Alright Husar, I’ll try another way and we’ll see how that goes… First, as it seems necessary...

***

The concept of "visibility", explanation…

“Visibility” (as I use the term in this context) = the level of visible information (posts, threads, topics, general fields, authors etc.) of XTW (for instance) displayed on main forum index (the context).

A low level of such visibility means less information displayed and exposed, and the total mass of information related to subject/focus X is smaller, on index. A high level of visibility means more such information displayed and exposed, and the total mass of information related to X is greater, on index – ultimately making it more visible in total. The more such visibility XTW has on index, the more exposure, detail and depth of XTW is attained on index – making it more visible as it is harder to ignore/miss all XTW related stuff in total. This, both in general regards due to total mass of information and for the specific information which creates that mass. Like a sign exposing XTW that increases in size, detail and depth all at the same time basically. Making that sign smaller in total - size, detail and depth – will make things less visible as it reduces the level of visibility (if using outlined definition above).


Collapse, customization and visibility…

If you choose to “collapse” a section - any visibility in that section is cancelled (and making the index shorter) obviously. However that is a choice consciously and actively made as to customize the index to the stuff we are specifically interested in. This is normal and should be respected and considered. Not ignored and disregarded. In the new index-design that is practically the case, as the sections cover so much (too much) that collapsing one section will likely mean the stuff you might be interested in disappears as well.

If I happen to like STW1 but care little for about ETW - for instance – then I have little choice but to accept that ETW sub-section as well - as seen from main index. I can’t collapse ETW because it is no longer distinct enough to hold a regular section of its own with that design. It is sub-section that shares the same section with the STW1 sub-section – this despite the fact that they have little common ground as such, or that any discussions related to them are likely to be very different and distinct as well. That sort of clear structural distinction and separation is lost in this new design.

It’s like reading a newspaper, reading the stuff and sections you are interested in and ignoring the rest – by choice. In current design, we basically can’t do that as the design basically does not allow it or consider it. Stuff is now bunched up and, whether we like it or not, shares the same “page” (section). It is like having separate 5 articles (obviously shorter and less exposed in general as to fit) on 1 page, rather the having 1 article/coverage on 1 page essentially. Having 5 articles on 1 page does not increase the general visibility of each article individually - less so in fact. Things will get less visible and detailed the more and more articles are included on that 1 page (section).

If turning a that page is scrolling, then cramming every article together at all costs on the first page on a newspaper as to kill all scrolling/turning of pages, then the visibility of all the contents of that newspaper will get less visible and exposed as a result – not more so… Individual visibility, is not attained (or increased) by reduction in categories, size, detail and depth, it just make less things appear and that in a poorer way. Making fewer things appear does not mean that - whatever is left - becomes more visible individually somehow - it only makes fewer things appear and thus becomes easier to overview as a whole. Overview as a concept is not visibility, nor does it increase any visibility individually or generally – it decreases it. At least the kind of visibility I am talking about. Feel free to prove me wrong at any time.


Other terminology, explanation…

In current layout, the main forum index - the STW2 game has its own dedicated section, as in 1 section, on the main forum index, that section has in turn 4 sub-sections on the index. In the "TW:S2 Single player" sub-section, I count 2 sub-forums. If my terminology on that is somehow wrong, give me the ones you use so we don't to have to struggle with that at least.


Visibility loss, explanation...

In previous layout, 1 TW-game had 1 section on the main forum index (save NTW), each such section had usually 4 sub-sections with X sub-forums (save STW1), all posts and threads (determined by latest post) in every sub-section were visible directly in the main forum index. There was in effect 4 channels active for displaying information directly on the main index. More information means more detail as well on the index. These conditions were valid for 6 TW-games.

In the new layout, 1 TW-game have 1 sub-section on the main index (save STW2), each TW-game has no sub-sections as they already are sub-sections. That means they have in effect 1 channel available for displaying info directly on the main index. That means less visible info and thus also less detail on the main index. These circumstances are valid for all TW-games - save STW2.

The math is simple, 4 are more then 1, 1 channel can not display as much information (and detail) as 4 channels... Previously, there was some 23 channels (whatever it was) dedicated for TW-games in total. Now, there are 10 channels of which 4 are dedicated to STW2 alone. The remaining 6 channels, allows 1 channel per each remaining TW-game. Now in terms of visible information displayed directly on the main index – the level of that “visibility” has decreased. 23 is more then 10. 4 is more the 1. The level of visibility has decreased on index.


Detail loss, explanation...

In previous layout there was about 23 channels (over several sections) displaying info on TW-games, that in turn provides detail and depth as to what was goin on. As channels are cut, the possible detail (and depth) is also cut on the main index – as seen from the main index.


Visibility and detail loss, “Hosted Mods”, explanation...

The “hosted mods” are, with current layout, severed from their respective engines/games. The people that might be interested in - say the MTW1 section – will now have to go and search elsewhere as to find the hosted mods for MTW1. There are no links, no nothing as to help them do that, nor any hints or gateways anywhere, they must do it, and find it, on their own. That circumstance is not favourable for the hosted mods.

These circumstances work against any hosted mods – especially so if the visitor/member is unaware of their existence either in particular or the concept in general in the first place. The MTW1-community, new and old, is thus distanced in general from the hosted mods for MTW1. That is undesirable. Maybe it does not matter for some games, but for stuff like MTW1, it does matter, as that game is hardly a mainstream at this point and it is unlikely that is will ever change (TW never was mainstream, Skyrim and Half-life, now that is mainstream). It needs every possible help and exposure to savour any chance and “customer” it gets. This is true for the hosted mods as well. The current layout does not reflect this circumstance, nor does it counter it somehow.

