Time to move the Retro bar up a bit ... maybe to 2000+?

[t wild]

I agree that the picture hosting gubbins is a chore but that's probably because I'm useless at that but it could be made easier by some boffins I'm sure. I know I for one would post more on here if it were easier.
I'm from a bmx background and turned to mtb because I'm old and mtb is less stressful on the body also I can actually buy the stuff I wanted when I was younger whereas I can't even buy the frame of the diamond back silver streak I rode 20 years ago for the cost of the 6 or so mtb I own. However I think our time has come and the value of old bikes and parts will increase. With that were part of the best early mtb forum on the net and with money comes interest and with interest comes people and with people comes advertising revenue. The possibility for this forum is huge for the people who own and control it. I love this forum because I love old bikes and would hate to see it disappear due to a lack of diversity.

Building a museum section would also be a useful tool. If picture uploads were easier then between us we would probably have the most comprehensive guide to mtb frames available. I used bmx museum all the time when looking at bmx frames.

As for the age debate vintage is a good shout. Then retro then modern. Say 30+ vintage 15+ retro anything else modern. Saves having to move goalposts again.

 

[LikeClockwork]

Re: Re:

Without any of the people who have the ability to change retrobike engaging in the discussion these threads are pointless unfortunately.

This.

 

[kaiser]

Re:

It is being looked at honest.

 

[DynaCol]

Re:

I think it would be wrong to do the decades thing and further fragment the site, by all means move the cut-off as time moves on. Perhaps 1 year could be added on every 5 years or so ? The difficulty with doing this though would be moving threads between the sections as the cut-off changed to keep them in the correct section for folk to find :?

I've never used a photo hosting site and always uploaded pics directly to the site so don't really find that an issue. There's readily available free to download software to resize pics quickly which I've used on both my laptop and tablet. But anything that makes it easier for folk to post and upload pics wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

[longun]

Re:

good point about the decades but any age split would do the same, it would be an easier way of cataloging the content, no big forum splits, just one area for showing of builds of each decade. Sales etc would all be clumped together

All good comments, keep them coming. This is what we need, we had a similar thing 7-8 years ago and it changed it for the better, let's do it again, but all play nicely

 

[M-Power]

Re:

Great thread and hopefully a positive force for change. Some sensible reclassification of eras and an update with image hosting, bandwidth capacity and user interactive functionality is all it needs. FB, Insta, Snap etc all get huge attention by their visuals. People like showing off, getting likes, feedback, attention etc. Its just how it is nowadays. Unpalatable though it is to many on here. We dont want to loose the unique quality written content and expertise on here but it has to become far better at supporting good visual content, with likes etc etc

 

[DynaCol]

Re:

There would still need to be a cut-off to distinguish between what's considered Retro and what is modern with the decades idea though, or am I missing something?

I think a fairly obvious place to start with any changes though is the front page which hasn't been updated in two years! Surely this is one task which could be delegated to one of the mod's or someone willing to periodically update it with some relevant topics from the site without too much hassle.

 

[t wild]

We could always define an era like 0- 95 canti era 95-10 v era. Named by whatever tech is most popular at the time with the possibility to add a new era every 15 years as what's new now enters the retro definition.

 

[doctor-bond]

Re:

There seem to be a few themes here:

1. this site has value because it's a great resource.
2. posting is hard, especially pictures
3. all the old linked pics have gone because 3rd party PB, etc hosting isn't infinite.
4. the site needs new blood
5. the eras could be reorganised to help fix the problems above
6. how do we make changes to the site, is it money or effort?

1. is the key opportunity. This place will survive and thrive over the long term because it offers quality info for those many who want it - regrdless if they are retro lifers or just passing through. The loss of Mombat underlines this: now only available via the wayback machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130125055 ... index.html

... which goes to point 4: you don't need lots of dedicated life-long members - just lots of use. Demography will always win in the long run....

So what is hampering 1. the 'great resource'? It's 2. and 3. Pictures and posting. This place is already searchable, but the content needs to be sustainable; that's what makes a good interweb resource. Point 5 is just a matter of categories: window dressing.

So if we need to make pictures and posting easier/ better/ sustainable, How do we do it? Point 6: a mix of money and effort.

What needs to be done? Is it possible to host pics indefintely without cost? Unlikely. What's the best compromise? A dedicated third party account? Subscription hosting? Dedicated servers and good people to run them?

I've no answers, but this seems like the key issue.

So what about point 5 which is very chatty: reorganise the retro definition? I don't thinkthis is the main threat to the site, or a solution to its woes. We could cut the categories any old way - decades, tech, eras, whatever. People who need a resource will search; people who want to be social will find the right section.

The point is to keep it a useful resource in the long term -- postable, pictures, searchable; an archive.

p.s., 3 of the top 6 'retro bike' google image search hits I get are:

which ain't bad.

ends

 

[elPedro666]

Re:

Seven pages in now and it would seem that we all broadly agree on the major issues - that has to be positive!

The site is an amazing resource and needs protecting for posterity.

Posting photos is a major pita - I almost never get around to it post-ride because I simply cannot invest the amount of time required.

The way photos/files are hosted is a threat both to the existing resource and to future growth.

Also the search function has never seemed to work well for me, I usually have more success just using Google.

The format of the forum is way out of touch with how people predominantly use the Internet. I'm on CyclingUK (via Tapatalk) regularly simply because it's so easy to use. Direct notifications (not emails to click through), drag and drop photos etc. Almost never on the PC, always on mobile snatching a quick look - like now before work.


It feels like there's a massive retro boom going on right now (£1000 show & shine prize at the 'Malvern Classic'!!!) and this forum, which should be at the forefront of things, is completely missing out on it.

John clearly doesn't have the time to invest in it any more, but I know that others are willing to step up and move things forward. Right now it just feels neglected - if you found yourself here for the first time and saw that the front page is so far out of date, would you even bother clicking through any further?