Suggestions for improvements to FWW.com
forestgirl
| Posted in General Discussion on
I’m beaten into submission, my brain no longer process these ads, but hey, there’s money to spend! Any suggestions?
I believe it was dgreen who mentioned the need to improve the search function here. No kidding? A HUGE weakness of the site! Not only at Knots, but maybe even more so in the subscription-only area where we search for articles. So, I’ll vote with Don on that one. Make it faster, make it user-friendly, and make it come up with results relevant to the query. eBay did it. Google sorta did it. It can be done!
forestgirl — you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can’t take the forest out of the girl 😉
Replies
I absolutely agree with this. Search is the single biggest problem with the FWW site. I'm an old-time computer geek who rarely has trouble getting stuff to work and have just about given up on this site's search engine; it's that bad.
Mike
Girl,
Full support from me concernng your and Don's suggestion for a better search engine. The present one is a lame duck and should be made into pate.
Whilst we're on, how about giving us an option to have downloadable 640 X 480 videos instead of those nasty little streaming things? I would like to view them at leisure, elsewhere on my enormous screen attached to the Proper Computer.
Lataxe, a demanding customer (who does pay the extra bit for Knots+).
I'm a pretty loyal subscriber, but I am growing more dissatisfied with the FWW site by the week. In addition to the inadequate search engine, I would like to see more frequent updates to the page. We are currently on our 5th working day with the same page. I pay for the subscription to the site, and as such I have an expectation to see change at least every two days. I'm still waiting for Matthew Teague to update his blog from April. FWW, if you are listening, I would hope to see some improvement.
PS--on a related note of dissatisfaction, I was a bit surprised to see an article on an Adirondack chair in FWW. How the mighty have fallen. Tom
C,
I quite enjoyed the Adirondack article, mostly the double page spread with the "innovative designs". They were an excellent illustration of how modern rationalist designers concentrate on the look and ease of construction (ripe for flatpack) rather than the ergonomics, even if they also claim spurious ergonomic advantages as an afterthought. (One arm so you can easily get out of it - Ha)!
As to the FWW website: it's not perfect but what is? It still has a ton of info. I would pay $14.95 just for Knots alone. In America, you probably waste more than that as the fumes evaporate when you fill your guzzlahs with the 300 gallons. :-)
Lataxe, a reactionary.
"...it's not perfect but what is? It still has a ton of info. " And therein lies the problem. A site with a "ton of info" has limited usefulness when the time taken to find the relevant and appropriate info is prohibitive.
I tried to draw up a list of specifics on the search problems, per a suggestion from one of the sysop guys, but I found it simply too frustrating. It's so bad, sometimes it's hard to know where to start.
forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Edited 6/28/2007 4:22 pm by forestgirl
LataxeI too, enjoyed the two page spread on the innovative designs of the Adirondack chairs (I was looking at the October 06 issue of FWW, and the one armed chair can be seen in the background of one of the articles--interesting) It just struck me as inconsistent with the previous direction of FWW--much more Norm (whom I do like and admire) than Frid or Klaus. Much more American Woodworker than FWW. I did a poor job of voicing/lettering my complaint and feelings.As for the website, it's not perfect, but I do think FWW wants to hear from us (as the email they sent me today tells me).Fortunately, I don't waste much at all filling up my 30 mpg Honda Accord! :) Although, here in the suburbs, I live in the land of the SUV land barge--I don't see how folks afford to drive them anymore. What's petrol going for in your neck of the woods? Tom, the impatient"Notice that at no time do my fingers leave my hand"
I think it was 2005 when I first came across the FWW Mag. and Site.
I had just got the PC and taken up woodwork as a hobbie.
I paid my sudscription to FWW for a three year term.In the past few weeks there have been suggestions that Norm, is catering to the "shall we say"less than the professional woodworker,By the same token somebody has expressed surprise that an artical about Adirondack chairs was included in issue no.192.
When I filled in the application for membership there was nothing in it to say I had to be a professional woodworker.From reading in Knots I would guess that 80% are Pros. and a lot of the posts are stuff you have heard 100s of times so dont bother to answer.Thats fine but as I'm paying the same money as you Pros.why should you censor what I can read in the Magazine or on the site.
