I thought the razor was marked "sons" but it is actually "son's" - my bad :) thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by sparq
Printable View
I thought the razor was marked "sons" but it is actually "son's" - my bad :) thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by sparq
That's what a Wiki is for. And the DB is a moving target at the moment. Ben has added a few fields, and is currently testing pull down menus (e.g. for "Point"). As he is terribly busy, I am acting as his secretary at the moment. Don't forget to say thanks - Ben deserves a few greenies for creating and maintaining the DB.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparq
Thanks for all the suggestions everyone.
Please keep them coming so we can continue to tweak everything.
This is a great idea! I will add a couple later for sure, once I get my camera to play ball with my PC again!
From the Wiki:
Make sure the razor is not already in the database.
We are looking for razors in their original shape and form. Rescaled or reground razors should not be put into the database.
1.
I think that multiple "versions" of the same razor could be interesting and representative,since they show minor variants (different old scales, different pinning) or important informations on the "original" state of the blade (different width caused by hone wear or regrinding unnoticed before, possible existence of variations introduced by the first seller). In this way the Data Base could become an interesting source of more kind of informations (ex: Was this model always pinned in the same way?)
2.
A regrind could be also considered one of the many stages during the life of the blade. It could be a very old regrind, an uncertain regrind just supposed, an unnoticed regrind, the documentation of a particular change in tastes during the last 200 years. The Data Base could include all this kind of informations, if we give it an opportunity. [If the DataBase would have been prepared to document ancient roman theaters, should we keep out roman theaters that show some changes from their complete and completely original shape???..] ..:nono: eheheheh!
just my two €urocents.
I am suggesting that "similar enough" models to be put into a single page that can host multiple pictures. Example: the Otto Deutsch "HANS" page now shows 6/8 spike and 5/8 round point.Quote:
Originally Posted by clavichord
PS: I do not like the "001, 002" numbering at all. Name should be your guide when searching for a specific razor / class of razors. DB IDs should never be directly visible to users.
..mm.. and I think that this leads to the personal invention of fantasy "model" names. Exploring such an index, I will have to enter in the mind of thousand of contributors each one inventing a new "model" name for razors without model name.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparq
..but http://www.faccine.eu/smiles/1145789...lici (131).gif
Possible solution:
the exploration of a big database (I imagine what this database could be between some months or years) is done using more than one field: I don't need to read the index to find what I am looking for, so the index is not" so crucial". I will have, ideally, the opportunity to search combining more criteria.
EX: I don't need to open all the W&B pages to find what I am interested, thanks to the help of an explicit title. I will shearch in the index (if some exploring tools will be available) choosing W&B as "Manufacturer" and 8/8 as "width". I am not interested into knowing that people call it "meatchopper"!
And now I would like to write "sorry" to Sparq because I feel that the conversation is more "hot" than necessary.:p
Hey I am cool, you'd have to do much better to get me started. ;) I had some experience with Wiki long time ago and I can usually guess what is going to work and what not. Topics with codes instead of descriptive names are a major PITA.Quote:
Originally Posted by clavichord
http://www.faccine.eu/smiles/1145544732-Icone (226).gif;)
[Is it enough? still cool?? hheheheh! ..yes, I am sure you have reason, with your experience.]