Featured Title:
Bending the Boyne: a Novel of Ancient Ireland |
 |
| Ley Lines |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 104 guests and 1 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Forum: Portal Talking Shop
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , sem , Klingon , coldrum , bat400 , TheCaptain , Runemage , SolarMegalith , davidmorgan
Respond to: The types of site that The Megalithic Portal covers, and why
|
| Review your Reply |
Sunny100
Joined:
20-03-2010
Messages: 220
from Near Nelson, Lancashire
 OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2012-06-13 18:11
I think I agree with you frogcottage42 and what you say on this difficult issue. I now have my own website/blog and am putting Roman sites on. Some of these are quite interesting and a few include ancient churches within the actual fort with inscribed/carved stones in them.
|
frogcottage42
Joined:
14-02-2010
Messages: 235
from tuosist
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-06-13 17:52
There would still be problems with some types of site, for instance here in Ireland we have approximately 10,000 known examples of 'ring fort'.
This is a completely inappropriate description of a type of monument which seems most likely to be just the normal type of farm complex from the late 3rd c. to the middle 12th.
Some of these are spectacular, some are barely visible, very few contain anything Megalithic and there are far too many to accept really.
Saying that it would be a shame if you weren't able to have some of them!
One thought I did have is that for sites which miss the official mark how about having them in a separate gallery, like the Roman and allow people to add links on the pics to their own Flickr or similar site where they can describe/ catalogue etc in their own time and without the admins needing to check beyond obvious links to inappropriate material?
Some contributors here have their own websites and maybe those with specialities could donate a little room to similar material?
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1490
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-06-13 17:38
And please, no Norman Motte / Bailey / moated manors or suchlike.
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7042
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-06-13 15:36
> I think I'd better err on the side of caution on this issue and keep my mouth SHUT.
Go on - what are you thinking of - we can only say no! Turning my above text the other way round I think we've pretty much said we accept most things that are older than ~1100AD (and even then with some possibilities after this) as long as it isn't Roman (but possibly so even here) or isn't a church (but even these accepted under some circumstances) and isn't a 'modern style' masonry building.
[ This message was edited by: Andy B on 2012-06-13 15:42 ]
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7042
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-06-13 15:29
> Or maybe eliminate part of what we accept now...
I think that would really apply to whether we should accept new submissions to the 'Roman Portal' photo gallery section? I think everything else has grown up with reasonable justification - and indeed the Roman stuff was a prequel to the Roman project that's been on permanant hold for a long time.
Bullet points with notes is a better way to present the copious notes and exceptions and so on - good idea Drew I'll do that and re-post.
Also worth following SolarM's suggestion from another forum and giving dates for different parts of the world:
"It would be worth to set up some borderline date for different parts of the world and make them public."
"For example, let's take Latvian hillforts and the chronology of Latvian prehistory - actually the Iron Age in Latvia extends to 12th century AD (the pagan tribes without writing were still inhabiting these Baltic areas) and some of the hillforts are dated as late as that. I think we have to consider regionality of chronology in different parts of the world."
(could you help with the dates for Eastern Europe SolarM as I wasn't certain of the above - cheers)
[ This message was edited by: Andy B on 2012-06-13 15:41 ]
|
DrewParsons
Joined:
10-06-2008
Messages: 215
from New Zealand
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-06-12 22:37
When we finalise a list of what is acceptable and what is not I think bullet point topics s and a very short note why they are in or our will communicate the policy best: Here are three sexamples
Neolithic sites: Yes
Roman sites: Only if they have a pre Roman connection. See note 1
Pre Contact North, South American & Australasian sites: Yes - note 2
Notes:
1: There are so many Roman sites that at present their inclusion would swamp the system. There is a Roman Photo Gallery available but no site pages.
2: These pre contact sites are often neolithic and prehistoric and give an insight into neolithic societies.
|
bat400
Joined:
10-04-2006
Messages: 1348
from South Central Indiana, US
OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2012-06-12 22:24
Or maybe eliminate part of what we accept now...
|
Sunny100
Joined:
20-03-2010
Messages: 220
from Near Nelson, Lancashire
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-06-12 21:16
I think I'd better err on the side of caution on this issue and keep my mouth SHUT. Leave it to Frogcottage to come up with something, perhaps. 
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1490
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-06-12 17:42
One small matter not covered in Andy's explanation, and I think an important matter in all of this, is the limited time that the admins have in accepting/editing/linking/correcting etc etc the submissions we do have. If the floodgates are opened to additional subjects, then several things come into play.
We get swamped with too much data/pictures etc to handle.
The new site type may have little interest to the admin, so gets left and thus causes a blockage. I personally leave all wells and middle/far eastern stuff well alone for example.
The admin may have no knowledge of the new site type, and thus all sorts of errors get through, which then causes concern (up to anger) from the submitter, and also more time to correct later.
Apart from the hardcore team, some admins come and go, and each generally adds one of their pet topics. When that admin moves on, we are left with not only an untended topic, but also get more and more stuff still submitted - this is how the initial Roman stuff got on here in the first place.
So please bear this in mind when wanting to add stuff!
[ This message was edited by: TheCaptain on 2012-06-12 17:47 ]
|
frogcottage42
Joined:
14-02-2010
Messages: 235
from tuosist
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-06-12 09:28
I will give that some serious thought and comment when I have a sensible idea
| |
|
Main News