I promised a thread on the future of Boards...

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

The problem with these is that boards ie no longer a single community to whom the idea of a beers, for example, can apply.

I only partially agree. Go to any boards beers you like and you will tend to see the same faces (with some extra people) broadly following the category. Why is that, if there's 200,000+ registered users? Something doesn't quite compute. IMHO by removing the notion of an all over Boards beers, you may end up reducing the numbers going to mini beers and diluting the scope of same. Plus while there are areas of boards where the majority of posters stay in that one area, there are enough users that are spread across many forums and areas to warrant the notion of a Boards single community. Just because one direction of smaller communities may be happening, that hardly negates the idea of a sitewide community. Cross fertilisation is a good bet for any community too.

Boards awards in days gone by were fun and games, but wholly infeasible at this point.

Why? Wholly unfeasible is a bit of an exaggeration TBH. It was wholly feasible and seemed very popular only this time last year and little enough from the users perspective has changed and it's not grown to that degree since. So it would be just as feasible and more popular as the site grows. Stands to reason. IMHO it seems quite arbitrary to stop such a pretty popular thing (as it seems it now has been).

Biggest muppet? Hottest poster? Great fun, but how in God's name do you do that again without getting into trouble and getting names from a fair spread of the community?

Well again this time last year there were enough categories and voters to make up the numbers. If the site grows, so will that and it will increase the notion of a sitewide community as well as the smaller. As for the categories, the ones you reference are only the flippant ones. What about Best poster in different categories. Ditto with mods, Best/most useful thread. Best new forum, Best Boards event. The list is long only limited by imagination.

As for trouble. What trouble? I recall no trouble. Yes if you have a category of biggest muppet it could be open to abuse, even there the risk is pretty minimal. I seem to recall there were even some reveling in their nomination . Hey a good way to let off steam too.

The getting names from a fair spread of the community is hardly rocket science. Indeed an online forum would be much easier to pull that off than in most communities. You have the stats. A stucky in each forum served well in that and other sitewide announcements. You could also weight votes by category and user base. Of course somewhere like AH is going to garner more votes, but that can be pretty easily offset if thought is put into it. Again done right it can both bolster the idea of a general boards community and a more particular one. It's a two way thing, where users can have a laugh and give something fun back and people can be thanked etc.

I think the boards "banner" is great, but boards needs to stand back from organising anything. If the Athletics guys want to run a triathlon event through boards, then hooray and print up all the boards banners you like, but don't expect any organisational assistance from boards.ie HQ. This is your event, boards is providing the loudspeaker with which you can reach your public, but that's about it.

OK I take the notion that it does distance boards from any possible bad feedback, but it also seems a little bit of a hands off excuse too. I'm not suggesting throwing money or much manpower at it. I am suggesting that if some organisational structure isn't in place, it may well come across like a lack of support too. At that point why reference Boards at all? If the loudspeaker doesn't have a nametag on it and value added on it, then it's all too easy to go to one that may have. That would be my worry.

People need to feel part of a community. There are many facets to that. Some if not many boards already has, but no amount of new charters and laws will keep people posting and contributing content, if the place is "just" a conduit. Things like awards and Boards bannered events are a pretty big part of making it more than that IMHO. I honestly think such things will keep people posting, keep them longer and reduce the amount of register once and post a couple of times and then drift away types. Which are a large proportion of the registered user base from what I can see.

DeVore wrote:

Imagine this (it wouldnt happen on my watch but its by no means out of the question)... Imagine that i'm dead or not here... Some dickhead of a "sales guy" comes in and says "Lets brand all the forums, we can sell sponsorship for them, Broadband Forum, sponsored by Eircom" lets say. Now the community, admins and mods get up in arms, this isnt the "Boards way"... but who has final say? Well the community does, it will leave if its not happy. But thats not a good outcome for anyone.

I agree 100%. I just think that's only one of the more obvious reasons people may drift away. OK lets imagine that worse case scenario. I truly believe yes there would be some noise. Quite a bit of noise. Yes some would leave. Many of the mods and users would leave, but I would also bet the farm that this number would be a lot less than you/we may think. They may be vocal, but I think more would replace them and the general user base wouldn't be that much affected. I've seen that in microcosm on here before. The numbers of communities and posters is large enough and the inertia behind it now that a general walk out would be very unlikely in that case given. Psychology of groups being what it is, people once they're not unduly affected, or even slightly inconvenienced will tend to mutter a bit and stay put. History has shown us that even in the most extreme cases. You would walk. Others like you would walk as that's in your nature as someone that has a particular vision and is not afraid to express it, or simply cares, but as I say you may be surprised how many wouldn't. How many would passively or even actively say it was a "good thing".

