ICW Discussion Board Reorg

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Edit Profile

Author Message Johns Username: Johns Registered: 02-2001 Posted on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 2:32 pm:    I will be reorganizinig the Discussion Board sections and categories, in the near future. It's time for a change. "Vintage and Custom" has become a moving target and the cutoff of 1980 for "Cool Contemporary" doesn't make as much sense as it did in 1998, when the ICW Board was started. I could make the Sections as simple as: 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s. Then have sub-categories under each Section of: Acoustic, Solidbody Electric, Full & Semi-hollow Electric. This approach would take all the subjective nature of words like "vintage", "contemporary", etc. and the factories or countries of origin out of the picture. It also allows for addind Sections until at least 2059. Comments (brief and to the point, please) are welcomed. Artfield Username: Artfield Registered: 04-2001 Posted on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 3:28 pm:    Maybe the country issue could be handy, Japan, Korea, China. Divided in years is a good Idea John. Johns Username: Johns Registered: 02-2001 Posted on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 5:15 pm:    Artfield: Thanks for the feedback. The problem with having very specific categories, like country of origin, is managing the misdirected messages. Years of experience tell me that it's not reasonable to expect that anyone who comes to ICW will/should know what country their guitar came from and then to put their messages in the right sub-category. I'll probably have a "Help me identify my Ibanez" section to help people figure out what they've got. That should help newbies get directed to the right section for further inquries. Ibanezfreak1960 Username: Ibanezfreak1960 Registered: 03-2004 Posted on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 8:46 pm:    How about when we post ebay ads and we all watch the auction? Or should that still go in its proper year? Ibanezfreak1960 Username: Ibanezfreak1960 Registered: 03-2004 Posted on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 8:49 pm:    And how about a section for Ibanez relatives like Greco and Antoria ect.? Dave_g Username: Dave_g Registered: 01-2002 Posted on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 9:36 pm:    How 'bout a Gallery form the collected masses ? Bigmike Username: Bigmike Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 10:42 pm:    Good luck with the reorg. It's a great site and we do well here - I think breaking it into Decades is smart. And the Help Me Identify My Ibanez section sounds smart. It's a lot of work doing this so let me say THANKS from all of us... Gemberbier Username: Gemberbier Registered: 05-2006 Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 2:52 am:    I don't think breaking it into decades is smart, because it will create splits in models that were produced in more than one decade, as we saw with the 2700 Artist. JimiH's guitar (A80xxxx) would be lost in the eighties. Picking round numbers for splits is just as artificial as the 1980 split. There are certain eras in Ibanez production that didn't start or end at round dates. For example the move of the Artist production to Terada, Yoojin and Iida. But if you take the AM50, first made at Fuji Gen, then at Terada and Yoojin. It's still the same guitar. I think the main type of the guitar like Acoustic, Solidbody Electric, Full & Semi-hollow Electric should form the main sections. If you would make the years the main sections you are creating catalogues, and catalogues already exist. It would add nothing. It's much more interesting to start from the shape and construction of the guitar. Like when you pick up a shell from the beach. Start with observing its features and then categorise it. So you pick up a guitar, and it's a solid body electric. What kind of solid body electric? - single cutaway? - a double cutaway? - a Les Paul single cutaway model? - a tele single cutaway? - a symmetric double cutaway? > SG > Artist - an asymmetric double cutaway? > (Super-)Strats > Jem > Roadstar > Blazer > Studio > Musician This way you get some sort of tree model. If you make the years too important, you get a copy of Hasy's and Harry's site, just more modern stuff. If I want to see modern catalogues I don't have in my collection I look at Meinl's or Ibanez Rulez. I think you shouldn't change too much, because the job of reorganizing all the stuff of 8 years will grow above your head. But it must be possible to split Vintage and Custom. (Custom Agent, USA Custom). And it must be possible do something with the shifting border of what's to be considered "Vintage", because after another 8 years, a 1990 guitar will be 25 years old. Mentioning an exact year is very arbitrary, but you could mention "25 years or older", or: "20 years or older". That is a definition that grows along with time. Because the group of vintage guitars will keep on growing. But as I said, I'm more of a structuralist and would think about a tree structure based on the features of the guitar, not the calendar. Ginger Mr_roadstar Username: Mr_roadstar Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 3:05 am:    May I suggest using the serial number format changes as major break points? "Pre Serial Number" "1986 and Earlier" "1987 to 1996" "1997 and later" Sub categories could then be by type: "Solid-body" "Semi-Hollow" "Hollow-Body" "Bass" "Acoustic" A "How to Date Your Ibanez" tutorial