What has happened to the Heer section?
Jerry
Heer section
Heer section
When you're in command..... command!
-
Jason Pipes
- Patron
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 4:06 pm
- Location: CA & WI
Good question! 
Yesterday some sweeping updates were made to the forums, including the pruning and removal of two sections that seemed to cause the most confusion for users when making posts. These two sections were "Current Research" and "Heer". I found that the vast majority of postings in these two forums really fit better in one of the other main sections. It's hard to justify removing such a seemingly important section, but bare with me - I'm trying to experiement and see how it works.
Trying to direct people towards posting in sections that best align with the topic being posted on is very hard because in many cases a post could fit under multiple sections. If you're posting on a question you have about the commander of a certain unit that was killed in a very specific battle, which forum is best to use? The personality forum? The Unit History Forum? The Campaign Forum? I would suggest that the proper forum is whatever forum most closely aligns with the core of the question being asked. In the above case, that would be the personality forum, as the person is really the core of the question.
The problem with the Heer section is that many people used it as a catch all for postings simply because the general association with just about anything German military = Heer. Question about German raincoats? Post it in Heer. Question about impact on lack of sleep on troops in battle? Post it in Heer. etc. This isn't automatically a bad thing, it just makes my job of moderating the forum and making sure posts align properly with the right section that much harder.
So, in effect, by removing the Heer section I'm experimenting with the idea of forcing people to post messages in very specific sections. Why keep the other branch sections like Waffen SS and Luftwaffe? Well, I would counter by suggesting that those areas are so specific that postings to them almost always belong there due to their ultra-specific nature.
I hope this makes some sense, and also indicates the amount of thought I've put into this. I'll re-evaluate my choice with this soon and see how things are coming along at that time and decide if we should re-include a Heer section or not.
Thoughts in response?
Yesterday some sweeping updates were made to the forums, including the pruning and removal of two sections that seemed to cause the most confusion for users when making posts. These two sections were "Current Research" and "Heer". I found that the vast majority of postings in these two forums really fit better in one of the other main sections. It's hard to justify removing such a seemingly important section, but bare with me - I'm trying to experiement and see how it works.
Trying to direct people towards posting in sections that best align with the topic being posted on is very hard because in many cases a post could fit under multiple sections. If you're posting on a question you have about the commander of a certain unit that was killed in a very specific battle, which forum is best to use? The personality forum? The Unit History Forum? The Campaign Forum? I would suggest that the proper forum is whatever forum most closely aligns with the core of the question being asked. In the above case, that would be the personality forum, as the person is really the core of the question.
The problem with the Heer section is that many people used it as a catch all for postings simply because the general association with just about anything German military = Heer. Question about German raincoats? Post it in Heer. Question about impact on lack of sleep on troops in battle? Post it in Heer. etc. This isn't automatically a bad thing, it just makes my job of moderating the forum and making sure posts align properly with the right section that much harder.
So, in effect, by removing the Heer section I'm experimenting with the idea of forcing people to post messages in very specific sections. Why keep the other branch sections like Waffen SS and Luftwaffe? Well, I would counter by suggesting that those areas are so specific that postings to them almost always belong there due to their ultra-specific nature.
I hope this makes some sense, and also indicates the amount of thought I've put into this. I'll re-evaluate my choice with this soon and see how things are coming along at that time and decide if we should re-include a Heer section or not.
Thoughts in response?
Hi Jason,
Well, nobody knows the ins and outs of operating the forum like one who has done it, and you do a good job of it. If it was me I'm not sure that I would worry about a question being in the "right" section as long as the location made sense, and I'd not spend a lot of time shifting things around. I think I'd leave it to the person posing a question to get it where it has the best chance of achieving a response. To me, moderating would be limited to things like removing offensive messages or flame wars. But, as I say, you have the experience of running the thing and knowing what you want to see here.
BTW, are the threads from Heer available somewhere else?
Jerry
Well, nobody knows the ins and outs of operating the forum like one who has done it, and you do a good job of it. If it was me I'm not sure that I would worry about a question being in the "right" section as long as the location made sense, and I'd not spend a lot of time shifting things around. I think I'd leave it to the person posing a question to get it where it has the best chance of achieving a response. To me, moderating would be limited to things like removing offensive messages or flame wars. But, as I say, you have the experience of running the thing and knowing what you want to see here.
BTW, are the threads from Heer available somewhere else?
Jerry
When you're in command..... command!
-
Jason Pipes
- Patron
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 4:06 pm
- Location: CA & WI
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Jason,
I would like to see the HEER section reinstated ASAP.
Although it was ridiculously underused because almost all of us have obscure interests in other areas, it should still be central to the whole site.
Imagine if one removed the HEER itself from the German order of battle in WWII. The entire German war effort would have been totally undermined.
The same cannot be said of the Waffen-SS, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Axis Allies, etc, none of which could operate effectively if the HEER did not exist. They were all merely auxilary to the Heer.
Thus, while I appreciate that there may be functional site management reasons to delete the Heer section, it is a historical travesty to do so.