My worry would be that a less obvious reason would cause a dropping off of the userbase. A more mundane one. A meh style malaise type of thing. Where the percieved value added of posting on boards would dip to a point where people would just drift away. Or people would sign up once and then go meh. That already happens in a small way. Why do people sign up and then walk? Why do many lurk and not register? Those two groups are pretty huge as a ratio compared to the boards users who continue to contribute. I dunno why, but there is a why or multitude of whys. Figure those and the site will really expand. To a huge degree. Which is good for all. The community, the finance, the voice wielded.

With the introduction of commerce, politics and journalism we need to guard our community with a short, clear document of our purpose, our structure, the way things are decided and who decides what. That way we dont lose our direction.

+1

AlmightyCushion

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree 100%. I just think that's only one of the more obvious reasons people may drift away. OK lets imagine that worse case scenario. I truly believe yes there would be some noise. Quite a bit of noise. Yes some would leave. Many of the mods and users would leave, but I would also bet the farm that this number would be a lot less than you/we may think. They may be vocal, but I think more would replace them and the general user base wouldn't be that much affected. I've seen that in microcosm on here before. The numbers of communities and posters is large enough and the inertia behind it now that a general walk out would be very unlikely in that case given. Psychology of groups being what it is, people once they're not unduly affected, or even slightly inconvenienced will tend to mutter a bit and stay put. History has shown us that even in the most extreme cases. You would walk. Others like you would walk as that's in your nature as someone that has a particular vision and is not afraid to express it, or simply cares, but as I say you may be surprised how many wouldn't. How many would passively or even actively say it was a "good thing".

Completely agree with you here. A good example is facebook. The new whatyamacallit they introduced has pissed a lot of people off. They started groups, bitched about it on their status feed, bitched about it on other websites, hell one guy has posted "CHANGE IT BACK NOW YOU ****ING GOB****ES" about a dozen times on the blog post detailing why they made the change. I wonder how many have actually left though. Not many I'm willing to bet. Give it a bit of time and I'd say they'll get used to it or maybe even like it. Change just scares and pisses people off. So yes we need to focus on the less obvious things but the problem is how do we identify the less obvious things?

Wibbs

Yep facebook is a massive success and it's an advertisers and data miners wet dream. Though people may bitch about the corporate, they vote with their feet if the value added is there. Clearly they feel the value added is still with facebook. I don't see boards going that way though *checks for DeV lining up the crosshairs for me even suggesting it*:D It has a great vision behind it and a lot of great people behind that vision. As I said I would hate to see that vision lost. I really truly would.

How do you spot the less obvious issues? Its a hard one and Im glad Im not tasked with it. I would say look at how communities grow and expand. Look at how and why they fail or contract. Too often IMHO people who are very web savvy/nerdy/techie types(myself included), think it's soooo new and different to what has gone before. It's not. It's sitting around the campfire in animal skins discussing the core of the day and each other. It just appears different. But what has killed off communities in the past will likely do the same in online communities.

They have a certain sometimes perceived inertia and rapid growth, but that can go the other way too. Especially quickly too. It's easier to disconnect(no pun intended) from an online community. If you don't feel a connection with your fellows in the community. That needs to be bolstered more and more, lest the very size of the community weighs it down. Hence I was suggesting awards and events etc. That way you get more mainstream people on board. I think theres a danger in ascribing to others what you feel yourself and ascribing a structure that is more in the past, yet feels to be gong forward. If you know what I mean. Not sure I do TBH:D

DeVore

Just because we COULD do it, and get away with it, doesnt make "it" right.

I told ye I hadnt done as much thinking on this as I wanted to, but perhaps its just as well to have this sort of input while I'm giving it some thought.

I'm very aware that we could drift by small measures and end up something mundane. It might be huge, but it wouldnt be interesting, at least not to me.

DeV.

