Posted by Gary on July 31, 2003
In Reply to: Suggestions posted by GPP on July 30, 2003
: : : : : : Completely disagree from where that phrase comes from, may have been the first time you heard it but I can tell you that I have been hearing it over hear in Oz for the last 20 years at least, probably longer
: : : : : That's as may be, but note the earliest reference given in the discussion below dates from November 23, 1962--over 40 years ago. See 7/10/03 entry posted by ESC. That's not to say that Schultz actually originated it.
: : : : Gary, help--I now see Mark's complaint referred to your official origins page, not to this discussion area. Same problem as "movable feast", where casual visitors depend on 'Meanings/Origins', and never come here except to bitch, withing thinking to search.
: : : : Sorry--typo--"without" thinking...
: : : And I must say I agree that 'fell' ought to be removed from the meaning of 'swoop'.
: : I don't follow. What do you think is wrong exactly?
: Gary, as a newbie to this truly excellent site, I don't feel I'm in a good position to jump off with making suggestions for changes, but humor me: First, I'm convinced that most if not all casual and first-time visitors are drawn to the Meanings/Origins section of the site, and that very few such will ever wander over to this discussion forum; I'd guess you might maintain a counter that could confirm or discredit this assumption. But in any event, since the forum is constantly discussing and questioning both the meanings and the origins of phrases, and proposing new information, I think it would be a good idea to post a general disclaimer somewhere on the border of the Meanings/Origins page, suggesting that further information, argument, etc, might be available for the displayed phrase if the visitor chooses to submit a Search for a key word or words. (This is sloppily stated; I'm sure you could make it clearer.) Your home index page mentions this, but it would be helpful to repeat this suggestion above or below each displayed phrase. Second, instead of listing "A bee in your bonnet", etc, in the alphabetical listing of Meanings/origins, it would seem much more intuitive to get rid of all those "A"s, and list them as "Bee in your bonnet, a", etc. And third, as an American, I must say I do agree with James Briggs's cri de coeur about the date format, made at "collective nouns, redux". In any event, I take this opportunity to thank you for hosting us all, and putting up with all our general nonsense.
Thanks for the feedback. It was the 'fell' and 'swoop' comment that I was really asking about, but the suggestions are welcome.
37% of the accesses to the site are for the bulletin board - 47% for the meanings/origins. Most people arrive at the site direct to a page deep in the site via a search engine. Around a third arrive at the site's front page.
Putting up a message to direct people to the discussion forum may be useful but I doubt that it would make any significant difference to the number of postings asking about things that are covered elsewhere.
Pages are better targetted for search engines if they include the exact text that users type into the search box. I agree that it would be better to include links to 'A bee in your bonnet' under B as well as A and will update that.
The date format can't be changed as I thought previously. That would require some reprogramming the source code for the bulletin board and I don't want to do that.