Shipbucket

Just to throw a question out there, which I think might be relevant to eswube and Heuhen's points about visitors and researching what our drawings represent.

Has anyone done any traffic analysis of which site gets more visits, this forum or the main archive site?
Generally there are much greater details and background history presented here by the artists alongside the drawings than ever make it to the main archive.

As an example I've just searched Google images for "HMS Hood", "HMS Eagle" and "Type 41 Frigate" and (ignoring pictures posted on other forums, photobucket accounts and blueprints.com) all the 'official' shipbucket images link to this forum and the old mothballed forum. Searching "USS Iowa" and "US BB Iowa" finds almost nothing from Shipbucket at all apart from BB1987s 1980s drawing (seemingly missing on the forum page) if you scroll down Google images far enough.
If I search "GB Type 41 Frigate" I get a link to the Shipbucket archive but its my terrible crappy AU bash-up of Unknown's work. If I search "GB BC Hood" I get a link to the link to the Shipbucket archive but its again Unknown's drawing in the special section we have for his work (though my Hood drawing comes up on Google from someone's pintrest account...!)

So how many visitors are actually going to the archive they want to find a particular drawing? If Google is linking here then said visitor already can find the picture and the discussion around the drawing and often supporting photos and other stuff posted at the time the drawing was made.

I can eswube's line of reasoning, why invest so much time and effort if the majority of non-member and visiting interest folks are not being channelled to the archive but instead lurk here and find what they want or just go to wiki.
We have to ask ourselves how much is the archive in use, how many visitors find it and how best can we present the information required. The archive does a good job as a safe repository but as a database will it be a valuable enough tool without simply replicating what we have here?

That is just how google works. if you search for "TLCM Saba":

- it will always show paying side first,
- then links that have the name in it standing alone,
- then it will show sides that mention "TLCM Saba" in any form.
- and at bottom it will shows anything that have the name in it, like for example a file name: http://shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Re ... 20Saba.png
Where it sees that the word LCM and Saba are shown two time in that file name.

The archive is in fact build up so that you will not get any hit on any search

For "Type 41 frigate" is shows first the-blueprints.com, due to how they are showing the name of the drawing, as a title they have "GB FF Type 41 Common Hull Frigate AU", Here google see the "Type 41" already in the title, so it will prioritize it before anything else. Shipbucket (forum) is first mentioned a bit further down, due to at that point google search for anything with the word "Type" "41" "frigate".
The archive isn't mentioned due to there are no name with "type 41" in there (Google dosent read pictures)

So if you write an text where you write "type 41" many time it will appear further down than those that have it in the title.

With what "Colo" is proposing will help google find the archive faster, for here you have the different name google looking for standing alone in the title already (google priorities that always). you have Nation, type, class, name.


The main reason for the change on the archive, is to get more hit in the archive and not on the forum, when you use google. for now it dosent work as it should.

I for example found shipbucket back in the time, for the first time, when I googled for an Norwegian ship and it appeard high up on google due the title was wrong after today standards, it had class name, ship name, year, etc. it had everything... that's how i found shipbucket the first time, due to an drawing posted to the archive with to much information in the title after today's standards.

This looks interesting, however, I do have a query ... would it be worth having separate "classes" types - for Cold War stuff, the NATO classes don't strictly speaking map through to the Warsaw Pact stuff, so trying to allocate Soviet designs within the NATO designations would seem to be asking for a lack of clarity. Similarly, the classes change depending on the date of the ship ... not sure if having a giant list of classes would solve the problem or trying to specify different lists selectable by country and time would work better.

I think "Class" will just end up being a text field.

Better is the enemy of good enough

Yes, if developed, I'll build the skeleton of the system first and then add features later.

-category (battleships etc.) - I wonder if that revamped organization would consist also of simple "list of all files" - like by default it looks currently?

This revamp would include search and list functions that could easily return every drawing on the site, or a filtered/sorted version of that list.

Categorization is tricky issue and frankly while in the "drawing information" (below the drawing) very detailed category (MSI, CVS CLGN) would be sensible, I wonder if in the heading (and therefore understood as a grouping of files) wouldn't just a simpler category be useful (like capital ships or mine-warfare ships)?

The idea behind "Type" is to make it very, very simple and straightforward. "Battleship", "Submarine", "Oil Tanker", "Sailing Frigate" etc. No need for detail at this 50,000 foot view.

-class vs. ship - at least in some folders (most notably Russian, but not only) many drawings are supposed to represent a class or sub-class, rather than particular ship. That makes me wonder if, say, Pr.1241.1 and Pr.1241.2 (and so on) would be - in this mockup - treated as separate classes or as separate ships?

Any system can be built smart enough to accommodate and allow for exceptions.

-personally I find the part USS, HMS, ORP, SMS, ARA etc.etc. redundant. But that's just my opinion.

It can easily be an optional field. I always try to make my drawing titles match perfectly with the associated Wikipedia article (generally wikipedia has already had these types of arguments about how best to portray names of things...) so that means the proper title is "USS Washington (BB-56)" - prefix included.

-available view(s) - given the established practice of making top and left-side views sort-of-mandatory only for carriers, and treated just as (rare) bonus for other types, is it really practical?

Yes.

-I hope that by engine You mean just things like CODAG, COGAS etc. not S2W reactor... etc.?