Wibbs

Oh I agree especially about it being right. Then again maybe it's because big biz and advertisers have had their own way too long? Lets imagine the nightmare scenario after the 15B buss has had its way with/youre living in Barbados. Sponsorship of individual forums. Ok fine. :eek: but what if they had to earn it? They could sponsor the forum, but couldn't throw their weight around. They would have to provide value added. Like comm reps on steroids. So lets say I dunno eircom sponsored the broadband forum. They would have to provide online help. Couldn't moderate or stop discussion or complaints about them or competitors. Gave discounts to Boardsies etc. They would pay for experts in the field to post how to guides, pay for guest speakers, even throw a few buck at mods down the line a it became more of a part time job. There's a lot of places here that this may work.

Ok that's really out there, but if it could work like that I personally wouldnt be too concerned. The user would be getting so much more value added and it would be monitored by people they knew and could trust and the company would get direct advertising and feedback to an ever interested and growing customer base with a voice, far more than they would ever get through google and the like(which I feel has a lot of the whiff of emperors new clothes and beast eating itself, pyramid scheme to it...*puts on tinfoil hat*). Maybe that's the wave of the future in some aspects of biz interaction with the online world. Web 3.0(c) the wibbulator



Anyway good sir, thought you were unwell. Away to bed with the lemsip/whiskey/lady of dubious morals (delete as applicable) or we'll set Dr Bollocko on ya and he's been struck off(something to do with sheep guts and nudity as part of a treatment)..

Rev. BlueJeans

I'd just like to add that I'd like to have Wibbs' babies

On a serious note, I echo post #89 in its entirety-it is exactly how I see this place from my own perspective.

Those who have nurtured communities-Photography, Cycling etc., to name but two of very very many, both online and off, are the biggest asset this site has. Critical mass is all well and good, but it doesn't encompass that social dynamic, which ultimately is what gets folk here, and keeps them here.

Is there too much emphasis on moderation? Well, yes-but I'm not sure how that gets fixed. Its as much a user driven thing as anything else-and somewhat of a parody of itself in parts, where, as Wibbs has said, some people seem to revel in it, with talk of banhammers and the likes.

The only main moderation issue I have a problem with-is their perceived almost infallible status within their remit. In other words, from a user perspective, it seems very hard to dislodge or over-rule a mod who may not commit an ultimate faux-pas, but rather many little ones. Yes, of course they're human, and like all of us, they trip up now and then (surprisingly little-given how many active ones there are now), but the bias, unintended as it may be, is over-whelmingly in their favour when a complaint is made. A cynic would say that that is the case because the site is built on volunteerism, and no one wants to upset those who do help out-but, again, it's not quite so simple. It is simply the done thing, and while no one expects moderator actions to be constantly monitored, users do need some weighting-*where warranted*, when a complaint is made. IMO.

Boards is overwhelmingly the focus of efforts at the present time-which is understandable in itself. However adverts lurches on, and is very much neglected, and in the shadows by comparison-both in terms of software and development-which given its potential, is a very poor show. Perhaps that's an issue for another discussion (in fact-of course is it, I don't know why I'm raising it here), but the hapless users and lower level mods have been fed platitudes for years, and there are little crumbs being thrown from the table in their direction.

The reason, DeV, you're seen as a figurehead, is because you're the only original Admin left, at least the only one that actually contributes to the place as a poster. I for one hope that your presence is not lost, but I understand your reasoning for thinking-what if it was?

Wibbs

Rev. BlueJeans wrote: »

I'd just like to add that I'd like to have Wibbs' babies

Dangerous words around me:D

Boards is overwhelmingly the focus of efforts at the present time-which is understandable in itself. However adverts lurches on, and is very much neglected, and in the shadows by comparison-both in terms of software and development-which given its potential, is a very poor show. Perhaps that's an issue for another discussion (in fact-of course is it, I don't know why I'm raising it here)

AFAIK there's changes a coming and serious experience aimed at that.

The reason, DeV, you're seen as a figurehead, is because you're the only original Admin left, at least the only one that actually contributes to the place as a poster. I for one hope that your presence is not lost, but I understand your reasoning for thinking-what if it was?

And the fact that he comes across as a thoroughly decent person, that admits his vision and mistakes. That's rare enough in any arena. TBH I'd love to know how he fools people. I'd say hes an awful cnut in reality:D

Dyr

Wibbs wrote: »

I think the real life social aspect is what should be promoted more and more. That's where the actual growth, not random google clicks/web 2.0/number of registered(but not active) user base growth will stem from and feed back into the "brand experience". That's what will extend the reach of this entity. That's what will bring many more real users and content into the site.

