http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/ http://www.eblah.com en http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1279713188/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1279713188/#num1
One of the reports that falls in here every so often reported that we had passed one million page views, so I thought I would at least share it, in case it matters:


Page Views

            Total .................... 1,035,611            
            Average per Day .............. 2,058            
            Average per Visit .............. 2.7            
            This Week ................... 14,404            


(Don't ask if these are unique views - I've never looked )]]> Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:53:08 Admin http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1274046583/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1274046583/#num1
I've added an option which allows pdf documents to be embedded directly into our pages, so they can be read without visitors needing to have the Adobe Reader, or any other pfd reader, downloaded and installed.

This is the page:

Secret Scotland - UNITER Buildings

I'm interested in knowing if it behaves or not.

Apparently the GoogleViewer is find most of he time, but occasionally looks horrible the way it renders some things - but I haven't seen anything bad yet, and it would be a small price to pay if this works.]]> Sun, 16 May 2010 22:49:43 Apollo http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1264499930/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1264499930/#num1
Unfortunately, this was written by a relatively clever programmer who used a whole bunch of clever tricks that were over my head, and he has since disappeared, but was quite "positive" regarding copyright and changes to the code module he provided. I'm also quite rusty on the unique map coding, since he had promised to deliver a number of the recent features, but didn't, so I hadn't kept up to proper speed on the API changes. I will have to buy some shares in midnight oil.

Since I contributed a line or two of the code way back at the project start, I'm "contributing" a few more.

As of today, our maps now have the more advanced pan and zoom control that the official Google Maps site has had for months, and the map type controls have been updated too, with the "labels" option that pops up under the Satellite button (top right corner) and the addition of the Terrain button to the options.

I still have to see if I can disassemble the code and modify it further myself, but it would be nice to add the Google Earth option, which would allow the embedded map to be viewed using this application, rather than having to open the complete Google Earth application in addition to the browser.

Maybe one day

I've noticed another difference, unrelated to the embedded map, and which may have been an bug somewhere else - this relates to the map on the Wiki page provided to find the lat/lon/NGR of any point of interest (this single map is unrelated to the embedded maps, and is produced by a different code module).

Previously, it wasn't possible to show the whole map inside the bordered area it has to displayed within, meaning it had to be scrolled to show the whole area it covered.

Although I could define a larger area, it refused to extend too the full height I requested.

Never one to give up, I tried increasing the height after making the changes noted above, and was both surprised and pleased, but mystified as well, so see that the area expanded to the full height commanded, and showed the whole map together with the three lines of code needed to embed it.

Wonders never cease ]]> Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:58:50 Admin http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1223079953/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1223079953/#num1
It was rather appalling to watch an eight year old schoolgirl on television a few days ago, as she went around skilfully correcting a number of public apostrophe errors, only to interview a learned language professor who suggested she was wasting her time, and that everyone should forget the apostrophe and just write as they speak because we can't "see" apostrophes in spoken language language.

I don't know what his name was, but the man is a fool. In fact, in terms of language, I'd call him a dangerous fool. While he may be correct in his assertion than an apostrophe cannot be "seen" by the eye in speech, there can be no doubt that it can be "seen" by the mind when listening to a speaker, as the context, tone, and inflection of the their speech conveys much of the meaning of their word, in the same way as the apostrophe does for the written word. It was refreshing to see the little schoolgirl had a better grasp of language that he did (whoever employs him should fire him and hire her), and she was even able to make it clear that the dreaded txtspk of mobile phones was fine on phones, but had no place in when proper words were being used for common conversation and communication. She basically wiped the floor with him.

Apostrophes are policed quite strictly within the main site, and hopefully all but the most subtle uses (and there are cases where the intended meaning can require some careful thought and analysis regarding the final placement of the apostrophe) are handles correctly.

To this end, and to help others who may have suffered from the teaching of any other fools who think along the same lines as the one referred to above, the following site may help simplify the position of the apostrophe, and alleviate their misguided thinking...

The Dreaded Apostrophe

If you don't have time to read the whole thing, then it basically boils down to one simple rule: Use an apostrophe when letters are missing.

Granted, you may have to know a bit more about language than most in order to be able to apply that rule in every case, but if you read the whole site, and the examples, it works. And anything that boils down to one rule can't be bad.]]> Sat, 4 Oct 2008 01:25:53 Admin http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1214247096/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1214247096/#num1
The correct appearance of the main site is as it appears in Firefox, namely the Navigation panel on the left, and the main content panel that occupies most of the page, should both be aligned at their tops, and be spaced about one line below the image at the head of the page.

This is fine in Firefox, but IE is placing the main content panel almost immediately beneath and and touching the header image - which is not right.