page with the major ID factors would be useful in helping get threads started under the appropriate topic. Perhaps another tutorial page with headstock photos of the more common series would also help. I'll help anyway I can, John. The Bear Mr_roadstar Username: Mr_roadstar Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 3:10 am:    I think Ginger missed the bit about "brief and to the point, please"... The Bear Michaelkaufman Username: Michaelkaufman Registered: 11-2002 Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 9:51 am:    I agree that splitting by decades is problematic. I think separate areas within topics is too complicated. People will want to cross-post. I like: - vintage non-jazz - '86 & earlier - jazz - roadster/blazer/roadstar2 - bass - acoustic - contemporary (none of the above) It's not too different from what you have now. mk Jchester Username: Jchester Registered: 05-2006 Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 12:14 pm:    I like Michael's ideas... especially "not too different from what you have now" & Ginger's "tree structure" idea... IF it doesn't get too segmented. I also think that sub-groups would be a nightmare to navigate. I think that a tune-up approach, to fix problems, would be much easier on you & on us, than a complete overhaul or redesign. The KISS Principle. One thing I would really like to see added is a 'LOCATION' line in the "Author" collumn, like many other forums contain. (Then, I could throw away my little scrap of paper that I use to note where everybody lives if or when they mention it.) My $.02 worth... JC Gemberbier Username: Gemberbier Registered: 05-2006 Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 1:43 pm:    Michael, your proposal: - vintage non-jazz - '86 & earlier - jazz - roadster/blazer/roadstar2 - bass - acoustic - contemporary (none of the above) uses two different criteria: time AND shape. This way you get overlaps: I consider 1982 Blazers vintage non-jazz. And their necks were put on Studio bodies to create the SB70 model. A very interesting link with the set neck Studio, which was presented in one prospect with the Musician and the solid Artist. The Blazer is also a link to the Roadstar series, so why create a separate Roadster/Blazer/RoadstarII section. I would suggest: Split Vintage solid bodies in neck through body, set necks, and bolt-on necks. So based on shape and construction. And give a definition of what's vintage that is more flexible: 25 years of age, 20, 18? I think drawing the line at 1986/'87 is very good for the moment, but after one or two years 1988 guitars from Iida, Terada and Yoojin will be considered vintage too. It would be nice for the Sysop if he can sit back and relax after he's pulled this through, because it's a hell of a job. (it's easier to start from scratch than reorganizing the old input). What would the consequence be, if you create one Vintage section for solid bodies based on time? Why shouldn't you create a Vintage section for guitars with f-holes then too? If you start splitting in more then 1 dimension, you should create a multi-dimensional model. Since our screens are flat, we can't go further than a 2 dimensional matrix. I'm thinking about a two dimensional matrix based on shape and construction features on the X-axis and time features on the Y-axis. Hey Bear, me brief? Guess not. But I think I'm pretty to the point. Don't underestimate the complexity of this matter. Ginger Michaelkaufman Username: Michaelkaufman Registered: 11-2002 Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 5:09 pm:    I'm sure that everyone looks at ICW differently. My main distinctions are: - solidbody LP types including Artists, Musicians, Studios, etc. - jazzers (essentially Artists) - strat-like (Roadster, Blazer, Roadstar II, Challenger, Silver Series) - I focus from mid-70's to mid-80's. Anything before or after I tend to ignore. Again...what works for me may not work for everyone. Most important: keep the "Last Day" & "Last Week" links! It makes the site easy to use. mk Johns Username: Johns Registered: 02-2001 Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 5:57 pm:    To all: Thanks for the thoughts. Your conversations bring out the difficulty in change...even if the intention is to make things better. That said, there will be changes in the coming months, among these will be new Discussion Board software and a hosting company that will offer better services for streaming video and sound files. Believe me, I recognize the difficulty preserving the existing Discussion content. Exactly how I'll merge the old Discussion Board conversations into the new categories is certainly not going to be perfect. But the change is inevitable. As suggested, there will be a User Gallery section and a section to talk about non-Ibanez branded replicas that we've come to find out are clearly related. Sixvsix Username: Sixvsix Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 6:47 pm:    Ginger has confused me. What are you doing John ? six Gemberbier Username: Gemberbier Registered: 05-2006 Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 7:20 pm:    Can't you hear the Royal Brain creak? He's thinking! Ssshhh... Ginger Johns Username: Johns Registered: 02-2001 Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 7:59 pm:    Six: I have lots of plans for the future. Among them will be new forum software and at the same time a reorg of the sections. What's the confusion? Sixvsix Username: Sixvsix Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 8:11 pm:    Ginger's posts that what's confusing. Just