Is'nt that what the social.ie yoke was and it looks like it died on its arse a bit. I reckon that whatever success boards will have in the future will come from the demands of its user base rather than people trying to promote something onto them.

I think flutterinbantam made a similar point earlier, so I agree with him..which is a bit upsetting.:(

And as for the whole promoting the political end of things, long hard look in the mirror required on that front. I personally wouldnt touch anything boards did in that area.

Wibbs

Bambi wrote: »

Is'nt that what the social.ie yoke was and it looks like it died on its arse a bit.

Maybe cos it was separate?

I reckon that whatever success boards will have in the future will come from the demands of its user base rather than people trying to promote something onto them.

True, but it can and should go both ways. Not imposition but suggestion and see what the community wants. Better than not trying new stuff, even revisting older stuff that may not have flown then but may fly now in the current situation.

And as for the whole promoting shine a light on the political end of things, long hard look in the mirror required on that front. I personally wouldnt touch anything boards did in that area.

FYP hopefully?

Dyr

Wibbs wrote: »

FYP hopefully?

Shining a light? it's more a matter of not having much faith in those who'd be charged with holding the torch. :pac:

Rev. BlueJeans

Indeed, when it comes to political figures

Anyway, I thought boards was always, quite rightly in my view, an upholder of impartiality when it came to matters political.

As in, they turned down, or at least didn't pursue, banner ads for political parties etc.?

Wibbs

Bambi wrote: »

Shining a light? it's more a matter of not having much faith in those who'd be charged with holding the torch. :pac:

funny, for the most part those holding the torch I have a lot less issue with than my cynical mind would usually suggest.

DeVore

There is a huge project in the pipeline to fix adverts and fix it good. It will take its own path , its a different site and a lot more "commercial" by its very nature.

Social.ie and Journals.ie died because they were implemented without an eye on the future of their maintenance. I'll admit now I never really cared about them because they werent Boards and I have my hands full with that. Most likely we will wind them up and expand Boards into those areas instead. But thats a while down the road.

We are politically neutral. We dont even have consensus in the office let alone on the site. No, we have no political position, we do have a vision of how we could play a role in the political process, that we have a unique position to influence how politicians interact with people and who people interact with each other about politics. That, is a very different thing.

As for advertising, we had a big long discussion in feedback about taking the Libertas ads during Lisbon 1.0 and the eventual consensus was that we couldn't start picking and choosing so we would accept all legitimate political advertising on a first come first served basis.

DeV.

Villain

DeVore wrote: »

We are politically neutral. We dont even have consensus in the office let alone on the site. No, we have no political position, we do have a vision of how we could play a role in the political process, that we have a unique position to influence how politicians interact with people and who people interact with each other about politics. That, is a very different thing.

While the admins might be Political neutral it can be hard to ensure the mods of the Politics forum are, in the past I certianly think they were biased towards certain parties and discussion was restricted on certain topics.

Kinetic^

watty wrote: »

It is broken. It does need fixed.

If you're going to say it's broken, could you explain why please?

Earthhorse

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Completely agree with you here. A good example is facebook. The new whatyamacallit they introduced has pissed a lot of people off. They started groups, bitched about it on their status feed, bitched about it on other websites, hell one guy has posted "CHANGE IT BACK NOW YOU ****ING GOB****ES" about a dozen times on the blog post detailing why they made the change. I wonder how many have actually left though. Not many I'm willing to bet. Give it a bit of time and I'd say they'll get used to it or maybe even like it. Change just scares and pisses people off. So yes we need to focus on the less obvious things but the problem is how do we identify the less obvious things?

Things like that are akin to Thanks in Feedback or different skins. People will give out about them but they're not worth walking over. Sorry to dip into business speak here but the reason anybody uses anything is because of unique selling points. So what are Facebook's unique selling points. To my mind there are 2.5 of them:

1. It's real people you know using their real names.
2. You can organise real life meet-ups through it very easily.
3. Clustered apps.

That's about it really. You can prick about with just about everything else; the layout, the feeds, the Like option, the games and people might mind but they won't leave. They might use it less, they might not like it as much but that's about it.

What then, are boards' unique selling points?

1. It's Irish.
2. It's a one-stop shop.

That's about it really. Force me and the 191 other users on grey skin to use a different one and we might be annoyed but we won't leave.

