Posted by Gary on July 31, 2003
In Reply to: Suggestions posted by janes_kid 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.
: : : Too many visitors wander over to the discussion forum with a question before checking Meanings and Origins. Even more ask a question that's already answered in the archives.
: : That's a suggestion certainly worth considering, I think. But "ditto" what R. Berg said. We do seem to have a steady stream of visitors to the discussion page and most haven't searched for information in Meanings and Origins or the archives. They make a "bee line" for here.
: For whatever it's worth, I followed a link to the discussions about a year ago. Somewhere in the corner of my mind I probably knew there was a homepage. I see a reference to the archives almost daily. However it never entered my mind that the discussion page was not the main thrust of the site. I just thought the forum was the reason for the sites existance.
: BTW; view>textsize>largest became harder to read sometime this morning.
Yes, I did change the font yesterday to match the rest of the site. Users' inability to change the test size hadn't registered with me until you mentioned it though. I ought to have noticed before as that's an important factor in usability. I will investigate how to change to using the font by default while allowing users to change the size. That's not difficult on any given page - it's more down to the question of dealing with the scale now that the site has 25,000 html files.