 Poster: A snowHead
|
| On the rocks wrote: |
I really look forward to it and an opportunity to bely the impression one gets by only knowing you through your posting record of apparently just being obsessed with the history of the SCGB. |
That is so unfair........haven't you read about the Lewes avalanche or the use of avalanche cords??????
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
I haven't had an employer between 1976 and 2008 (32 years)
|
QED
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Lizzard, yeah, but if you are freelance you don't have an employer (other than yourself of course).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Bode Swiller, honestly, how thick does one have to be? Mr Goldwidget's last actual employer was the one he had in 1976, so that's the one I was talking to, so therefore aforementioned Goldfarb is an old fossil. See? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I just wrote a whole load of old (fossilised) crap in response to the above, but decided it would be better to present a fresh dynamic image.
Swiller is, of course, quite right. I had an absolutely wonderful employer for 32 years, who is someone Lizzard definitely didn't speak to.
As for the risk of extinction and future chalk formations, I think we should stick to the subject of this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| Swiller is, of course, quite right. I had an absolutely wonderful employer for 32 years, who is someone Lizzard definitely didn't speak to. |
That would be yourself then? I suspect she dreams about you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[It may amuse readers to know that Lizzard has been a prominent contributor to the SCGB forum in recent weeks, with some trademark acidic put-downs]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Masque, I see Tosser and Tw4t as being fairly interchangeable (like BASI and CSIA). I don't really care as long as the resulting chart of skiing ability is unfathomably complicated and likely to lead to arguments. |
Snow heads solved this long ago with the positionizer and everyone bears their 3 dimensional grade with good grace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
fatbob, That doesn't work with 4 different snow tools and 11 quantifiable dimensions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I propose a new system of skier grade identification. The club has long-promoted (pushed even) helmets and colour-coded helmets are the way to go. They are very noticeable and badges and medals etc are soooo last year. Masque, I haven't seen you ski but eyewitness reports suggest you'd easily make Purple Helmet grade. I can't see you ever being downgraded either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Bode Swiller, Hmmmm I don't want to hump around 4 helmets so a custom paint job? . . . NO! just realised I can use the jockey system of coloured covers, so for . . .
Skiing: Priapism Purple
Telemark: Ibruprofin Indigo
Snowboard: GoldenRod
Teleboard: Arnica Argent
and for all other occassions . . . binbag bruised black . . . which just so happens . . . is my helmet colour 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
| Comedy Goldsmith, way more colours than that - and all easily understandable if you look at the freshtracks site. |
OK, I've now had a chance to do that ...
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/skiclubfreshtracks/myskistandard.aspx#.UQmln_J7TTo
I quoted bronze, silver, gold ... and then red, blue, purple on the basis of what's variously been discussed. I see that bronze no longer exists (and may not have existed for a long time). So there are five colours in all, which is actually less than I thought. The descriptions of each colour grading seem pretty clear, and the idea of separate gradings for piste and off-piste seem sensible. Beyond that, it's not for me to judge as I've not experienced the system. I was simply struck by the fact that the grading method has generated by far the most postings and controversy since the SCGB forum reopened to the public in mid-December, and a level of misunderstanding seems to have arisen over the cards.
If we look at the discussion, initiated by Janet Nettleship on 18 December (who describes two different gradings she's been given on two successive holidays, and implies that she was downgraded) ...
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/membersonly/snowtalk/discussion.aspx/The-Ski-Club?discussionID=14146#.UQmpx_J7TTo
... the discussion gets confused and agitated, but stops on 19 January (a month after starting) with a degree of resolution. Then Len Owens starts a new discussion today, apparently raising a similar question to the one which Janet Nettleship (above) started six weeks ago ...
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/membersonly/snowtalk/discussion.aspx/The-Ski-Club?discussionID=14264#.UQmxlvJ7TTo
... i.e. "Why has the club down graded my skiing standard?"
I've not been on snowHeads bashes either, but these seem to be strikingly popular despite no colour brochure, no custom website, no obvious grading issues (the approach seems to be: come along and you'll fit in) etc. etc. etc.
So I'm wondering if the old 'KISS' adage (keep it simple, stupid) is best. I assume that the relatively large numbers involved in bashes may mean that any individual skier is most likely to find ability-compatible company, or ability-compatible instruction?