Of course, one of the key conditions for that is that it is indeed unique; people won't walk unless there is an easy alternative to walk to that also has all those cool bits and bobs. Any first in the field player has a huge advantage over it's competitors because there will be huge inertia in its favour.

Right now, boards is the only show in town, and it's quite a worthwhile one too, I think.

But, to make this relevant, how does it continue to be worthwhile? I don't think you need to focus on the less obvious things at all. I think you need to protect that core of what boards is from a group of admins that don't understand it (a theoretical group, I mean, that's not aimed at anyone) that would destroy it from the inside or from the death by a thousand cuts that could occur under any administration.

To be frank, I'm not sure it is possible to have built-in protection against that, especially in a corporate structure. A Trusteeship would appear to be a more natural match fit for boards' community ethos. But that has its problems too.

Wibbs

Earthhorse wrote: »

But, to make this relevant, how does it continue to be worthwhile? I don't think you need to focus on the less obvious things at all. I think you need to protect that core of what boards is from a group of admins that don't understand it (a theoretical group, I mean, that's not aimed at anyone) that would destroy it from the inside or from the death by a thousand cuts that could occur under any administration.

I agree, but with growth comes change and if a community stagnates for want of a better word, kinda stuck in polishing what it was, not what it is or could be, then that's the danger I think.

It hasn't so far up to now anyway. Creating Boards.ie was a leap of faith and took guts, building it up, getting the tech together, making it a commercial entity, adding structures and mods, getting together with DAFT etc took guts too.

I suppose seeing seamus' take on say the boards awards triggered that for me as a good example. "Wholly unfeasible"? It makes no sense whatsoever(very unusual for seamus) to arbitarily drop a community thing like that when it was completely feasible just 12 months ago, was very popular and had no fallout. Every large body, even ones with quite disparate members dig awards ceremonies. They bind groups. Look at the response when boards wins web awards. Proudly displayed for all to see and quite right too.

I suppose that's what I'm getting at. Maybe it's too easy to get middle aged spread before your time. Settling into a routine and only working on that, because it's comfortable. Closing off options because they're hard to do or just because it's not been done before. The success of this place was founded and built on the complete opposite of that. If it grows, truly grows that spirit needs to be kept alive.

Nevyn

Or else it had fall out which we are not privy to, which if that is that case it's looks like baby out with the bath water.

The Recliner

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree, but with growth comes change and if a community stagnates for want of a better word, kinda stuck in polishing what it was, not what it is or could be, then that's the danger I think.

It hasn't so far up to now anyway. Creating Boards.ie was a leap of faith and took guts, building it up, getting the tech together, making it a commercial entity, adding structures and mods, getting together with DAFT etc took guts too.

I suppose seeing seamus' take on say the boards awards triggered that for me as a good example. "Wholly unfeasible"? It makes no sense whatsoever(very unusual for seamus) to arbitarily drop a community thing like that when it was completely feasible just 12 months ago, was very popular and had no fallout. Every large body, even ones with quite disparate members dig awards ceremonies. They bind groups. Look at the response when boards wins web awards. Proudly displayed for all to see and quite right too.

I suppose that's what I'm getting at. Maybe it's too easy to get middle aged spread before your time. Settling into a routine and only working on that, because it's comfortable. Closing off options because they're hard to do or just because it's not been done before. The success of this place was founded and built on the complete opposite of that. If it grows, truly grows that spirit needs to be kept alive.

Just on the awards thing I would agree with Seamus that Boards as an entity is too unweildly and has outgrown the awards structure

That is not to say they can't happen just that they need to be on a Forum by Forum basis or on a Category basis, each group can have their own awards or organise awards with like minded groups

As has been said before Boards is no longer a single community but a group of smaller communities, the awards should refelct this and if each group organise an awards night then you are more likely to have people with a common interest at them

seamus

Wibbs wrote: »

"Wholly unfeasible"? It makes no sense whatsoever(very unusual for seamus) to arbitarily drop a community thing like that when it was completely feasible just 12 months ago, was very popular and had no fallout.