Feldgrau is already heavily weighted towards subjects of marginal historical importance due to both its structure and user profile. Deleting the HEER section, however under used, only aggravates the problem and will further distort Feldgrau's historical perspective.
Cheers,
Sid.
I would like to see the HEER section reinstated ASAP.
Although it was ridiculously underused because almost all of us have obscure interests in other areas, it should still be central to the whole site.
Imagine if one removed the HEER itself from the German order of battle in WWII. The entire German war effort would have been totally undermined.
The same cannot be said of the Waffen-SS, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Axis Allies, etc, none of which could operate effectively if the HEER did not exist. They were all merely auxilary to the Heer.
Thus, while I appreciate that there may be functional site management reasons to delete the Heer section, it is a historical travesty to do so.
Feldgrau is already heavily weighted towards subjects of marginal historical importance due to both its structure and user profile. Deleting the HEER section, however under used, only aggravates the problem and will further distort Feldgrau's historical perspective.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Jason Pipes
- Patron
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 4:06 pm
- Location: CA & WI
Would you care to explain this comment in more detail? What aspects of Feldgrau are heavily weighted towards subjects of marginal historical importance? How is Feldgrau's perspective distorted?
As stated previously, the lack of a Heer section on the forum is not because of any lack of importance but because it is such a massive topic that most of the questions related to the subject fall someplace else. This is a little opposite for the other branches in that they are so specific and narrow that they often fit nicely within their own sections.Feldgrau is already heavily weighted towards subjects of marginal historical importance due to both its structure and user profile. Deleting the HEER section, however under used, only aggravates the problem and will further distort Feldgrau's historical perspective.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Jason,
I was not making an accusation but an observation. Feldgrau must be structured in some way and whatever way was chosen would involve some historical distortion.
For example, if military historical importance was reflected in the structure of Feldgrau then there would be about fifteen sections devoted to the Heer for every one devoted to the Waffen-SS. I appreciate that this would not be practical from a technical point of view, but it does, nevetheless, distort the reality and give exaggerated prominence to some aspects of the German war effort at the expense of others. The Heer is already seriously under represented as an independent arm of service. To do away with its only dedicated section makes the matter so much worse.
Subjects of marginal military historical importance such as medals, uniforms, personalities, etc., also get sections to themselves. They are of interest to many of us, but it would be difficult to argue that the design of a medal, the rank distinctions used or the names of most unit commanders are of more than marginal importance. Of interest, yes. Of importance, no.
On the same grounds that most of the Heer information can be found elsewhere, one could equally do away with the Waffen-SS site or any other. Once one has subtracted the OBs, personalities, campaigns, weaponry, uniforms, etc. from the Waffen-SS site, there would also be precious little left. So why not get rid of the Waffen-SS site for the same reason? Weren't medals and uniforms worn by the various arms of service with their own sections? Why not do away with the uniform/medals section and ask the relevant questions in the arm of service sections?
Finally, in view of the fact that "feldgrau" was the chosen uniform colour of the Heer, not the Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, auxiliary organisations or Axis allies, it does seem a little strange that a site bearing the title Feldgrau does not have a section devoted to the Heer.
I most strongly urge you to reinstate the Heer section in the interests of historical accuracy and balance. It may be under utilised, but even under utilisation is better than no utilisation.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. Make no mistake, I am a fan of Feldgrau and want it to represent its subject as fully and fairly as possible.
I was not making an accusation but an observation. Feldgrau must be structured in some way and whatever way was chosen would involve some historical distortion.
For example, if military historical importance was reflected in the structure of Feldgrau then there would be about fifteen sections devoted to the Heer for every one devoted to the Waffen-SS. I appreciate that this would not be practical from a technical point of view, but it does, nevetheless, distort the reality and give exaggerated prominence to some aspects of the German war effort at the expense of others. The Heer is already seriously under represented as an independent arm of service. To do away with its only dedicated section makes the matter so much worse.
Subjects of marginal military historical importance such as medals, uniforms, personalities, etc., also get sections to themselves. They are of interest to many of us, but it would be difficult to argue that the design of a medal, the rank distinctions used or the names of most unit commanders are of more than marginal importance. Of interest, yes. Of importance, no.
On the same grounds that most of the Heer information can be found elsewhere, one could equally do away with the Waffen-SS site or any other. Once one has subtracted the OBs, personalities, campaigns, weaponry, uniforms, etc. from the Waffen-SS site, there would also be precious little left. So why not get rid of the Waffen-SS site for the same reason? Weren't medals and uniforms worn by the various arms of service with their own sections? Why not do away with the uniform/medals section and ask the relevant questions in the arm of service sections?
Finally, in view of the fact that "feldgrau" was the chosen uniform colour of the Heer, not the Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, auxiliary organisations or Axis allies, it does seem a little strange that a site bearing the title Feldgrau does not have a section devoted to the Heer.
I most strongly urge you to reinstate the Heer section in the interests of historical accuracy and balance. It may be under utilised, but even under utilisation is better than no utilisation.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. Make no mistake, I am a fan of Feldgrau and want it to represent its subject as fully and fairly as possible.
That argument makes no sense to me. You can't tell people what to talk about. What makes Feldgrau (and any other bulletin board) a great place are the users. Jason can't tell people to post fifteen Heer threads for every Waffen-SS one, he just has to react to popular demand by creating forums for whatever is popular to discuss.
Incidentally, you'll find that the vast majority of the threads in most of the forums are Heer related. Hell, in the unit history forum right now there is only ONE Waffen-SS thread on the first page. Personalities and Veterans are similarly weighted.
I think that maybe a couple of the forum descriptions could be modified to make the abscence of a dedicated Heer forum less distracting, but all in all I agree that should all of the Heer posts from this site be amassed in one forum, threads would quickly sink to the bottom and organization would be lost.
Incidentally, you'll find that the vast majority of the threads in most of the forums are Heer related. Hell, in the unit history forum right now there is only ONE Waffen-SS thread on the first page. Personalities and Veterans are similarly weighted.
I think that maybe a couple of the forum descriptions could be modified to make the abscence of a dedicated Heer forum less distracting, but all in all I agree that should all of the Heer posts from this site be amassed in one forum, threads would quickly sink to the bottom and organization would be lost.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Abwehr,
But surely, restricting the number of sections does precisely what you oppose - it restricts people's opportunity to talk. The more section headings there are, the more widely they will be encouraged to range.
I was not actually advancing a case for fifteen Heer threads for every Waffen-SS thread. I was trying to defend the Heer thread we already had by pointing out that that would be the proportion that strict adherence to historical importance would expect.
However, now you bring it up, there is probably a better historical case for expanding the Heer thread than eliminating it. The Ersatzheer (several dozen divisions and two million men for most of the war) and the Panzerwaffe were undoubtedly on their own militarily more important than the entire Waffen-SS. Several other areas within the Heer bear comparison with the importance of the Waffen-SS and greatly outweigh the importance of some of the other sections available on Feldgrau.
As a point of information, I have found three Waffen-SS threads on the first page of the unit history section. However, this does not alter the discussion one way or the other.
Leaving aside the (what I consider to be) the overwhelming historical case for a separate Heer section, there is the practical one that it acts as a repository for questions that defy easy allocaton elsewhere.
All the above said, I shall continue happily to use Feldgrau regardless of its configuration. It is too useful a resource.
Cheers,
Sid.
But surely, restricting the number of sections does precisely what you oppose - it restricts people's opportunity to talk. The more section headings there are, the more widely they will be encouraged to range.
I was not actually advancing a case for fifteen Heer threads for every Waffen-SS thread. I was trying to defend the Heer thread we already had by pointing out that that would be the proportion that strict adherence to historical importance would expect.
However, now you bring it up, there is probably a better historical case for expanding the Heer thread than eliminating it. The Ersatzheer (several dozen divisions and two million men for most of the war) and the Panzerwaffe were undoubtedly on their own militarily more important than the entire Waffen-SS. Several other areas within the Heer bear comparison with the importance of the Waffen-SS and greatly outweigh the importance of some of the other sections available on Feldgrau.
As a point of information, I have found three Waffen-SS threads on the first page of the unit history section. However, this does not alter the discussion one way or the other.
Leaving aside the (what I consider to be) the overwhelming historical case for a separate Heer section, there is the practical one that it acts as a repository for questions that defy easy allocaton elsewhere.
All the above said, I shall continue happily to use Feldgrau regardless of its configuration. It is too useful a resource.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Jason Pipes
- Patron
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 4:06 pm
- Location: CA & WI
Sid, quick comment. In my experience as the Feldgrau webmaster I have found the opposite of what you mentioned to be true. Having more sections does not allow for greater freedom to discuss, in fact it tends to stifle things a bit as once you cross a certain threshold people get overwhelmed with the number of options they have to post in, or worse still, of which sections to read. Therefore the fewer sections the better as it allows people to post, see and read messages quicker, easier and more directly.
One solution to this entire issue would be to remove the Unit History section and other more general sections and simply organize the forums according to branch. If you wanted to post ANYTHING related to the Heer, be it on units, commanders, uniforms, whatever, it would go in the Heer section. Likewise for the other branches. My goal in having these areas was to help breakdown what would otherwise become a HUGE section of the forum forcing people to wade through hundreds and hundreds of messages. By having a unit history section one can jump into it and know they will be reading about unit histories and that's it.
Just some additional things to consider.
One solution to this entire issue would be to remove the Unit History section and other more general sections and simply organize the forums according to branch. If you wanted to post ANYTHING related to the Heer, be it on units, commanders, uniforms, whatever, it would go in the Heer section. Likewise for the other branches. My goal in having these areas was to help breakdown what would otherwise become a HUGE section of the forum forcing people to wade through hundreds and hundreds of messages. By having a unit history section one can jump into it and know they will be reading about unit histories and that's it.
Just some additional things to consider.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am