Ultimately, what we seem to have discovered over the past 10+ years is that a club needs to be membership-controlled ... rather than 'run from the office'. Is that fair?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comedy Goldsmith, What we have discovered over the last 10 years David is . . . the 'Club' no longer exists . . . which I suppose is an exoneration for your position/posting.
I have a huge amount of sympathy and support for your drive to preserve the history and archive of the SCGB. The problem you have is most non-member slushNuts really couldn't give a ѕhit and the Cabal who run the club demonstrate that neither do they . . . it's nice to have baggage, sort of Louis Vuitton baggage for a club in a faux fur fartbag and poundshop knickers.
It's clear that the business side is deeply seeded with vested interest so why do you rail at the moon here? Work to persuade us to hive off the legacy of the club into a separate entity with support from all us snow perverts and let the SCGB business rot on its withered vine and not noble rot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Re. the SCGB's Scottish snow reporting [14.36 today, previous page], I've received an email from the Club's CEO ...
| Frank McCusker wrote: |
| David, Please be advised that we are dealing directly with the Scottish resorts on many issues including the accuracy of reporting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Comedy Goldsmith, interesting... And it represents your views I'd guess, but I'm not so sure you are right. What happens on bashes ( been on 5 or 6) is very different from what happens on SCGB hols. (Done about 10) . The larger number of people on a bash makes flexibility easier, and there is a charming informality which is good. But there if you wanted to do a lot of challenging skiing with little delay and morning faff you'd probably look elsewhere. The bashes go to a limited number of resorts. Groups coalesce and expectations may be as much social as skiing... In freshtracks hols, with smaller numbers and visiting unfamiliar resorts, and usually being with a guide, a closer grouping in standard is needed, otherwise one person who overrates their own ability can screw things up for a group who cannot abandon him, and where there are limited other options...
Re popularity... 10x as many people go on freshtracks hols as bashes.
But your last statement isn't exactly evidence based is it? What you mean is that you don't like the people in the office who are running it, even though they have all changed, and you could have stood again for council... The lesson of the quietness of the club forum is perhaps the members really don't want to control the club?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
| What you mean is that you don't like the people in the office who are running it ... |
Word-twisting of tornado proportions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Masque, I'd guess the club in the form which DG sees it, and in the stereotypical cliched view, went years before that... And I'm not sure there is a place for an organization which would fit his and your vision... Information and social groups just work in different ways now. It's a consumer choice not a religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
| What you mean is that you don't like the people in the office who are running it ... |
Word-twisting of tornado proportions |
Well.... Show me how we have discovered what you claim we have discovered.. It's just another ex cathedra statement of your personal opinion dressed up as a generalisation. The club you loved and I was a member of has gone. That's life. Masque makes a good point. Make something better if you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
stoat of the dead, I agree, the concept of the SCGB as a "club" is so far beyond farce it's a 'trade's description offence' . . . which given its commercial side, it may well be.
David yearns for that warm comfy glow that 'respect for our roots' gives him . . . it's not there beyond 'lip service' by the Club Management. Until David realises that and directs his efforts to a goal that is practical rather than modifying a mindset (which is so far beyond his grasp that it has a dimension of it's own) he will continue to develop the mad nutter reputation . . . don't want that sadness 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
Comedy Goldsmith, interesting... And it represents your views I'd guess, but I'm not so sure you are right. What happens on bashes ( been on 5 or 6) is very different from what happens on SCGB hols. (Done about 10) . The larger number of people on a bash makes flexibility easier, and there is a charming informality which is good. But there if you wanted to do a lot of challenging skiing with little delay and morning faff you'd probably look elsewhere. The bashes go to a limited number of resorts. Groups coalesce and expectations may be as much social as skiing... In freshtracks hols, with smaller numbers and visiting unfamiliar resorts, and usually being with a guide, a closer grouping in standard is needed, otherwise one person who overrates their own ability can screw things up for a group who cannot abandon him, and where there are limited other options...
Re popularity... 10x as many people go on freshtracks hols as bashes.
But your last statement isn't exactly evidence based is it? What you mean is that you don't like the people in the office who are running it, even though they have all changed, and you could have stood again for council... The lesson of the quietness of the club forum is perhaps the members really don't want to control the club? |
Couldn't agree more
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
...
