I redid the site, opinions please

[fsm1000]

Because some people had problems following along with what I was saying in the text and pictures I entirely redid the webpage. I was hoping some of you who visited before would go back and tell me what you think of the redesign.

Because of limitations on google I had to put the pictures offsite on to photobucket. But at least they are now numbered and also I have about 30 more of them which should make things a lot more clear.

Thanks for helping out. :)

http://fsm1000.googlepages.com/buildingtheactualbenchworkandframe

[SpaceMouse]

Even though the pictures are hosted on photobucket you should be able to link to them such that they appear on your site. Having such a long text without brreaking it up into chunks is hard for on-line readers to take.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g144/fsm1000/Building%20the%20actual%20benchwork%20and%20frame/10frameconnectedto2x4s.jpg

If I can link to them here, you can link to them on your site without exceeding your space limitations.

[jbaakko]

Looks neat, but I agree with Chip.

[fsm1000]

Thanks guys. I suppose I could give that a try. Thing is I myself don't like to constantly click 'per picture'.
I was hoping that having all the pictures in one spot would be more helpful is all. Hmm . Maybe not though.
Thanks for the input. :)
Appreciated.

[jbaakko]

You can use MAJ.com also, works the same as photobucket, except you have to know a little about url's and stuff... You can still place a link, and then use thumbnails if need be...

[Railphotog]

As I commented on another forum, I don't have problems with photos on my Google site. They can be resized to smaller sizes for the page, with a note telling visitors to click on them to see them larger. This is what I've done on my site for digital model railroad photography: http://arailfan.googlepages.com/

Not quite as many features as other free hosting sites, but it is livable.

[fsm1000]

Ok one] Spacemouse, you say "If I can link to them here, you can link to them on your site without exceeding your space limitations."
But you don't say HOW. That is very condescending. Kind of like 'I can do it why can't you?' type of thing. I am glad for you that you can do it. But not explaining how seems to me to not be very nice.
That would be like me formating someones hard drive then sayin 'I can reinstal your OS so you can to' then walk away.
jbaakko same thing. Nice to know you can do it. But not telling others how does not help them.

two] Railphotog again it is nice to know you are doing well. But I am curious. How did you get past the 100 photo limit on your website?
When I reached 100 pictures I was told my limit was reached and I could not add more.
So how did you get past the 100 photo limit then?
Obviously you know how so I would like to know as well if you don't mind.
aAs you stated [often apparently] "As I commented on another forum, I don't have problems with photos on my Google site. "
Again nice for you, but you still don't say how you got past thier limitations.
Was it a hack? Did you pay for more photos?
Did google change thier policy in the last two days?
I am curious.


You guys have nice suggestions, but NO EXPLNATIONS.
That's like telling a blind man to pick up the blue ball and put it in the red duck.
Nice advice but without explaining how pretty useless.

I asked for help guys, not condescending attitudes.

[SpaceMouse]

Ok one] Spacemouse, you say "If I can link to them here, you can link to them on your site without exceeding your space limitations."
But you don't say HOW. That is very condescending. Kind of like 'I can do it why can't you?' type of thing. I am glad for you that you can do it. But not explaining how seems to me to not be very nice.
That would be like me formating someones hard drive then sayin 'I can reinstal your OS so you can to' then walk away.
jbaakko same thing. Nice to know you can do it. But not telling others how does not help them.

two] Railphotog again it is nice to know you are doing well. But I am curious. How did you get past the 100 photo limit on your website?
When I reached 100 pictures I was told my limit was reached and I could not add more.
So how did you get past the 100 photo limit then?
Obviously you know how so I would like to know as well if you don't mind.
aAs you stated [often apparently] "As I commented on another forum, I don't have problems with photos on my Google site. "
Again nice for you, but you still don't say how you got past thier limitations.
Was it a hack? Did you pay for more photos?
Did google change thier policy in the last two days?
I am curious.


You guys have nice suggestions, but NO EXPLNATIONS.
That's like telling a blind man to pick up the blue ball and put it in the red duck.
Nice advice but without explaining how pretty useless.

I asked for help guys, not condescending attitudes.

I assummed that you knew HTML because you were programming a web site. My mistake. You use the code:

<img src="http://www.chipengelman.com/Photos/StagingDiagram01.JPG" width="652" height="101" alt="" border="0" align="">

But instead of my picture, you use the URL of your picture, and your pictures width and height in pixels. The align= would be "right" "left" or "center" to place it's location on the page.

It was not condescenting rather, that if I (you or anyone) can use you photobucket site to post pictures here without using the resources here, then you (me or anybody) should be able to link to your photobucket site without using your google site resources. I was not referring to your abilities or mine, but rather the charateristics of the web pages. Again, because you are developing a site, I assumed you would know one of the basic functions of HTML code.

[Railphotog]

Ok one]
two] Railphotog again it is nice to know you are doing well. But I am curious. How did you get past the 100 photo limit on your website?
When I reached 100 pictures I was told my limit was reached and I could not add more.
So how did you get past the 100 photo limit then?
Obviously you know how so I would like to know as well if you don't mind.
aAs you stated [often apparently] "As I commented on another forum, I don't have problems with photos on my Google site. "
Again nice for you, but you still don't say how you got past thier limitations.
Was it a hack? Did you pay for more photos?
Did google change thier policy in the last two days?
I am curious.


You guys have nice suggestions, but NO EXPLNATIONS.
That's like telling a blind man to pick up the blue ball and put it in the red duck.
Nice advice but without explaining how pretty useless.

I asked for help guys, not condescending attitudes.