I'm envisioning a drop down list with not more than 20-30 engine types (if there are even that many? IDK much about engines...) Someone make me a list.

-If that suggestion of having the searchable parts (armament, sensors) were to be linked with sheets with pictures of these parts, then it implies the need for "official" sheets - and so far Gollevainen has resisted idea of any "official sheets" (though I believe in the past he also resisted idea of nation-specific parts sheets at all ).

Not sheets but rather the most current version of that part available. Just because it's on the site doesn't mean you HAVE to use it in drawings. I'm just annoyed by not being able to find parts when I need them.

-IMHO having two separate windows for Real-Designs and Never-Built Designs is redundant. I think it would be simpler just to click either category. After all, the pictures would be submitted one at a time anyway. And some of these data is again repeated in Drawing information.

A mockup of the upload page is coming soon if I can get some free time tonight.

Another thing - if the upload would be done only (and I guess it's only reasonable option) for "logged-on" members, then "author" window in drawing information creates to me a small issue - for the uploader the name could be filled automatically (by virtue of logon), but when there are more authors (usually meaning use of some older drawing as base) then typing it by hand could lead to unintentional mistyping etc.

I'm imagining a checkbox on the upload page that asks "Are you the sole author of this drawing?" and if checked then it uses the uploader's account name as the associated author name. If multiple authors need to be added, a selection can be made from the member list (via a field that auto-completes the available names as you type - allowing you to easily narrow the field and also eliminate any chance of typos).

Soviet classification would have to be kept simply for the relevant folder. But that would mean the need for proper enforcement of rules - but that applies to everything else as well.

I can only build it. Enforcing rules is up to you fine gentlemen who will be the submission approvers.

Whereas for the new drawings artists would have to enter all the "new" data when uploading, at least some of it would have to be done for all older drawings as well (and I imagine most work would have to be done with "parts").

Correct. This system entails a massive amount of manual entry work when first put into place. Luckily there are a lot of people on the board who would be given access to do this. The uncategorized drawings would remain in their current directory listing format, and anyway we've already established that no one uses the main site anyway.

Who do you expect to do that?

You. Just you, by yourself, with no help from anyone else on this forum.

P.S. And no, I'm not saying "I'd do it better" or "we need other Admins". I'm saying: "It's most likely too ambitious. Maybe better stick to keeping properly what's already in place, as there already issues even with that".

I don't think this way but OK.

I can eswube's line of reasoning, why invest so much time and effort if the majority of non-member and visiting interest folks are not being channelled to the archive but instead lurk here and find what they want or just go to wiki.
We have to ask ourselves how much is the archive in use, how many visitors find it and how best can we present the information required. The archive does a good job as a safe repository but as a database will it be a valuable enough tool without simply replicating what we have here?

I don't care if people prefer the forum. This system will be better.

Oh, and did I mention that we'd basically be providing free drawing hosting?

Anyway, I'll make more mockups so the naysayers can see what I'm trying to build for us.

Three questions if I may:

1) Who is going to undertake all this work; and

2) how much will all this cost; and

3) who is going to pay?

At the moment, I am led to believe that Golly "pays" to host shipbucket. This makes him Judge, Jury and Excecutioner in all matters and makes shipbucket "his" website, to do with as he pleases.

IF these changes mean that managing sb becomes more democratic and more transparent, then I'm all for it. And I would be happy to contribute towards paying for these changes and contribute towards ongoing running costs.

Andy.

My roommate builds web applications for a living. Price of the work remains to be seen - it will likely not be disclosed to the users of this website but remain between myself and Gollevainen.

edit: Thanks for offering to help pay, though

If there is an option to help contribute, I'd be interested. Seems unfair to have Golly pay to entertain us all!

Colosseum wrote:My roommate builds web applications for a living. Price of the work remains to be seen - it will likely not be disclosed to the users of this website but remain between myself and Gollevainen.

edit: Thanks for offering to help pay, though

You're VERY welcome Colo... We're MEANT to be a community mate, so I'm being community minded

(ps. Glad you took my offer in the spirit in which it was made )

(pps. If you change your mind and would like some financial assistance, then pease feel free to pm me)

I applaud the efforts of Colosseum, and Gollevainen. The whole idea proposed by Colosseum would not have been posted to the forum without discussion between them first.

Anything that brings Shipbucket kicking and screaming into the 21st century would be a win for all of Shipbucket.

Having mandatory fields in the upload system will force Artists to finally provide the information they have gathered before they draw the first pixel, to everyone, again, must be a win for Shipbucket..

There are some magnificent pixel Artists in Shipbucket. We should be displaying their work in the best way possible, not only to the membership but to the whole world.



(P.S. I do not consider myself as an Artist as referred to above, I would class myself as a pixel basher.)

Regarding to this project it indeed has my full blessing and support and I will certainly help Colosseum as best of my abilities.

A question and sort of opening for discussion over alternative universe and personal designs. How would they work in the new system, is there a change/way to incorporate them to the new system? Toughts?

I would say incorporate the very best AU work. Stuff like Blackbuck's, LEUT_East's and such work. Being honest stuff like my shizzle isn't up to scratch. Admittedly Admins may need to police this a bit more.

On the question of Personal Designs I don't really know.

Just my two pence...

Nick