibley on Aug 29, 2008 10:32:53 GMT 1
Thank you for pointing out that the TARDIS Library prop history section is in dire need of an update, I must confess that I have been meaning to attend to this for quite some time now.
The original version was written many years ago while I was studying for my degree, as such I'm painfully aware that I mixed a few facts up concerning the props from 1963 to 1989 as I was rushing to finish the piece ready for publication. My fault entirely. However, when I later came to add on the sections detailing the 1996 prop and the current model, I purely forgot to amend those previous sections.
Furthermore, the time at which the bulk of the history was written (2001), only VHS was available for further research, so some facts had to be left as quite vague. When the DVDs started to come out, this made my job easier and quite a lot more info has come to light as a result as well as me being able to confirm and tighten up some of those slightly vaguer facts. I'm also well aware that for the 1966 refit, I state a certain size for a piece of damage and suggest that the roof was made larger. Again this is my own fault for mis-reading my sorry excuse for hand writing. I am still waiting on some key DVD titles to be released before I publish the next incarnation.
My own thoughts about the site is that I was like to trim the information right down to just the main design facts while the full facts, plus other articles, could be made available to TARDIS Rebuilders members only as a full colour hard back book. I am currently looking into how this could be done and the costs, but I do think it may be quite nice for us all to have a coffee table book dedicated to our favourite prop.
Have you looked at lulu.com for publishing the book? It means you have absolutely no costs to pay up front, and they publish books as they are ordered. It may be a little more expensive for the purchaser, but at the end of the day that's better than you paying out a load of cash and struggling to break even.
Hope that suggestion helps...
"My pilot's license? That's out back in the Cessna. Or perhaps you're referring to my license to kill. Revoked. Trouble at the Kazakhstan border. I could give you the details but then I'd have to kill you, which I can't do because my license to kill has been revoked."
Post by zbignievhamson on Aug 29, 2008 16:26:27 GMT 1
Well, I'm glad that I've prompted a few people to come out of the woodwork at least. It's nice to know that things are under development If there already is a lot more to be written up it's probably not necessary for me to list the changes or extra bits I would have made as these are probably in the pipeline anyway.
I'm also well aware that for the 1966 refit, I state a certain size for a piece of damage and suggest that the roof was made larger.
I really thought the roof WAS made larger. Well, when I was making my sketchup versions it didn't seem as if the original top-tier of the roof would have fit over the refit box at all. I know the "new" roof overhangs and underhangs in places, but it still seems to be a few inches larger. Although I had always wondered why, if they DID remake it, they remade it square.