As it is, no information is displayed at all as to posts, threads, authors and timestamps. The one channel that was previously available for hosted mods is gone (regardless the engine). Thus some small exposure, sign of activity, and all such visibility and detail are gone - as viewed from the main index. It has all been replaced with a small blob…


Serious/unserious coverage of TW, explanation...

With the exception of STW2, all TW-games have been compressed, transferred and put in 1 section. That means that TW-games are no longer truly separated and distinguished from the next on the main index (there are no actual sections anymore, only sub-sections). The distinctness of each TW-game is thus structurally ignored on the main index, this in plain sight. It is by that design deemed as not important enough to separate games like RTW from ETW by section. This despite that the game-experience in respective game is clearly distinct, and different. The discussions about them however, on this forum, are not regarded as such - that is a very possible signal this current design emits (if viewed soberly). The difference of a sub-section and a section is massive, and so are the signals that it generates.

Not separating RTW and ETW (or any TW-game) by section is hardly a serious treatment of TW on conventional terms. It is like not bothering to separate the films of Ridley Scott (as a director) on a forum that is about Ridley Scott as a filmmaker. It does not inspire confidence in that site. Ignoring all that for the sole sake of saving space/size on the main index is unserious and it gives an unserious impression of this site for newcomers/visitors and at least to some (old/regular) members as well. The risk for it is certainly there and ignoring that is hardly serious either. It seems plausible that the risks are also higher for RTW, MTW2, ETW and NTW in particular. How does it serve this site to ignore or disregard that risk for any TW-game somehow?


Scrolling, damn scrolling, explanation...

Scrolling comes with using the internet; there is little we can do without scrolling. Example, write “wikipedia” on your search-engine (Google, Yahoo etc.) and go to front page. Now, once that is up - don’t scroll - at all - and see how far you get… Another example, select freely any thread here at the Org with 100+ posts, wherever you like. Say the “Babe-thread” to be obvious. Open up - don’t scroll. You get nowhere almost instantly, right? …Scrolling comes with using the net, it is bizarre in the extreme to claim that it is unacceptable to do so on a forum index. This site – Totalwar.Org - is no exception to that circumstance, nor is it rational/conventional to strive for that (at any cost).


“Some get their way, others have to pay”, explanation..

Let’s use a cake-analogy. Let’s say that the cake represents a “section of interest” (insert any TW-game) on the main forum index. Now, we have 12 cakes, all flavoured differently and these are favoured by 12 different people. We give the cakes to the people. Let them keep them for a while. Then, we take them back, take 10 out of the 12 cakes and cut them by roughly 75% and give back all cakes back to the people. Now, how many of the 10 people with the cut cakes will say; “hey that was really a great idea, cutting my fave cake by 75%!”. How many?

Common sense and experience says that 9 out 10 people will think it was a really bad idea – that utterly regardless, if the reasons for all that were actually totally brilliant or not (it does not get any more convincing to people by leaving two cakes untouched either and that fact will not go unnoticed either. It is favouritism and will be hailed as such). Same thing applies here, on this site, and to its members (and visitors)…


Structural favourites, explanation...

This site – totalwar.org - deals with TW universally, it has done so, ever since it was created (1999?). The name reflects that, it suggests that, and the place were known for that (at least up to the release of NTW). This means, until now, that it previously dealt with all TW-games somehow and not structurally focusing on the latest title alone. That reality was also reflected in the previous index - it is no longer. The latest title had its due by being placed on top of the index – and that is enough. Leave it at that.

Since 2000 there has been an increase of TW-games, but what of it? Why can’t STW1 (2000) then be treated in the same fashion as STW2 (2011) on this site? Because it is older? That is poor excuse to discriminate and neglect it and its players in order to structurally favour of the latest game. Why is it now so impossible to be the niche-site it has always been before? Corresponding to all niches that are TW combined?

Tailoring the index upon the notion that basically only the latest game (STW2) counts – is absurd. It is like having a restaurant that actively disfavours to serve any food based on old recipes essentially. Anyway, in doing so, and you now have, you are in effect screwing everybody else that has the supposedly “wrong”/“unfashionable” preferences and interests here. How is that desirable? People come here for the stuff they are interested in – that does not automatically mean the latest game, now does it? Why is it then so impossible and unthinkable to treat all these other games fairly and not playing structural favourites? People come here for TW whatever, why can’t the index reflect that? How can that be secondary in the first place?


The latest game-focus fallacy, explanation...

That is essentially covered here, post:159.


Response/reaction time, explanation...

I did try to discuss this stuff even before this thread was ever set up… I did try to warn about/point out some of the obvious drawbacks and dangers and that long before any of this happened (evidently with little success). That is, the few things I knew at the time, as this turned out I missed all the rest and this thread, until now. Anyway, you can see it right here…. Post:6 and 14.

Hopefully the points are clearer at this stage. It is possible that people did not get it back then, or see the value of it. That is possible – but – it does not explain why it was ignored, disregarded or not further examined. I certainly tried to highlight the typical problems and drawbacks - that long before this index-change was ever implemented. Once it was implemented - I tried all over again (also unsuccessfully) a few (2-3) days after it had happened. If above mentioned things does not have merit, feel free to forward the basis and grounds that credibly suggests just that, and explains why that is – and ultimately why it is reasonable to disregard it. By all means, go right ahead. That is how things should be….

- A