| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Benjamin Ellermann wrote:
> I think you should add a category:
>
> Community General Discussion Sites
>
> This would cover several sites that are not affiliated with a specific lug or
> theme. Examples of such sites are EuroBricks and LEGOfan.org (and since LEGOfan
> is run by fans, I do not consider this as a company site - or maybe it is both)
>
> Ben
Um... I think general discussion sites are also a kind of LUG? As for
LEGOFan.org: it is in fact an official site, but I wouldn't mind to see it in
both cats.
Leg Godt,
Rene
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Rene Hoffmeister wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Benjamin Ellermann wrote:
> > I think you should add a category:
> >
> > Community General Discussion Sites
> >
> > This would cover several sites that are not affiliated with a specific lug or
> > theme. Examples of such sites are EuroBricks and LEGOfan.org (and since LEGOfan
> > is run by fans, I do not consider this as a company site - or maybe it is both)
> >
> > Ben
>
> Um... I think general discussion sites are also a kind of LUG? As for
> LEGOFan.org: it is in fact an official site, but I wouldn't mind to see it in
> both cats.
>
> Leg Godt,
> Rene
Actually, LEGOFan.org is run by fans, and it's not controlled by TLG, so it's
not an official LEGO property... although it does have permission to use the
company mark in the domain name.
"LEGOfan.org is a web site owned and operated by a 501c Non-Profit organization
called BrickPortal, L.L.C, registered in the state of Delaware. BrickPortal was
started to help preserve the goals of LEGO Fan, as well as to setup a formal
structure to ensure that LEGO Fan continues to be fan-run, fan-owned, and a
positive influence on the community." (From
http://www.legofan.org/CoreSite/Introducing_the_LEGO_Fan_Committee.lfp)
Hope this clarifies things,
Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Rene Hoffmeister wrote:
> As for LEGOFan.org: it is in fact an official site, but I wouldn't mind to
> see it in both cats.
Maybe it's changed, but I believe LegoFan.org is not *really* an official site.
As I recall, LegoFan was a site that had the official "approval", and had
limited sponsorship/endorsement from the company. However, the actual site was
always supposed to be run by fans, so that the company wouldn't have to allocate
any dedicated resources to the project. Essentially, they didn't want to be
*responsible* for the site, so asked fans to do the job for them.
Hence, LegoFan was able to do as it pleased, but Lego holds *very* substantial
amount of weight over the site by offering it:
- Use of "Lego" in the domain
- Links from Lego.com (not sure if this ever happened? was certainly in the
original goals)
- Exclusive updates and Lego announcements that other sites don't get (or don't
get as primarily)
- Funding (this was always iffy, and hadn't happened last I knew, but was slated
to happen "someday, as warranted, maybe")
So, LegoFan was sort of leashed in those regards by the company. Fortunately,
I'm not aware of any differences in opinion between the site and the company
that ever forced the issue. I think the company and the site administration were
pretty much always on the same page anyway.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Rene Hoffmeister wrote:
> > As for LEGOFan.org: it is in fact an official site, but I wouldn't mind to
> > see it in both cats.
>
> Maybe it's changed, but I believe LegoFan.org is not *really* an official site. • [...]
> So, LegoFan was sort of leashed in those regards by the company. Fortunately,
> I'm not aware of any differences in opinion between the site and the company
> that ever forced the issue.
I agree. However, though I doubt it was ever a point of disagreement, I believe
the company insisted there be no discussion of clone brands on the site. And I'm
fairly sure they didn't want negative coverage of the product there either, but
don't quote me. That would be teetering on censorship IMHO, though I don't know
what consequences there would have been, if any. The site was run by a LEGO
employee or two, albeit while "off-duty" (though they touted it to me as a
plus), and it certainly got some minor perks from the company. While none of
this makes it an "official" site in the legal definition, in my mind it's still
a tool. So I can see how Rene and other people are confused by its status,
despite the perfectly clear wording separating it from The LEGO Company proper.