The amount of ads at the moment is two per page as somebody said you can scroll past them ,if it were to be after each post then all you Knotters get togeather and shift somewhere else. I wonder did that poster who said he dosent bother with knots anymore "Ithink there were more than one" did they leave when I joined or had they been (soured) before that,anyway the ads are but a hi-cup the CRAIC is more important. Rgds. Boysie Slan Leat.I'm never always right but i'm always never wrong. Boysie
I do not mind paying for access. It gets me all of the FWW archives.However, this forum software is very poor.I tried to post some inline pictures using the HTML feature ( I write websites for a living ) and the HTML just did not work. I would not mind reading some HELP but I cannot find that either. I actually just went to the website of the company that builds the forum software. No easy help.How many of you have digital cameras ? The picture posting on this forum is just plain lacking. I enjoy the posts, but fight with the navigation. I think for a Paid site this should really be the best there is. It's just not!!I hope someone from FWW is listening.This should be -->BOLD using HTML with the HTML checked.....--> But is not NOT.... I just figured out the HTML is actually getting commented out. Edited 6/28/2007 7:59 pm ET by Bartee
Edited 6/28/2007 8:00 pm ET by Bartee
Bartee, I recently had some problems posting in-line pics. It has never been a problem until the other day. I went back to an earlier post, and checked the HTML. It had been changed by their software I guess. Instead of being able to use simply <IMG src="http://URLaddress.whatever"> it had to read <IMG alt="" src="http://...."> What's that?!forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
C,
Of course, I use diesel myself and squeeze 60 mpg from the fine red saloon motorcar by keeping the right foot light on that go-pedal and its 150 horses. However, mostly it is the legs that perambulate me about these days, as I walk and ride the bicycle locally.
Petrol (as we call gasoline oil here) is currently around £1 per litre. I think this is equivalent to around $8.50 per gallon. Is this a shock to you? I understood that the first 500 gallons was free to every US citizen as it is regarded as a staple commodity there, like air and water. :-)
I am planning some folding Adirondacks a la Lee Valley so the FWW article was of some interest. I realise it lacks the necessary frou frou to make it proper furniture but rectilinearists such as myself need to be brought on slowly. Even now I am wondering if the Adirondacks would look good with ball & claw feet. (They are safe outside as they cannot come in the house to murder me when they come alive at night).
Lataxe, parsimonious with petrol
PS I think Forest Girl is right to suggest the site needs improvement, even for a mere $14.95 per annum. However, I never feel like going off in a huff when things do not meet my high standards. This is because I am a stoic but also lack standards (high or low).
Lataxe
I too, enjoyed the two page spread on the innovative designs of the Adirondack chairs (I was looking at the October 06 issue of FWW, and the one armed chair can be seen in the background of one of the articles--interesting) It just struck me as inconsistent with the previous direction of FWW--much more Norm (whom I do like and admire) than Frid or Klaus. Much more American Woodworker than FWW. I did a poor job of voicing/lettering my complaint and feelings.
I hope you don't mean mutually exclusive?
As for the website, it's not perfect, but I do think FWW wants to hear from us (as the email they sent me today tells me).
Fortunately, I don't waste much at all filling up my 30 mpg Honda Accord! :) Although, here in the suburbs, I live in the land of the SUV land barge--I don't see how folks afford to drive them anymore. What's petrol going for in your neck of the woods?
I drive a 2006 Chevy Corvette that gets 28 mpg and yesterday filled up at 2.91/gal for 93 octain. What are you paying a gal?
Tom, the impatient
"Notice that at no time do my fingers leave my hand"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
BonesMy mother drove two corvettes (84 and 93) and they both got decent mileage from what I recall. We are paying currently $2.71/gal. in the Houston area--that's the best I have found in Humble.I'm not really sure what you mean by mutually exclusive.Tom"Notice that at no time do my fingers leave my hand"
I'm not really sure what you mean by mutually exclusive.