I haven't been changing anything concerning this recently, but the placement is a long standing issue with IE behaviour being incorrect. The styling had been ok until I noticed this, and was usually unnoticeable, with the error on position only being about 1 pixel, which I could live with, however 10 pixels or so is 10 to many.

Any feedback appreciated.]]> Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:51:36 Admin http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1212045768/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1212045768/#num1 Thu, 29 May 2008 08:22:48 The Fox http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1211820889/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1211820889/#num1
I'm throwing this open to the forum for anyone to post their tuppwnceworth, something in the way of a bit of brainstorming to see if anything interesting appears.

Anything's welcome, be it a description of how a meaningful collection of categories might be created and managed, all the way to list of categories that might apply to our subject items.

I'll be keeping away, to start with at least, as I don't want to steer any thought in any particular direction, intentionally or unintentionally.

What I have done, for the moment, is add a Category Cloud to the foot of the site's pages, showing what is available and in use at the moment.

It's not a finished item - probably one of those things that never will be, but at the moment, lacks structure.

One important definition that is in place is the rule on plurals: as our pages usually refer to a single subject or item, category name will always be singular. Yes. it will be wrong on occasion, but then again, so would the plural, and having both just means two category names for one category subject, and that's even sillier.]]> Mon, 26 May 2008 17:54:49 Admin http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1203871910/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1203871910/#num1 Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:51:50 The Fox http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1197684043/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1197684043/#num1
Google is developing an online publishing platform where people can write entries on subjects they know, an idea that's close to Wikipedia's user-contributed encyclopedia but with key differences.

This is interesting, since our appearance an operation mimics that of Wikipedia, but without the technical complexity that has developed as its code has grown, and its use of an SQL database.

http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG.....r=rssnyt&emc=rss

One of the key differences seems to be that of anonymity. Like Wikipedia, our content is largely anonymous, which is generally appropriate for the much of the content, as this Forum provides the medium for discussing or reviewing subjects, and the consensus is generally what gets published on the main site. We differ from Wikipedia in that we recognise that personal memories and recollections may apply to some of the items we can cover, so have the addition of a Footnotes section, which appears at the end of an article, and includes personalised information. Personalised is still a bit of a misnomer though, as most contributions are received under web IDs, so we generally replace these with terms like local resident or similar, since the IDs mean little to the reader.

The project, which is in an invitation-only beta stage, lets users create clean-looking Web pages with their photo and write entries on, for example, insomnia. Those entries are called "knols" for "unit of knowledge," Google said. Google wants the knols to develop into a deep repository of knowledge, covering topics such as geography, history and entertainment. Anonymous users constantly update Wikipedia entries in an ever-growing online encyclopedia that's edited by a network of vetted editors. But Google asserts that the Web's development so far has neglected the importance of the bylined author.

"We believe that knowing who wrote what will significantly help users make better use of web content," wrote Udi Manber, vice president of engineering, on the official Google blog. Google said anyone can write about any topic, and repetition of entries on the same subjects is beneficial. Entries can't be edited or revised by other people, in contrast to Wikipedia. However, other readers will be able to rank and review others' entries, which will then be interpreted by Google's search engine when displaying results.

I can see part of the logic behind this, but wonder how it will work in reality, since there is no opportunity for edit or revision by others. One of the strength's of Wikipedia is that the community acts to vet and eliminate spurious content and hijacking of subjects by those with an 'Agenda', or those wishing to promote our old friend, The Conspiracy Theory. With no edit or review, it would seem that anyone can publish anything, and it will be left in place, limited only by receiving low reader ranking.

As an example, our page on the Rudolf Hess flight to Scotland is indeed locked, and written more as an article on its own, than a SeSco page, however, it's been locked to prevent certain groups using it, and been written using only accepted info regarding the event, while still referring to the other interpretations, without actively promoting or ignoring them. The same is true of the Machrihanish ("Scotland's Area 51") page, only it has been left open, being unlikely to attract any politically motivated attacks.

If anyone has any thoughts on the concept, and anonymous versus bylined contribution, I'd be interested to hear them, BUT please don't launch into any anything based merely on Google-hate, which will just be deleted, and concentrate on discussion of the concept.]]> Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:00:43 Admin http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1163049188/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1163049188/#num1 ) I've implemented a trial Discussion Tab on the pages of the main site.

The idea is to provide a page where visitors and users can add comments (or generally discuss) the subject or content of the parent page without altering the page itself, which seems to be a possible worry.

It's up for trial and comment, just click the Discuss tab when it can be seen, and it will offer you the option of creating or beginning a discussion page if one does not exist already. If it does exist, then it just opens it.

It's mainly for evaluation, the coding a bit ropey (on the writer's admission) and there are one or two aspects that need more work, but if it's not there, you can't play with it, so as usual, fire in.

If you find it does something naughty, or that you don't like, then please give some feedback and let me know.]]> Thu, 9 Nov 2006 05:13:08 Admin