OK, what I mean is in its previous form, it was no longer feasible. I would dispute "very popular" - most of the polls seemed to have less than 400 votes. Visitor numbers aside, but if I had a site with around 2,000 people online all the time I would expect a hell of a lot more people to participate. This indicates to me that most of the users of the site are disconnected from it - the specific awards were too "in-jokey" for the vast majority of site users. "No fallout" is also something disputable too

Every large body, even ones with quite disparate members dig awards ceremonies. They bind groups. Look at the response when boards wins web awards. Proudly displayed for all to see and quite right too.

This is feasible, but the format needs to be completely different. It would need to remove the in-jokeyness of it but without becoming stuffy or polished.

You'd have awards like, "Best forum" and "Best new forum", but the real issue is that the awards have no meaning. A golden spider is an industry-recognised award, it says, "You guys are doing great" and indirectly it gave boards the support which eventually lead to a successful company stumping up real hard cash. However, the Athletics forum winning "best forum" isn't going to draw investors or advertisers or more attention to that forum is it? Does it mean anything whatsoever outside of boards? If I win, "Most insightful poster", will I see cash in my bank account or a job offer? Will anyone but me care? Will I have advertisers looking to buy ad space in my sig?

Yes, it's nice to be recognised by your peers, but then the issue of "the clique" appears again. Few people will be interested enough to bother voting.

However, we do know that people like to vote and they'll often pay for that privilege. So maybe it's not a problem of interest and more a problem of publicity.

DeVore

Earthhorse, very interesting post and I take a lot of it on board, but one correction: We werent the first movers in this industry, not by a long shot. Nor were we the best funded, not by a long long long long shot

LocalIreland was huge, and it was bought by Eircom for 2 Million back in the day (dead now).

www.online.ie was massively funded (~8 Million as I recall) plus it was backed by the guys who built IOL... it was tipped to be enormous and it was very ambitious but it failed commericially.

www.p45.net were huge, but not brilliantly funded. They didnt adopt the "moderators from community" approach and grew slower.

You're comments about "trusteeship" are interesting... perhaps thats how we go forward... its something I have given a lot of thought to before, a group to act as watchdogs.

My problem is that I still havent dont enough thinking about what the problem I'm trying to solve is. I find if you can articulate the problem clearly, the solution tends to be obvious.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that we didnt have first mover advantage, which doesnt invalidate your points about where we are now, but means theres something we had that they didnt. (these sorts of chats being one of them).

DeV.

fintonie

well considering ranting and raving is scanned before they it can be posted, I posted in there about MODs and a few forums but guess what it was not posted,

then I see them asking for back slapping, how do you think this forum is going and such,

its a load of kiss me hole, pls tell me or us how brilliant we are, the forum runs because there are people posting,

like look at the soccer now there is a joke forum, all the shiite you have to go through to get on it you would get into fort Knox quicker,

as I say oooooooooo pls tell me how great I am.

Boards in general is a great spot so many relevant and helping threads have been set up but this has been done by the members,

stick a MOD to keep tabs on it there is the power tripping.

but I will still post if I don't get banned for life for this post.

DeVore

I gotta say... you are not convincing me that anything is wrong...


DeV.

fintonie

DeVore wrote: »

I gotta say... you are not convincing me that anything is wrong...


DeV.

well all I have to say to you is baaaaa baaaaaaa baaaaaaaa

My name is URL

DeVore wrote: »

I gotta say... you are not convincing me that anything is wrong...


DeV.

I think he's asking for independent user reps, in a round-about sort of way

Someone to be on the side of members rather than mods all metaphorically **** each other when it comes to decisions they make, pardon the French

Wibbs

fintonie wrote: »

well all I have to say to you is baaaaa baaaaaaa baaaaaaaa

So DeV is a sheep now? Sweeeet. Boards wool. The possibilities are endless. Get the Comm guys on it and put me down for a nice scarf as a small fee for spotting the opening in the market.

Gordon

I think he's saying that he's the sheep. Not sure why thought tbh. Not very constructive to his points, but hey ho, thanks for shearing that with us.

Wibbs

Better then. More wool among the general population. My biz plan is still a goer. "shearing that with us" oh good jeebus Gordon. No seriously head:D

Rev. BlueJeans

Shanks for that, Gordo.

Earthhorse

DeVore wrote: »

Earthhorse, very interesting post and I take a lot of it on board, but one correction: We werent the first movers in this industry, not by a long shot. Nor were we the best funded, not by a long long long long shot

Thanks. Wasn't aware of some of those places. Always regarded P45 as your contemporary. But as you say, you're in a different position now either way.