Tom
You said in your post that it was more american ww than FWW. I was hoping you did not mean American ww is not FWW. It was just a joke. Take care. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
BonesSorry, I am a little slow on the uptake sometimes! I'm actually old enough to remember when AW was published by Rodale and was a great magazine--as good or better than FWW. And my critique of FWW is not that it's become or is becoming a bad magazine, it's just different than it used to be--much more tool oriented and less complicated projects than before. I heard a nationally known professional woodworker say that he's not going to write any more because he's pretty much said all he can say without repeating himself. That's got to be a constant challenge for any ww magazine. How do you write about dovetails or a tablesaw and make it sound fresh? Tom"Notice that at no time do my fingers leave my hand"
" I was a bit surprised to see an article on an Adirondack chair in FWW. How the mighty have fallen." Ahhh, but the trusty Adirondak chair is always subject to modern revision. There were at least 2 magazines in the recent cycle that contained galleries of modern tweaks of the design, some quite fanciful.
One of my favorite articles from a very, very old edition of Woodsmith is a discussion of how they refined the design of the Adirondak to come up with the most comfortable for the human tush and legs. The did several prototypes. Not sure if they drank lemonade or something more entertaining while they were trying them out, but try them out they did!forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
I was suprised with the referenced chair article, but not dissatisfied. However, I did think that the Shop Tips idea of how to clamp stones into a vise was much more deserving of the monthly prize than the carving gouge rack.
I dunno. I'm with you on the updates to the blogs; there are a number of part-way finished things just hanging out there. But as for the main page, I think that the amount of time and effort that need to go into creating new content that's worth reading isn't compatible with a once every two days update cycle.Personally, I pay for access to the archive of past articles, and the experts forum. An annual subscription costs me less than I would spend on a single trip to the bookstore, where I might otherwise pick up one of the numerous books repackaging said articles.The ads annoy me, but for some reason less so now that I know they are a part of the forum than when I initially thought that someone had managed to make them part of their signature. Now THAT would be an interesting thing. I wonder if I could get Google to pay ME for every click.As a final note, Taunton probably doesn't see a dime unless someone actually clicks the link in the ads. So if you want them to go away, don't click on the baseball tickets/Taunton Volvo/Taunton bankruptcy/Sewing patterns, and maybe they'll realize that the ads aren't working."Light the lamp, not the rat! Light the lamp, not the rat!!"
Rizzo the Rat, A Muppet Christmas Carol
I think the added fee for access to additional content is worth the money. I also appreciate the many "free" features on the site. I think they contribute to the standing of FWW in the field.
I love the short video features (I would rather they were not streaming). The recent series with Garrett Hack was great.
I have about given up on the search feature. I suppose it is hard to find a search engine that can process the disparate parts of this website (main content, forums, sales) as they are probably made of pieces from different sources.
I have taken to using Google to search the FWW site, entering something like this in the Google search field:
Working with Mixed Media video site:taunton.comThis looks for Working with Mixed Media video, but only looks in sites that are part of the taunton.com domain.
The ads in the forum were distracting, enough so that I switched to Firefox with adblocking.
--Whit
Thank you all for the feedback in this thread. I'd like to respond to each of the topics raised.
SEARCH SUCKS!
We agree. It's got serious problems and everytime I think something is fixed, another bug pops up. Fixing search is #1 on our list of upgrades, but to be honest, we haven't had much success finding a developer in Western Connecticut who can get a grip on the enormity of it all. If you know someone, have them apply for one of our job openings.
An upgrade will happen. In the meantime, use quotation marks to narrow your results. And if you really can't find what you're looking for, post a message to me in Knots or in the Expert Forum and I'll find what you're looking for.
VIDEO IS TOO SMALL AND DOESN'T DOWNLOAD
This one is about economics. The bigger the video player, the more money it costs to stream. As streaming prices continue to fall, our videos will continue to grow. That isn't too far off.
Regarding the ability to download the videos to your home computer, our site is pretty much following the industry standard of serving with a Flash stream. In about two months, we are going to launch an ongoing free video series that you will be able to download or share virally. But for our premium how-to videos, we have decided as a company that this is valued content that we don't want to lose control of. That means, if you want to watch it, you have to come to our site.
SITE UPDATE FREQUENCY
Because I'm so personally involved with the frequency of site upgrades, I'm a little biased here. We actually have continually updated our homepage with new features about every two to three days for the past 19 months. It's no easy task and every now and then it slips if someone goes on vacation or travels on a photo/vidoeo shoot. ctsjr82 cited this week as an example of us slipping from this schedule. I have to disagree. Last Thursday we posted our series with Garry Knox Bennett; Monday we posted a video feature on making a Windsor Chair. And on Thursday, I posted three reports from my trip to Victoria, B.C. for the Furniture Society Conference.