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Thu 31-01-13 11:45; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also hot off the "open" part of the SCGB forum:
| Quote: |
The Times has listed skiclub.co.uk as 42nd out of 50 Top Travel Websites. And it's the only one snowsport related.
It does not give the full club name and quote .....
A £60 fee unlocks premium content and gets you discounts on holidays
A fee not membership.
Never mind - it's all publicity. Let's hope it boosts both membership and forum usage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
| It's just another ex cathedra statement of your personal opinion dressed up as a generalisation. |
Obviously I turned to askacatholic.com for an explanation of that one [Warning: the following sentence contains numerous commas]:
| Quote: |
As Vatican Council I defined it, there is no exact form or statement used. Here is what Vatican I said:
“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema." (see Denziger §1839).
That said, in 2,000 years of Church history, an ex cathedra statement has only been pronounced twice, when:
- Pope Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception on December 8, 1854, and
- Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary on November 1, 1950. |
It's an honour to have made the third ex cathedra statement in 2000 years of Church history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
| 10x as many people go on freshtracks hols as bashes. |
According to SCGB annual reports, Freshtracks numbers have been between 1726 and 1782 customers annually, for the four winters ending 2009 to 2012. Admin will be able to comment on Freshtracks numbers, should he wish.
Growth trends might also be relevant. The highest of those Freshtracks figures was 2009.
[Proportionately, 5% of SCGB members - based on the current stated 34,000 - go on Freshtracks holidays]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comedy Goldsmith, the number on bashes is climbing - and easily visible if you bother to look but hasn't reached 1% of snowHeads yet. I'd guess it might be upto 300 total this year. Which is brilliant.
Why don't you come on one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
Comedy Goldsmith, interesting... And it represents your views I'd guess, but I'm not so sure you are right. What happens on bashes ( been on 5 or 6) is very different from what happens on SCGB hols. (Done about 10) . The larger number of people on a bash makes flexibility easier, and there is a charming informality which is good. But there if you wanted to do a lot of challenging skiing with little delay and morning faff you'd probably look elsewhere. The bashes go to a limited number of resorts. Groups coalesce and expectations may be as much social as skiing... In freshtracks hols, with smaller numbers and visiting unfamiliar resorts, and usually being with a guide, a closer grouping in standard is needed, otherwise one person who overrates their own ability can screw things up for a group who cannot abandon him, and where there are limited other options...
Re popularity... 10x as many people go on freshtracks hols as bashes.
|
So what we are saying is that if Freshtracks holidays were organised a bit more like bashes, with a slightly larger number of people in the same resort, socialising together and enjoying the benefits of cheaper prices driven by larger bookings, all this gnashing of teeth and wailing about skier level would simply disappear?
Personally, I'd see that as a good thing. I can't imagine anything worse than signing up for a holiday, and at the end of it discovering that Mrs M had been labelled as "Turquoise" whereas I had been labelled as "Cerise" therefore we couldn't go on the same ski holidays together any more. She might be more keen on the idea of independent holidays, but in my opinion one of the huge strengths of the SH bashes is the ability for "Turquoise" skiiers like her to ski with people of the same ability at the same time as "Cerise" skiiers like me do the same, without losing the ability to spend evenings and lunchtimes together on the same trip. Luckily we are of very similar standard, but I know quite a few other couples in this position.
There's very little morning faff when I go on bashes. Over dinner the night before we have a vague idea of who we are skiing with, where we are meeting, and what time we are leaving, and usually we do pretty much exactly that. But I will concede that usually the meet time is somewhere around 9:30-10 and the place is somewhere outside the front of the hotel/chalet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Monium, very good points...
But it depends on what you are after. And a little browsing on the freshtracks site would show such people can be accommodated.
If you are in a small holiday going to an out of the way resort where only the off-piste is worth doing - but is awesome, and only enough people to hire one or two guides are going to want to come, you need to ensure you can have a bunch of people who can ski at a similar standard all day, and don't have to check into a mountain restaurant at lunch to check hubby/wifey is ok...
But there are also freshtracks hols which cover a whole range of standards and are piste based and have a lot of people along. Tignes pre-xmas for instance I think. I just don't do those anymore. And if I am skiing off-piste mainly, I want to be suited, booted and moving at 0830.