my British humour...sorry. Anyway, sounds like you have it all under control John. There is so much information here now and it's pretty spread out so a re-org is a good idea. A vintage and modern divide would have been nice but as already mentioned there are cut off problems with this. I can't think of anything else that the above members have already covered. Looking forward to seeing it. six Artfield Username: Artfield Registered: 04-2001 Posted on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 8:17 am:    Maybe a Guitar Alerts item could created lots of members tip eachother about certain Ibanez guitars for sale all over the world. Once they are sold you could remove the links, would save you maybe alot of space (old dead links) It also happened a couple of times that people reacted on guitars which where sold a few years ago. Bobzilla Username: Bobzilla Registered: 02-2005 Posted on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 12:04 pm:    John, why not just divide the categories by model? That eliminates a bunch of hassles. You wanna talk about ar500's, go to the ar500 category. It won't matter what year it is. By going by model categories, you also afford folks very specific info about the specific model they are interested in, in a very accessible way. There would be so much info compiled (over the years)_ on any given particular model that it will probably develop into an "encyclopedia" of each model. Within this type of category listing, it would be easy to create a "register" of serial numbers within each model category as well, if you were so inclined. Another suggestion... we know what a few of us look like from various photo postings but... maybe you can have a little area next to each ICW members name, when they log on that allows for a photo of the ICW member to be viewed each time the member posts. In my line of work, I always find that putting a face to a name is much more personable than talking with a "name." So basically, when a member posts, his photo is automatically uploaded next to his name on the post. You'd have to trust that folks won't post a photo of the naughty bits of a horse or something , but ICW guys are pretty decent, they'd be OK. Tristan Username: Tristan Registered: 03-2005 Posted on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 3:48 pm:    I believe that once you've got that going and splitting the forum into tiny pieces that just means one thing which will result in the forum being much less talkative. A hollow/semi hollow category is great. A solidbody category is great. The point is to talk and to be a community, right? Otherwise, it'll just turn out to be another ibanezregister.com Most of the time people are just interested to talk ibanez, and when a forum is diverse it just goes by. I can tell that there are alot of people here who are active ONLY in the hollow/semi cat. and vice versa, that's just an example. "oh, the Iceman model.. That doesn't interest me, I will never look there" (just an example), what happens when in the 1980 Iceman (Japan) an interesting debate emerges which involves other models too? A little clumsy I must say, the next step is to just make this division: model>origin>year and at last, color. Just think about it a bit. My I'm not one of this forum's heavy users, but I'm here and around for two years, I think it's a shame to break the flow. Snowjays Username: Snowjays Registered: 09-2004 Posted on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 9:27 pm:    Six, I only ever read the first line of Gingers postings. I sleep better that way. John, I pretty much well keep catalogues, photos and documents by year and group them, pre-fujigen, pre-serial and replicas, Early Artist (26xx), Artist AR era, and post-Vai, just to keep in line with the important peroids of change in Ibanez models. What I think would be great to incorporate into the info section might be an address set-up, not just for emails, but also webcams. The idea of a gallery would also help to show some finer details, rather than relying on old catalogue scans. Otherwise, keep up the great work, this site is tops. Gemberbier Username: Gemberbier Registered: 05-2006 Posted on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 12:45 am:    As I said, there are "lumpers" and "splitters". I'm pretty sure my 3.5 year old son would love to see a section "GREEN GUITARS". I don't know why, maybe because he saw that Vai acoustic in one of the ads on the right. But there will be others who like fiesta red, or antique violin etc. etc. Let's say you divide all guitars in 64 available colours. That's a chessboard full of fields just for "colour". The same goes for years. It's just too many. All the existing cohesion would be gone. The last four digits of serial numbers are totally irrelevant for the vintage Ibanez guitars. The last four digits indicated the overall production (all models included) at that moment. (There are beautiful examples of 2 "Korina" guitars, one Flying V and one Explorer model who had consecutive serial numbers.) There are some indications that they started to reserve certain serial numbers for certain categories of guitars at the beginning of this century. But IMO serial numbers only help dating and retrieving a guitar. It's not a feature that's suitable to divide the website into sections. What would be nice, if possible, is a table with body (and neck) silhouettes like in "The Fender Book" on the green pages and in the 1988 Ibanez green pricelist. You could call it: "IDENTIFICATION HELP: MY GUITAR LOOKS LIKE THIS". And if you click on the picture, there should be a list of possibilities and a reference to a category on the site. But I don't know if it would keep the discussion character alive. John's main problems IMO are 1) having put custom and vintage together and using an eight year old arbitrary definition of what's vintage. 