Kevin's Watch

Thank you. I will have him try it again tonight.

I hope it works for him. He loves the board.

Julie

Insomniac By Choice wrote:That's probably true, but according to alexa wikipedia is the 17th most popular site on the web, and kevin's watch is somewhere in the mid six millions. If you want people to find out about Thomas Covenant, Kevin's Watch may suffice but it's not the best possible way to reach people.

If you don't want to, that's fine, I just don't think the excuses you're giving are legitimate.

Hey, the mid 6-millions aren't that bad... Seriously though, a good post and a good idea. As danlo said though he did put in a whole bunch of stuff some time ago, and it was removed. I think there's a thread about it in Gen Disc. (Say, did you happen to keep a copy of it danlo?)

Oh, and welcome to the Watch Insomniac.

--A

Yeah, my experiences with Wikipedia haven't been amasingly positive. It's a good place to go to for quick information, but it's hardly a tome of perfection. Too many squabbles over pointless things for my taste. And some of the admins there have power issues. (Like danlo was talking about).

But to answer your original question, why isn't the article on the Chronicles bigger, and why isn't there more stuff on the internet...simply put, SRD's works are simply not as popular as the (overrated) LotR and the (stupid) Shannara series. (I may have added some commentary of my own there. Don't mind me, heh.)

I mean, just look. When I started the Watch six years ago...the only two SRD fan sites on the internet were the Watch and Sunder's the Land site. And now, six years later, the only SRD fan sites are.......... the Watch and Sunder's the Land site. Heh.

I simply speculate that SRD's works are just too deep and too depressing for the overall population (of Shannara junkies) to get into it.

And like anything on the internet, it's all about popularity. The more popular something is, the more coverage it gets on the internet. Which doesn't really mean anything, heh. The internet is silly like that.

So yeah, I donno what you want us to do. We've set up this message board where people can discuss the Chronicles and SRD's works, and in my opinion we're meeting that goal well. I'll take what we have here over a big ass Wikipedia article anyday.-jay

P.S. Oh, and I'd edit the Wikipedia article myself, but I'm too lazy. Heh.

From what I saw, danlo edited Thomas Covenant into other pages, such as the history of the fantasy genre, which is not exactly the right place for such things. Lists are fine, and the Covenant series is there as of right now (as is the Land), but as you said, it's not especially popular or influencial enough to be listed in any kind of timeline, which is basically what those pages are.

That wasn't really what I was talking about, though. I meant articles about the books themselves, not inserting references into other things. Because truthfully, it doesn't take a large body of fans to create wikipedia entries. Just the opposite. Usually, it's a handful of devoted people who do the majority of the work, and then casual people come along later and do minor things. Extremely niche and obscure subjects have an ungodly amount of information written about them on wikipedia.

Anyway, I think you just have to remember what wikipedia is supposed to be, and ideally it's still an encyclopedia. That means (to be good) it has neutral point of view, objective writing style, and an undetailed overview. Thanks to hyperlinks, within that you can have links to an overview of much more specific things, or links to other sites that are much more extensive and detailed. But right now, the article is bare (a series of long paragraphs) and yet too specific, covering everything with just a handful of links to other things. Moreover, the sites linked to are almost completely unhelpful.

But it's not as if no one is interested in the works, because with a little more browsing, it's obvious everyone here is. And the books deserve a following equal to Lord of the Rings (which is not overrated, mind you; I don't much like it personally, but it isn't overrated). But they need better representation than they're getting. This is what I'm saying. I'm starting to exhort now which isn't my place to do, but really all I mean is that you can reach people and most of the work and effort put into this site in a place where people will be able to see it and become interested in it.

danlo wrote:I tried but some idiot kept switching it back--

Dumb question: Did anyone find out who it was, and ask them why?

thank you mrs.null for posting.
and thanks to warmark for answering.

No Problemo

Hi I am new here - great site, by the way!
In the threads here I keep seeing amazingly helpful quotes from a "GI interview" with Stephen R Donaldson. Where can I see a transcript of that interview (and what is GI?).
thanks in advance

Welcome to the Watch.

The GI is the "Gradual Interview," a question & answer forum on the official SRD website.

If you check out the "General SRD Discussion" forum here, you'll see a thread dedicated to it, which should have a link to it too.

Enjoy.

--Avatar

Menolly wrote:OK, qustion about the board itself.

Does anyone know the name of the two colors that are the background of a post for every other post? I tried gray and light grey. No good.

Yes, I have discovered, if not the names, at least the html values of the colours which you seek Menolly. For any given post, they will be one of two fo the following:

#EFEFEF
#DEE3E7
#D1D7DC

Simply quote this post to see how to use the color code tags to render your writing absolutely invisible.

--A

According to the CSS info on the page source: Should be two of those.

Just highlight my post Murrin...

--A

Avatar wrote:

Menolly wrote:OK, question about the board itself.

Does anyone know the name of the two colors that are the background of a post for every other post? I tried gray and light grey. No good.

Yes, I have discovered, if not the names, at least the html values of the colours which you seek Menolly. For any given post, they will be one of two fo the following:

#EFEFEF
#DEE3E7
#D1D7DC

Simply quote this post to see how to use the color code tags to render your writing absolutely invisible.

--A

Woo-hoo! Thank you Av!! And Murin too.

How do I put a picture in my signature??? (don't worry guys, it'll be small!!!)

Host it somewhere like imageshack or something, then put the url of the hosted image into your sig, enclosed in the tags.

--A

Avatar wrote:Host it somewhere like imageshack or something, then put the url of the hosted image into your sig, enclosed in the tags.

--A

Thanx Av. I did that but it didn't appear to be working but perhaps I should have refreshed the page. I'll try it again.


EDIT: well, that's bizarre...it won't do that and when I just did a test using text that's not showing up even when I refresh the page. I think I've broken it!

Go back to you rprofile and see if there is any text in the box for your sig.

Also, check that the options are on to allow html code in you sig.

Finally, make sure you're not exceeding the charater limit...

That's all I can think of right now.

--A

Yeah, checked all that. At the moment I have "xxxx" in it and that's it and that's not even showing up. Weird. All my other settings are right (well, they appear to be).

Oh...*now* it's working... <sigh> It's just "one of those nights"!!!!

I can only see a link.

Like your new av by the way Sea.

No spaces, Seareach.