In two days time I will be on the S9BB being very laidback and lazy and wanting to ski on-piste with my partner - and the relaxed approach will be where it's at, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
Comedy Goldsmith, the number on bashes is climbing - and easily visible if you bother to look but hasn't reached 1% of snowHeads yet. I'd guess it might be upto 300 total this year. Which is brilliant.
Why don't you come on one? |
*Thread detour*
I think there is a point at which it will be possible to do a Snowheads Season. You start with the PSB in December, and simply move from one resort to another and from bash to bash. The Xmas and Offpiste bash last year started to close the gaps between trips, and the pre-Birthday bash this year has filled another gap. Others will be able to do the first half, second half, individual weeks, two weeks, or random other stretches through the winter. The total cost would probably be something like £400 a week on average to do it, which would be a 5 month non-stop mental season of brilliance. And it would be a fine way to spend £8K doing a season for those of us that aren't looking for several months of drinking with a bit of skiing in between while cleaning chalet toilets.
Of course, this would require a critical mass (in my opinion) of about 1,000 people signing up for bashes. This assumes that everyone does 2 trips a year on average, which seems to be pretty much what is happening, so you've got 20 people on average on every bash for each week of the season. It would then become possible for people to choose when they wanted to go away, and then see what the SH deal was. I am a bit surprised that one of the larger TOs hasn't considered this as an option for filling their larger chalets and hotels - offer a SH deal that is based on "you are signing up to go to any resort chosen by us and fill any spare single bed in a room of same sex SHs, and you will be leaving from X airport on Y day" - no TO has 100% capacity, so it would fill the beds that are otherwise empty. We provide the people, they provide the beds. The upside of that is that we'd be taking the places at a load of discount, after all the beds would be otherwise empty. If you offered a TO £300 per person for their empty beds with one week notice I suspect they'd take your hand off.
I should become the SH Bashmaster. If only there were hundreds of thousands of pounds in SH Towers to pay my commission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Monium wrote: |
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
Comedy Goldsmith, interesting... And it represents your views I'd guess, but I'm not so sure you are right. What happens on bashes ( been on 5 or 6) is very different from what happens on SCGB hols. (Done about 10) . The larger number of people on a bash makes flexibility easier, and there is a charming informality which is good. But there if you wanted to do a lot of challenging skiing with little delay and morning faff you'd probably look elsewhere. The bashes go to a limited number of resorts. Groups coalesce and expectations may be as much social as skiing... In freshtracks hols, with smaller numbers and visiting unfamiliar resorts, and usually being with a guide, a closer grouping in standard is needed, otherwise one person who overrates their own ability can screw things up for a group who cannot abandon him, and where there are limited other options...
Re popularity... 10x as many people go on freshtracks hols as bashes.
|
So what we are saying is that if Freshtracks holidays were organised a bit more like bashes, with a slightly larger number of people in the same resort, socialising together and enjoying the benefits of cheaper prices driven by larger bookings, all this gnashing of teeth and wailing about skier level would simply disappear?
Personally, I'd see that as a good thing. I can't imagine anything worse than signing up for a holiday, and at the end of it discovering that Mrs M had been labelled as "Turquoise" whereas I had been labelled as "Cerise" therefore we couldn't go on the same ski holidays together any more. She might be more keen on the idea of independent holidays, but in my opinion one of the huge strengths of the SH bashes is the ability for "Turquoise" skiiers like her to ski with people of the same ability at the same time as "Cerise" skiiers like me do the same, without losing the ability to spend evenings and lunchtimes together on the same trip. Luckily we are of very similar standard, but I know quite a few other couples in this position.
There's very little morning faff when I go on bashes. Over dinner the night before we have a vague idea of who we are skiing with, where we are meeting, and what time we are leaving, and usually we do pretty much exactly that. But I will concede that usually the meet time is somewhere around 9:30-10 and the place is somewhere outside the front of the hotel/chalet. |
So something a bit like the Last Blast in Tignes? all standards welcome, with a larger group than on other Freshtracks trips.