You seem to be really defensive about nothing really. You asked for opinions on your site and we gave ours. If you only wanted positive comments you should have said so.

Your original post said "because of the limitations of Google" re photos. You did not say they have a limit of 100 photos, your statement was just general in nature. I assumed it was how the site could handle photos - resizing to only certain fixed sizes, etc.

"You guys have nice suggestions, but NO EXPLNATIONS."

You did not explain what your problem was, it too was pretty useless.

My site does not have 100 photos, so I have not encountered any problem yet.

With your attitude I doubt if I would want to bother to visit your site no matter how well it might be.

[fsm1000]

SpaceMouse Nope not developing, google makes it super easy. I did use dreamweaver years ago but a lot has changed.
My apologies, you sought to compliment me and I thought you were , well, not.
Anyhow. Sorry about that.
Ok now that you showed me I will give it a shot on the google site. Hopefully it won't be counted as an 'item'. Thanks for bearing with me.
Also I posted you link on my website under the 'how to's ' in link section.


Bob sorry to you too. Obviously I needed more coffee that day than usual. Please accept my appologies.
The limitation is posted here
http://www.google.com/support/pages/bin/answer.py?answer=35501&topic=8258

Sorry I was not more clear about it.

[fsm1000]

Space, I tried your idea and for some reason it does not work. I got a pop up about scripts so maybe google won't allow that for now.
However I did link to the pictures individually themselves.
Thanks again guys for the help, and please ignore that bonehead guy earlier. Thanks. :)

[Shamus]

Well at least thats all cleared up now, and all are happy again.

Shamus

http://www.paultemplar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/0n30layout/logocc.jpg (http://www.cooncreek-and-tumbleweed-springs.co.uk)

[GandyDancer]

I didn't see the original. I could only comment on how it is now.

[fsm1000]

Paul, yeah I hope so. I really do have to watch my blood sugar levels, sheesh.

Gandy, I am mostly wondering if it is understandable with the pictures is all. If you understand it then it is working. :)

[GandyDancer]

Gandy, I am mostly wondering if it is understandable with the pictures is all. If you understand it then it is working.
Well I understand the words an pictures, but I guess I don't understand why such heavy infrastructure is required? I understand the use of 2x4 studs to save some bucks, but what is with the 1x8s on top of them? Would not the 2x4s been strong enough on their own. At first I thought the layout was going to be "sunk" into the bench with a cover, but then I saw that wasn't so.

[fsm1000]

Gandy the 1x8's for the top was mostly for show. This is in the living room and so I tried to make it 'look' a little better than just a bunch of lumber put together.
Also I wanted a drawer on the thing and needed the depth under the layout. The track part of the layout takes a couple of inches from the depth.
Also it is a place to put wires etc.

I hope that helps.

If this was in the basement or a shed etc, I would not have bothered with the 1x8's but instead I simply would have put an 1/8th inch hardboard facsia over the 2x4 frame.

[GandyDancer]

Gandy the 1x8's for the top was mostly for show. This is in the living room and so I tried to make it 'look' a little better than just a bunch of lumber put together.
Ah, I have found that a well done skirt works wonders. If a heavy material is used and they are pleated (and ironed) they can look really good. Can even make them match the furnature.
I don't quite have two exact shots with and without but this sort of gives the idea (notice these DO need ironing, this is a portable layout and it had just come out of the box after 6-months.).
Without skirts
http://www.walkersquawker.net/images/horizontal%20long%20shot%20small.JPG
With skirts
http://www.walkersquawker.net/images/horizontal%20W%20skirts%20small.JPG

:confused:
Ok, how do I resize these images on this site?

[fsm1000]

Gandy I asked the 'boss' about a curtain but she said no soooo. :)
I had to go with this idea also because we have a white table we both use for crafts and stuff that slides underneath the layout.

But I do like your idea a lot and suggested it a few times [a while ago obviously LOL].
The idea of a curtain you can use to hide the 'stuff' yet make things more accessable than a cupboard type of situation.
yep a good idea indeed.

[GandyDancer]

The idea of a curtain you can use to hide the 'stuff'
A solid dark color highlights the layout too.

[jbaakko]

:confused:
Ok, how do I resize these images on this site?
You can use the attachments feature, that works out well, I'm not sure if the BBcode takes sizing, never tested.

[fsm1000]

I use irfanview [link on my site under computer stuff] to do any resizing. I keep the original always and rename the new pic by adding the word small to it.
I hope that helps.

[jbaakko]

You can also use the windows explorer extension (you right click the image you want to resize) and it'll have a resize option, provided you have Windows XP, SP2.

[GandyDancer]

tell me what you think of the redesign.
One can always ask the computer what it thinks. I ran your site page through a program that does English statistics. Here are the results:

sentence info:

5426 characters
1450 words, average length 3.74 characters = 1.18 syllables
107 sentences, average length 13.6 words
37% (40) short sentences (at most 9 words)
5% (6) long sentences (at least 24 words)
53 paragraphs, average length 2.0 sentences
0% (0) questions
35% (38) passive sentences
longest sent 59 wds at sent 44; shortest sent 2 wds at sent 98

word usage:

verb types:
to be (41) auxiliary (31)
types as % of total:
conjunctions 5(71) pronouns 11(155) prepositions 12(175)
nominalizations 0(4)

sentence beginnings:

pronoun (36) interrogative pronoun (4) article (9)
subordinating conjunction (4) conjunction (1) preposition (10)

readability ratings:

Kincaid: 3.6
ARI: 3.0
Coleman-Liau: 6.2
Flesch Index: 93.5
Fog Index: 6.3
Lix: 22.7
SMOG-Grading: 6.0