Don't get me wrong; I mean no disrespect to its project leaders - I do not
believe they have -ever- tried to deceive anyone about the status or purpose.
And I'm very glad the project exists. I truly do wish it well! I always have. It
serves an important function and I'm all for anything that acomplishes its
goals. It's just ...I kinda wish it WAS an official site. But that's just
something in my own gut. I fully understand why it can't be that way.
[sorry to have brought this thread a bit off topic...]
BTW, thanks for the concise clarification, Kelly. :-)
-Suz
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Rene Hoffmeister wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Benjamin Ellermann wrote:
> > I think you should add a category:
> >
> > Community General Discussion Sites
> >
> > This would cover several sites that are not affiliated with a specific lug or
> > theme. Examples of such sites are EuroBricks and LEGOfan.org (and since LEGOfan
> > is run by fans, I do not consider this as a company site - or maybe it is both)
> >
> > Ben
>
> Um... I think general discussion sites are also a kind of LUG?
Would you describe Lugnet as a LUG?
I wouldn't. To me, a "LUG" implies an essential real-life interaction that does
not happen on forum sites (which are online based). (For example, 'DixieLUG' is
a real life club based in Atlanta, 'Classic-space.com' is an online forum for
fans of space, while both may have some mutual members, they are two distinctly
different things)
-Lenny
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Rene Hoffmeister wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Benjamin Ellermann wrote:
> > > I think you should add a category:
> > >
> > > Community General Discussion Sites
> > >
> > > This would cover several sites that are not affiliated with a specific lug or
> > > theme. Examples of such sites are EuroBricks and LEGOfan.org (and since LEGOfan
> > > is run by fans, I do not consider this as a company site - or maybe it is both)
> > >
> > > Ben
> >
> > Um... I think general discussion sites are also a kind of LUG?
>
> Would you describe Lugnet as a LUG?
>
> I wouldn't. To me, a "LUG" implies an essential real-life interaction that does
> not happen on forum sites (which are online based). (For example, 'DixieLUG' is
> a real life club based in Atlanta, 'Classic-space.com' is an online forum for
> fans of space, while both may have some mutual members, they are two distinctly
> different things)
>
> -Lenny
I completely agree with Lenny. There is a difference between online and offline
groups. LUG is synonymous with physical offline organizations. LUGs may also
have discussion sites (many in Europe do). Discussion sites are different.
Lugnet is not a Lug - it links to lugs and also hosts discussions.
Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Rene Hoffmeister wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Benjamin Ellermann wrote:
| |
I think you should add a category:
Community General Discussion Sites
This would cover several sites that are not affiliated with a specific lug
or theme. Examples of such sites are EuroBricks and LEGOfan.org (and since
LEGOfan is run by fans, I do not consider this as a company site - or maybe
it is both)
Ben
|
Um... I think general discussion sites are also a kind of LUG?
|
Would you describe Lugnet as a LUG?
I wouldn’t.
|
I would - if nothing else the name is Lugnet. I always pictured it as a ‘LUG
of the NET’
M
|
|
| |
Hi Lenny & Ben,
would it make sense to have a category "LEGO Clubs / User Groups (local)" for
all the XyzLUGs and another one "LEGO Clubs / User Groups (worldwide)" for e.g.
LUGNET, LEGOFan.org etc.?
We should try to keep it quiet obvious to people who are looking for a community
which meets their expectations. Though probably the question whether online or
not isn't that important to these people, at least not during a first search for
ANY community in which they would like to participate.
Leg Godt!
Rene
In lugnet.admin.general, Benjamin Ellermann wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Rene Hoffmeister wrote:
> > > In lugnet.admin.general, Benjamin Ellermann wrote:
> > > > I think you should add a category:
> > > >
> > > > Community General Discussion Sites
> > > >
> > > > This would cover several sites that are not affiliated with a specific lug or
> > > > theme. Examples of such sites are EuroBricks and LEGOfan.org (and since LEGOfan
> > > > is run by fans, I do not consider this as a company site - or maybe it is both)
> > > >
> > > > Ben
> > >
> > > Um... I think general discussion sites are also a kind of LUG?
