TWIMC -

I've been without internet access for the last five and a half weeks. I
have a mountain of personal messages from people on this list (and other
letterboxing-related messages), many of which I will prolly not have time
to read. The others I'll get to in a few days. If it was real important,
send it again, unless it is asking for help with my clues (they get filtered
to /dev/null automatically :-))

Cheers
Randy

=============================================================================

And some comments on the "database" thread ... ;-)

As one of the co-founders of the site known as LbNA and one-time webmaster
(as if my opinion has any more value than anyone else's :-)), I feel like
chiming into the "database" thread -- Its long, possibly incoherent and
contradictory -- just meant to throw out some thinking aloud (and may be
totally off-base, as I have no idea if the webmasters have changed the
way things work), but here goes anyway ...

First of all - I have a different view of letterboxing than many people -
in particular - that it should basically be a secret activity. So should
a "database" allow logging of visits to each box, ala other web sites in
similar hobbies? Is this what people want? If it is a mystery box, and
all these people who live in Boise log visits to it, does this make
the hobby more fun? I'm just curious as to what people think about
this sort of stuff ... I know I would like to be able to "opt out" for
my stuff. There is no doubt about two facts ... logging will compromise
the obscurity of some clues and the mystique of certain boxes, and
letterboxing has been practiced elsewhere for over a century without this
sort of logging or database.

Now, perhaps "database" isn't about logging finds but means a way for
everyone to post and edit their clues without (or with minimal) webmaster
involvement. Do people want this? People already have this ... they
can put clues up in their own web space (virtually everyone with access
to the web has access to free web space). In the old days, the webmasters
encouraged people to set up clues in their own web space ... I think one
of the mistakes the webmasters may have made was creating the "courtesy clues"
on the letterboxing.org web site when people didn't do this. This adds to the
labor. (When I was a worker bee webmaster, I didn't do this -- I created a
link to the talk list archive in these cases. In my mind, your choice was
to create clues on your own web site, or post to the talk list -- in either
case, you got a link, not the copy reformatted and reposted).

My vision was that letterboxing.org was a decentralized index site, not
a centralized content site. Lets say we want a centralized content
site ("database") at letterboxing.org with all sorts of editing by the
authors of clues. The technical issues are not difficult. Freeware
scripts are no doubt lying around that do alot of the heavy lifting;
if not, basic ones really aren't that hard to write. But there are
other issues. Who owns the database? Who gets to decide how it is
accessed or whether a reasonable (or unreasonable) fee may be charged
to access it? What if the webmasters lose interest or the host company
implodes? These aren't intractable issues, but the decentralized model
mostly avoided them with no fuss or muss, and experience had it that
attempting to solve these issues could be a bit touchy. (of
course, a problem is the "courtesy clues", which seem to represent the
worst of both worlds ...)

One of the biggest pro arguments for a database is the box gone missing
problem. No one wants to go on a wild goose chase (this may be bogus
in and of itself -- letterboxing IMHO is about the clues, the route,
and the place, not the tupperware, but this is another kettle of
fish altogether ...). Anyway, the missing box argument is bogus. If
the webmasters have a system to post boxes when they are created,
they should have a system to remove them when reported missing. In
other words, handling missing boxes should not be the compelling reason
to create a database in and of itself (a couple of side points - there will
always be a delay from the time a box is discovered missing 'till the
time this fact is widely known, and reports of missing boxes from people
other than the hider should be ignored by the webmasters, _in general_).

All the above said, I actually argued pretty strongly in favor of a
database when I was a webmaster. Why? Saving labor trumped all these
reasons. I argued that the longer it went, the harder it would be
down the road. Its still the same argument, I guess (but see below as
I make it disappear ...).

So - what is to be done. My recommendations -

1) Eliminate the courtesy clues. Either make people put clues on their
own web site, or post them to the list. Provide links only. If we
want to keep the courtesy clues, hire more worker bees.

2) Make people follow the format Jay suggested. Ignore all posts that
do not follow the specified format. (A form on the web site that asked
for the required fields then posted to the list would not be hard to
implement; IIRC, there may already be one there). If a format is
specified and followed, its not hard to write a script to take the format
and update the site.

(these two ideas have the effect of off-loading some of the work from
the webmasters to the authors, which, IMHO, is entirely fair).

3) I think a database has to be developed if the centralized model is
desired. The community may want to work out some of the issues and questions
alluded to in the earlier paragraphs, tho, first. The legacy argument
(how do I get all the existing clues into the database?) is bogus. It
can go like this - we have a database - if you want your current stuff
there - feel free to add it. Again, offloading the legacy work to
the authors. Authors who don't respond can be presumed to not exist,
as can their boxes. These clues could be left on a "legacy" area of
the site ("the lost archives" :-)). IMO, these preceding points are fair.

Other ideas, like status lists, bulletin boards, site indexes, etc. may
be nice complements, but to me seem like band-aids that will not solve
the underlying labor problem in the long run.

So, the choices seem clear --

a) decentralize as much as possible - eliminate courtesy clues - create
a standard format and a script to automatically update the clue index
from these standard fields - ignore anything that does not comply

b) add more worker bees - if the community likes the status quo, then some
percentage of the community should be willing to work for it so the
few working now are not overloaded

c) create the database and ignore clues from authors who do not retro them
themselves -- the argument that "overhauling the legacy" is the problem
goes away ...