[Bell Historians] Possible website project
djb122 at y...
Sun Mar 10 12:57:00 GMT 2002
Yes, I agree with what Michael says. We don't want the RW to go, rather
it needs to improve! I've submitted a slightly edited version of my
online history of dumb bells, and if they publish it might also submit
other things which are primarily web-based, for instance my article on
the difference between rings and chimes, on the York site.
I did get an email from the editor thanking me for the article, but no
indication of when it would be published, although I had asked for this.
I think little things like this, and returning photos rather than losing
them, would be more likely to encourage people to contribute.
One problem with technical articles, such as may be written by members
of this list, is that many readers of the RW seem to unreasonably see
them as 'too complicated' - the trend in the mass media of dumbing
everything down seems to be expected! I seem to recall that someone made
such a comment about Bill's Painswick article. There is also the
tendancy of the editor to shorten any contribution to fit in with his
guidelines; this often doesn't benefit the article and in view of the
fact that the RW is so short of material doesn't really seem necessary -
if an article about some old junk from Dover going to adorn a pub is
front page news it would seem that the comic really is in dire straits!
More information about the Bell-historians