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/skiclubfreshtracks/holiday.aspx?holidayID=2416#.UQpeq0pYRRA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Monium is unusually organised. I've usually just bumped into people and skied with them or not depending on where they were heading or what they were doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
skiclub.co.uk -v- snowheads.com. Traffic rank, over past 3 months. Alexa.com Activity on the SCGB chat forum today 31 January:
A total of 5 posts from 4 posters (an average frequency of approximately 1 post per 5 hours), from the SCGB's (stated) 34,000 membership plus other registered website users, 130,000 subscribers to The Edge newsletter etc., Ski+Board magazine circulation of 24,000 etc. (those figures generally overlap, of course).
The forum, after 6 weeks rebirth, seems to be almost dead in the snow. It's gained virtually no traction at all, despite prominent publicity. Bearing in mind that SCGB members have typically paid £60 subscriptions, but are choosing to post on snowH eads rather than the forum their subscriptions have actually financed ... the design and function of the forum clearly isn't fit for purpose.
At the last SCGB AGM (November 2012) a general asssessment of the website concluded for 2011-12:
| Quote: |
| Loss of objective, plus no membership focus |
Where is the objective and focus in 2013?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Comedy Goldsmith, agreed. I'm not sure why they bother. I'd bet that 95% of SCGB members don't even know there is a SCGB forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
| I'd bet that 95% of SCGB members don't even know there is a SCGB forum. |
I think it must be deliberately hidden away. If you arrive on skiclub.co.uk you have to scroll right down to just above the footer where there is a navigation string in very small point size and one of them says 'chat forum'. Unless I just cannot see it, it's not mentioned in the top navigation or the sub menus. Basically you need to be a forensic scientist to find it and I'm not surprised nobody is going there. I only found it just now because I knew it had to be there somewhere. People don't use site maps so casual browsers and, I agree, most members, simply won't ever get there. Clearly not seen as being that important either by da management or the members or it would be more in yer face at the business end of the home page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Bode Swiller, I just thought it was because I wasn't a member that it was 'hunt the link' time. For all its 'prettyness' the club's site is piѕѕ poor for usability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
| I'd bet that 95% of SCGB members don't even know there is a SCGB forum. |
I think it must be deliberately hidden away. If you arrive on skiclub.co.uk you have to scroll right down to just above the footer where there is a navigation string in very small point size and one of them says 'chat forum'. Unless I just cannot see it, it's not mentioned in the top navigation or the sub menus. Basically you need to be a forensic scientist to find it and I'm not surprised nobody is going there. I only found it just now because I knew it had to be there somewhere. People don't use site maps so casual browsers and, I agree, most members, simply won't ever get there. Clearly not seen as being that important either by da management or the members or it would be more in yer face at the business end of the home page. |
Mouse over the following top level menu items..
Join and Membership (or My Membership if you're logged in)
Snow and Weather
Planning your Holiday
Save money
kit and equipment
...and tell me there isn't a 'chat forum' link there under each of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
feef, done (again)... there isn't a 'chat forum' link there. Correct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| feef, done (again)... there isn't a 'chat forum' link there. Correct? |
What's that at the bottom of the middle column of the drop-down menu item?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
feef, well there ya go, that just shows you - can't see wood for trees. Websites need to have an obvious journey. Having a title Chat Forum with a sub title Snow Conditions is a clear as mud innit? You would not expect to find the link to the forum under Snow & Weather.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| feef, well there ya go, that just shows you - can't see wood for trees. Websites need to have an obvious journey. Having a title Chat Forum with a sub title Snow Conditions is a clear as mud innit? You would not expect to find the link to the forum under Snow & Weather. |
But it's under almost every menu item, with links to the chat forum itself (by clicking chat forum) or to the relevant category with the links below that. You're looking at it from the other perspective.
The SCGB's navigation is content orientated, not website activity orientated. So if you're looking for info about the snow conditions/equipment/memberhsip/whatever then those are the areas you check on the navigation. Within that, oh, ther's a chat forum about weather as well as the 'official' resources... or there's a chat forum about equipment as well as Al's videos...
To a lot of non-forum-users to whom the concept is alien, it's a good way of introducing it. To those who are forum-savvy, it might seem a little convoluted, but now that you know where it is you can go straight there. You don't need to give existing, experienced forum users of a forum a path to it.. once they've found it, they've found it. But a non-forum user would likely click weather reports, equipment reviews and never think to click a dedicated 'chat forum' as they wouldn't immediately be aware of what benefit it would have for them
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
feef, would love to see results of usability testing though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
