Oh dear, oh dear!
Someone seems to be trying very hard to be tiresome. Let's not squabble. There are enough of us here to decide whether and how changes will be made, and no one voice is likely to prevail, no matter how shrill.
That brings to mind an old proverb, don't know the origin, " Who speaks with the loudest voice has least to say."
This whole series is reminiscent of the advent of Web 2.0
. Suddenly everyone was eager to update
their sites to the new standard
. However, a number of high-traffic sites didn't jump on that bandwagon, and there was no significant diminution of traffic as a result
. By that same token, appearance-wise, most forae haven't changed much, but they're still active. If we enjoy a site, we return, regardless the appearance. Frankly, I'm not all that certain that I'd enjoy converse with someone attracted only by appearance - anyone that interested in ephemerals prolly wouldn't have an outlook that would be attractive to me
. The important part of any site is the meat of it, the content contained therein.
There's been comment about the home page, but I'd never seen it until this thread. I came in through a side door, either CHS or Mobysaurus or Form Letter Machine. Since then, I've come in through RSS feeds. So I'm not all that certain the home page is a significant issue. Update, sure, if it pleases, but check the logs, see how many use it, whether its worth the effort
My attitude is that if you want to make changes, I'll contribute as best as I can. However, I tend to work within the limits of a thing rather than complain of missing functionality. (I'm a lousy beta tester
.) So does a third of the rest of the world - more on that another time, perhaps - so change for the sake of change
is well nigh antithetical.
If operational change is needed, make it; if change is cosmetic, think about it. But do consider the workforce, particularly in regard to cosmetic change which is oft more onerous than functional change.
(If this is somewhat incoherent
, that's because I'm somewhat inebriated
... but not enough to dis-enable rationality (I thimk!)