Forum Moderator taking liberty to "clean up" topic titles

The issue raised here with spaces is that you want to search on a “literal”. It’s a database thing - an exact character by character pattern match in the search string.
So… as Pepper says: 9 x 19 produces nothing, but using quotes: “9 x 19” produces 100+ results.
The same thing applies on sites like eBay & Google (which also use a fuzzy search but let’s not go there).
Have to be careful though, it counts the spaces: “9 x 19” is not the same as “9 x 19”.
A good example: On eBay “c i l”, “c-i-l”, “c.i.l”, " c i l " (etc.) all can produce different results.
So it also means an endless number of combinations… (not helpful, I know!)

But we are frequently discussing, in English (+/-), the labeling (in almost any of the world’s common languages) of a container (not always a box) that may once have held cartridges or some parts thereof, and perhaps still does. Our discussions cover anything from the latest caseless innovation to a 200-year old tin of percussion caps to some object that may have nothing to do with ammunition. Simply do your best.

Agreed (with that in mind)

This is a really good discussion @Dwight is absolutely correct.

@laurent you didn’t do anything wrong!

1 Like

Laurent - your “school level” English is very good. I personally have learnt a great deal from your posts.

1 Like

This is where tagging posts will help, although the tags need expanding. This way, the 7.9x57 issue raised above with the many varients is solved, as the tag 792-mauser (yes, I can see Jochem grimacing right now) can be applied from the main forum page.


Here you can see that several variations are covered when the author tagged their post accordingly (7.9mm Mauser, 7.92 x 57, 7.92x56 and one without the calibre in the title).

@Pepper - I have responded twice now to ads in the journal, asking for volunteers to help with the web site and received no response either time.

You are/were offering your help ? We have two administrators. Aaron Newcomer and Matt Collins. I assume we need to communicate with them
I can see help with tags and the simple edits I’m doing. Stay tuned

Well, not quite. They do not call our favourite handgun cartridge the 11.43mm ACP! :slight_smile:

OK, nobody else has spoken up, so I will be the bad guy. I’m against it, all of it. This has nothing to do with violations of forum policy, those are clear and should continue to be dealt with effectively. This is about the title of this thread and related subjects.

I understand the desire to have a simple search and be able to find the thread you want quickly and easily, but I’m against altering entered information to accomplish that. It just feels… wrong. The title is the title, whether the moderator or others agree or not. I am also against pressuring contributors to use “tags” and attempts to limit/channel discussions (correcting people when they stray off-topic, limiting topics to certain details, etc.). A forum is just that, a forum - a medium where ideas and views on related issues can be exchanged. Trying to artificially push that exchange into a database or restrict input can limit and damage the flow of ideas, questions and information.

Much like in-person discussions that take place at SLICS, the European shows and elsewhere, some of the best discussions start with one subject and morph in something completely different. This is also the same with some of my favorite threads on this and other forums. Questions lead to other questions, which may end up in a fantastic area that has nothing to do with the initial subject. In my experience this is a natural flow and is part of what makes forums like this great, not a detriment. If you want to mine the threads and save the information - photos, pdfs etc, by all means do so - I need someone to help me find my own threads and information half the time. But please don’t ask me to “get back on subject” or retitle my thread into something that you (collective, not picking on Pepper or others) feel is “better”, for whatever reason. I don’t like the way it feels and I suspect that I may not be the only one.

Just my opinion, JO


I 98% respectfully disagree.

There are 69 “comments” so folks have spoken up

There is '0" intent to offend or alter a title other than to “clarify” or to add a resolution (answer) to a query expressed in the title as follows…

ID?..what is this? does the headstamp say?..who made this?..what is this for?

on and on and on

If you Forum search “Help?” there’s 50+ finds (maybe 100’s or more responses)

If you search “ID?” there’s 50+ finds (maybe 100’s or more responses)

Those are near useless search titles, or at best a waste of time, trying to figure out what help the writer needed

Is there anything wrong with adding the “answer” to the title ???

I have never touched a body of a thread (I don’t think that’s possible)

Tags ? I don’t understand them, I don’t use them (because I don’t understand them)

Just the thread title

gee whiz

1 Like

Tags are simply a means through which posts can be grouped. Think of them as tabs on the files in a filing cabinet, or labels on your ammo drawers. Using the 7.9x57 cartridge as an example, it doesn’t matter what variant of nomenclature you use in the title (7,9x57, 7.92x57mm, 8mm Mauser etc). All will be grouped under the tag 792-mauser. You can search based upon the tags (see the picture in my earlier post). Tags are not mandatory but they are useful and simple to add. Also, you can add up to three which is useful for topics that evolve past the initial post, as raised by Jeff. Staying with the 7.9x57 example, should the discussion subsequently include the discussion of boxes, then this too can be tagged, and can be done without changing the title.

1 Like

as I attempted to identify in my post above, this was not intended as an attack on you or anyone else in specific. It was a general comment and only my opinion. Your most recent post seems to indicate that you see it in a personal reference, please be assured that it is not intended that way.

I understand that in this procedure there is no intent to offend, personally I take no offense. I simply disagree with the procedure. Of course my agreement is no requirement for anything, I am just attempt to voice my opinion in in a simple and clear manner.

My opinions center around differing understandings or desires in what is a “forum”. I see the forum as a simple exchange of information and experience, a discussion among peers. For the many members that participate in the forum it is used for an additional purpose, utilizing the discussions and what they reveal as a separate reference material themselves. In this regard the more “organized” (anal-retentive?) seek to manage these discussions in a form that can be more easily referenced at a later time, allowing themselves and others to use the discussions and information provided for their own purposes.

As I attempted to explain above, I am not against this in principle, I freely add my photos and information to the mix, use as you will. But it seems a trend that the organization and preservation of the information from a discussion is becoming more important than the discussion that generated it. “Use these tabs”, “get back on topic”, “only discuss this or provide that in this thread”, “put this in the title”, “change the title”. All of these, while very organizing, do little to actually contribute to the discussions themselves. In many ways they discourage and kill conversation that may lead to more interesting information. Some other forums deal with this by organizing before the discussion - start your thread in a specific pre-designated section and let the discussion run. If you want to search later, begin in the section of your interest.

I spent many years doing field work based on documents provided - by individuals, organizations, country representatives. In order to use these documents they had to be organized, so that the information could be located when needed and used effectively. But one absolute was that unless you were building your own, separate document utilizing their information, you never changed any of the original text. Not the title, not the format, not the words. These were their words, as they laid them out. Ugly or perfect, they were never altered. Over the years the wisdom of this procedure was demonstrated many times, If you begin down this road it can quickly evolve into something beyond your original intent, “fixing” and “improving” always starts small.

One more time, I am not offended, these are just my thoughts. I am not attempting to attack or criticize any individuals, just voice my opinion on what I see as a trend - as mentioned there are at least 69 comments from people that may be seen to disagree. I simply wanted to add my thoughts to the discussion as I didn’t see anyone else speaking out in regard to my personal concerns, and silence is usually used to signal agreement. Please don’t take it personally, I certainly don’t.