> >
> > Would you describe Lugnet as a LUG?
> >
> > I wouldn't. To me, a "LUG" implies an essential real-life interaction that does
> > not happen on forum sites (which are online based). (For example, 'DixieLUG' is
> > a real life club based in Atlanta, 'Classic-space.com' is an online forum for
> > fans of space, while both may have some mutual members, they are two distinctly
> > different things)
> >
> > -Lenny
>
> I completely agree with Lenny. There is a difference between online and offline
> groups. LUG is synonymous with physical offline organizations. LUGs may also
> have discussion sites (many in Europe do). Discussion sites are different.
> Lugnet is not a Lug - it links to lugs and also hosts discussions.
>
> Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Rene Hoffmeister wrote:
> Hi Lenny & Ben,
>
> would it make sense to have a category "LEGO Clubs / User Groups (local)" for
> all the XyzLUGs and another one "LEGO Clubs / User Groups (worldwide)" for e.g.
> LUGNET, LEGOFan.org etc.?
I would suggest the two category headings of:
- Local User Groups
- Online Communities
"Local User Groups" are geographically significant and involve face-to-face
meetings and often hold recurring public displays or events. (NELUG, WAMALUG,
ItLUG?, FreeLUG?, SCLTC, a FIRST LEGO League team, etc.)
"Online Communities" exist primarily online, and have members from a variety of
places. These organizations may tie together other communities. They may serve
to share information or to simply chat. (LUGNET, LegoFan, 1000Steine, Classic
Castle, JLUG, ILTCO, Save 9v Trains, FIRST LEGO League, LDraw.org, the LEGO
Robotics mailing list, the official LEGO.com forums, the LEGO® Maniacs' Journal,
and many others...)
> We should try to keep it quite obvious to people who are looking for a community
> which meets their expectations.
I agree and I believe two categories should be plenty.
> Though probably the question whether online or
> not isn't that important to these people, at least not during a first search for
> ANY community in which they would like to participate.
I would disagree with the assumption of their order of searching for a
community. Perhaps this "an American thing", but I personally make a huge
distinction between online and offline interaction with people. Finding other
AFOLs who live nearby, or visiting a group when I happen to be in their town, is
very special to me, and rare. NELUG provides me with an exceptionally rich
experience. Online communities on the other hand are common and all work pretty
much the same way. One can lurk in an online community, but not in a real-life
LUG.
-Suz
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Suzanne Rich wrote:
> I would disagree with the assumption of their order of searching for a
> community. Perhaps this "an American thing", but I personally make a huge
> distinction between online and offline interaction with people. Finding other
> AFOLs who live nearby, or visiting a group when I happen to be in their town, is
> very special to me, and rare. NELUG provides me with an exceptionally rich
> experience. Online communities on the other hand are common and all work pretty
> much the same way. One can lurk in an online community, but not in a real-life
> LUG.
I agree with this 100% (as well as the solution suggested that I just happened
to have snipped away).
-Lenny
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Suzanne Rich wrote:
> > I would disagree with the assumption of their order of searching for a
> > community. Perhaps this "an American thing", but I personally make a huge
> > distinction between online and offline interaction with people. Finding other
> > AFOLs who live nearby, or visiting a group when I happen to be in their town, is
> > very special to me, and rare. NELUG provides me with an exceptionally rich
> > experience. Online communities on the other hand are common and all work pretty
> > much the same way. One can lurk in an online community, but not in a real-life
> > LUG.
>
> I agree with this 100% (as well as the solution suggested that I just happened
> to have snipped away).
>
> -Lenny
Categories made and entries re-sorted. Thanks for the train of thoughts!
Leg Godt,
Rene
|
|
|