I've got to go make some new content so I have to run, but please feel free to disagree or respond to this post.
Matt Berger
Fine Woodworking
Edited 6/29/2007 3:32 pm ET by MBerger
Matt, personally I don't have a problem with the frequency of updating the home page. I think it's a good idea to have each thing up for 2 or 3 days, since not everyone hits the home page every day, or have time to persue the presentation every day, even if they do hit the home page.
I see the subscription money as primarily buying me the right to seek information when I need it. Hence the importance of the search engine working in a practical way. It would help alot if there was a way to narrow down what parts of FWW the thing was searching in. If I'm looking for a design for a Shaker table, I don't need it looking in Tools & Shops, for instance. I can do a search for a router jig, and get all kinds of hits that involve jointers or planers. I once did a search for "John White" and got all his articles, a good thing. But then, just for fun, I added jointer to the search string, to get a John White article about jointers, and the number of hits was huge. Oops.
Videos too small. Videos too big. How do you please everyone? Can anything be done for the dial-up users? I finally forked out for DSL, but there are members who don't have the option, even if they can afford it. A super-small percentage, and shrinking, I'd suspect?forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
I think a common thread among several of the specific problems FG has mentioned with the search engine matches my own experience, which is a lack of ability to narrow a search by adding strings to search for (an AND operation instead of OR).
This is probably a combination of us not explicitly specifying the AND operation (in my case because I don't know how to do that in this search engine and have been unsuccessful finding any help on the search string syntax) and what appears to be absolutely no attempt on the part of the search engine to sort hits by relevance. If I search for "John White jointers", I don't mind getting a million hits on every article containing one of the words "John", "White", and "jointers", but I do expect the top hits to be articles containing all three words, with additional relevance points given for the words appearing in close proximity to each other and in the same order.To the man with a hammer, all the world is a nail.
Folks,
Your quest for a better search engine is perhaps the most complex of computer problems. Database searches are perhaps the most complex processes a computer has to perform.
Think about how many different formats that the information is stored on Tauntons WEB site, .jpg. .bmp. .txt .HTML, etc., not to mention the permutations of search criteria that the user presents.
In many of these formats searching is not possible, at least with respect to a reasonable amount of search time. I would also submit that Taunton may be somewhat overwhelmed by the volume of requests made of them.
Navigating this site is a hell of a lot easier than others I have visited. It's very straightforward to me. They list discussions, catagorized in a logical manner with respect to woodworking.
It's not Mecca, but then again what is?
Regards,
Also consider that Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
I agree navigation within this site, for browsing purposes, is pretty good.
I'd be happy with a decent search of the text-only formats.
Yes, searching is complex, if you create it from scratch. Taunton doesn't have to re-invent this stuff though.
Folks are complaining about it, because everyone is familiar with better search engines on several other sites.
MikeTo the man with a hammer, all the world is a nail.
Hi Mike,
Maybe with their new found relationship with Google we might see some reprise to the search problem?
I do think Taunton is trying.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 6/29/2007 9:24 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
Have you guys looked at the Google Search Appliance?http://www.google.com/enterprise/gsa/-Toby
If you would, please, allow a novice comment . . .
I continue to be just overwhelmingly tickled at the amount of significant information available for $15/year. To me this is easily the best ww value around.
What else can be said of the fine community here who bend over backwards to share their experiences and opinions. Thanks all!
Because I've been in "shop & buy, buy, buy" mode for the last year or so, the tool reviews are also especially valuable. They seem objective and almost on the level of Consumer Reports. Imagine our cost if FWW didn't accept advertising!
Here's a single constructive criticism I've just not seen mentioned at all. Please always display the original publication date of each and every archived article each and every time and place that it is presented to me as something to click on and link to. Otherwise, one must click further. I'm simply not interested in ancient tool reviews. An alternative might be to offer a profile option to sort these lists of articles by date.
Now if I could only afford to buy some wood . . .
"Everyone has a right to my opinion." - Garfield (famous feline)
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled