10-06-2016, 01:28 PM
(10-06-2016, 11:53 AM)QwertyYerty Wrote: The problem is that the information timeline is going to be the first one everyone reads when looking at the main timeline. If the timeline is too long, it will turn people off.
What proof do you have that 'everyone' approaches the OA website in the same way or that they all start from the Information Age? We don't track that kind of data, and you seem to be indicating that you do. How are you doing that exactly?
I think a more likely state of affairs is that different people approach the website and setting in different ways (something evidenced by both my experience (I barely paid any attention to the timeline when I first came here) and by what is indicated by the questions and comments we've gotten over the years from new members). Some will start with the timeline, others will start from the Technology or Galactography sections, and others will start from somewhere else. People are different and have different interests, after all.
Beyond that, some people might find the information in the timeline very interesting and not think it's too long at all. It might not be to your personal taste, but that's not an argument in itself for getting rid of some number of the entries there.
If we are to thin down the timeline, then it is not going to be a process of mass removal based on a theory that there are 'too many' entries in it. It is going to need to be one of considering individual entries and whether or not they add to the setting and/or relate (or might eventually relate) to existing EG entries or the like.
Somewhat more time consuming, but necessary to the overall quality of the project.
With that in mind, I'd suggest that you point to specific entries on the timeline that you think might be consolidated with others or that would improve the project if they were removed - rather than arguing (as you seem to be doing,perhaps I'm misunderstanding) that we need to do a mass removal of entries from the timeline (or at least this part of the timeline) simply because there are 'too many' of them.
Todd