2) using a time criterion for what's vintage and a shape criterion for what's cool contemporary at the same time. Well, filtering the custom threads out of the section, won't be that hard to do. And if the custom guitar in question is vintage, DUPLICATE the whole thread and paste the copy into the Custom section instead of moving it (you could do that for the CA models for instance). What IMO really matters is either REDEFINING WHAT'S VINTAGE. This new definition should be TIMELESS, that is: it will grow with time. (Problem is, that after another eight years or so, you will have to move a lot of threads again), or stop using VINTAGE as a section name. I would just devide the guitars into 4 main categories based on shape/construction: solid body electrics, hollow and semi-hollow body arched tops, steelstring acoustic flattops, classical nylon string acoustics. Then you could split the solid body guitars based on: 1) neck construction: neck-through body, set neck, bolt-on neck; 2) originality: replicas, original Ibanez designs So you would get: - solid neck-through body replicas - solid neck-through body original Ibanez designs - solid set neck replicas - solid set neck original Ibanez designs - solid bolt-on neck replicas - solid bolt-on neck original Ibanez designs The archtops can be split, but it's not necessary, because there's never been any confusion, because the time criterion was never used in that section. Of course there was always the possibility of seeing them as a "replica" or as a "vintage" guitar if they were from 1980 or earlier, but full acoustic jazz box and Lucille collectors feel no need to hide their threads between the solid Artists, Musicians and Studios or between the replicas. This happens only when the guitar is very very old and are more of a wall hanger than a player. (Harry's and Hasy's speciality). So if you don't split the other 3 main categories, you'd have 6 + 3 = 9 categories based on shape and construction. If you want all replica's together (shape criterion only) you would have 3 + 3 + 1 = 7. I don't know if there's any need to keep all custom guitars apart from the others, because they all belong to one of these shape and construction categories. And then there should be a new category "Parallel built Fuji Gen guitars under different brand names": Greco, Memphis, Antoria etc. And Tristan, breaking the flow, that's what's bothering me too. I'd say: John, don't change TOO much. Fix the problems you recognized. If possible with the same software. It's not bad at all. I read somewhere it's freeware. Well, it seems like you made an excellent choice back then. But I only see the sunny side, not the bugs (well, sometimes I do). So, that was enough thinking aloud for now. I'm getting sleepy. Ginger Mr_roadstar Username: Mr_roadstar Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 1:08 am:    Comments (brief and to the point, please) are welcomed. Hmm... The Bear Snowjays Username: Snowjays Registered: 09-2004 Posted on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 4:15 am:    Now I got a headache.......... Tristan Username: Tristan Registered: 03-2005 Posted on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 6:03 am:    Ginger, by writing this: "the next step is to just make this division: model>origin>year and at last, color. " I was just being sarcastic ;) Gemberbier Username: Gemberbier Registered: 05-2006 Posted on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 6:29 am:    My son still would like to have a "GREEN GUITARS" section. So we have two sections: "GUITARS" and "GREEN GUITARS". Ginger Sixvsix Username: Sixvsix Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 8:17 am:    John, Just hand the site over to Ginger for a day and see what he comes up with. six Artfield Username: Artfield Registered: 04-2001 Posted on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 8:40 am:    Hmm.........maybe its better to keep it how it is.. never change a..... Gemberbier Username: Gemberbier Registered: 05-2006 Posted on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 12:13 pm:    ... winning team! Right Pat! Quote: "And Tristan, breaking the flow, that's what's bothering me too. I'd say: John, don't change TOO much. Fix the problems you recognized. If possible with the same software. It's not bad at all. I read somewhere it's freeware. Well, it seems like you made an excellent choice back then. But I only see the sunny side, not the bugs (well, sometimes I do)." Don't throw away good old shoes before you have new ones (and TRIED them)! Ginger Bobzilla Username: Bobzilla Registered: 02-2005 Posted on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 8:02 am:    Yeah , you know what John, the site is pretty cool as is. If it ain't broke... don't fix it. P.S. - I think a few of us have been standing in front of loud amplifiers for a long time. It would explain a few things!

Add Your Message Here Post: -Color- Black Red Green Blue Yellow Purple Orange Cyan Gray White -Font- Arial Courier Symbol Times Verdana -Size- Smallest (-2) Small (-1) Normal Large (+1) Largest (+2) Enter Item number: Username: Posting Information: This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here. Password: Options: Enable HTML code in message Automatically activate URLs in message Action: