miscellaneous views

will greenwood · Post by **will greenwood** » 7 Feb 2008 10:57

These are excellent, and I certainly havent seen most of them before;

mayow park..(12th September 1904)

1910;

Wells park...
1970's;

12 sept 1904;

Ladywell rec.....1930

1910;

a 1905 view of Horniman's Gardens...

Crystal Palace.....
cleaning the Dinosaurs, 26 january 1930;

c.1854(painter unknown at present);

1880's

will greenwood · Post by **will greenwood** » 9 Feb 2008 15:24

oh...and this!

the Empire Theatre music hall, Penge!

will greenwood · Post by **will greenwood** » 10 Feb 2008 16:25

Tram crash at Stanstead Rd/ Brockley Rise;

No.58 tram next to Havelock Walk;

at the Perry Vale terminus;

Falkor · Post by **Falkor** » 10 Feb 2008 16:51

You finally figured out how to embed images... Will done!

will greenwood · Post by **will greenwood** » 10 Feb 2008 17:43

Will done! Razz

Will done, indeed!

Steve Grindlay · Post by **Steve Grindlay** » 10 Feb 2008 19:08

Is it preferable to embed images? I've tended not to, other than for illustration. By placing them on a site like Flickr people can view them at full resolution and, if they wish, download hi-res copies. From my own point of view, I don't find the detail contained in many of the images uploaded to this site very useful.

Falkor · Post by **Falkor** » 10 Feb 2008 20:01

It all depends on your mentality... Personally, I prefer to view images embedded (or imbedded). Before, I found it quite frustrating to click each of Will's images in his FlickR set, knowing that I had seen most of them before (and none of them are available in high res). I had to click, click, click before I got to see the couple of views I hadn't seen before. In fact, I didn't bother checking them all in the end. Now that Will has embedded them in his post I find it a breath of fresh air to tell you the truth... All the BBCode tags enable us to have more control over our posts--almost to the point of creating our own webpage. Many moons ago when forums allowed HTML code, I could actually post tables and forms inside my threads, including a questionnaire that could be submitted. Of course, over time, there had to be a compromise with interactivity vs. security. It's like visiting this website for the Croydon Canal:
http://www.londoncanals.co.uk/croydon/ccintro.html
Anyone who has to keep clicking to access those low-res images is going to get peed off... it's better if everything gets loaded up with least effort. Most people have broadband in this day and age, so bandwidth is not a problem. Since Youtube and Google Video became popular, some forums now allow videos to be embedded so that the interface is already loaded up with the posts (another click is saved). It's all down to the users and forum software being up to date with technology. In oldstyle chat rooms, we used to have to refresh the page (F5) to see if any new messages had been posted, but now they are updated in real time. It's a similar principle with embedded images. However, the full answer is a lot more complicated. There are many factors. The images on this site are more interesting to me than the ones posted by Will:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lewishamheritage
I had to work a lot harder to get these down in hi-res. The extra clicks was worth it, but even then my motivation has it's limits. There is still some images I haven't bothered to get off there yet. Tulse Hill Terry has left me in limbo re: Crystal Palace pics! I'm so unorganised with those that I don't know what to do!?

As for hi-res images, the evolved way of posting is by original size and thumbnail; you can embed the thumbnail with IMG tags, before embedding that in URL tags pointing to the original, like what I did with the Honor Oak to Brockley photos. However, although more convenient for the users, it makes more work for the poster and is limited based on the host privileges. So what is the ultimate best way of doing things? Rather than anyone having an opinion, I do believe there is a scientific way of proving the most logical solution, but then not everyone seems to think rationally. Therefore, it's not worth presenting the next part of the argument unless we are inside a court of law... In case you haven't guessed, I'm a little worn out over the Derren Brown arguements in the other forum. People tend to not listen to reason, and do what they want to do in the end. Not enough people post images, and therefore not enough people view images, to understand the problem and the best solution. It certainly seems that way over in the SE23 forums:
http://www.se23.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=430
Why are most people voting on the default of 3? Only a Psychologist could probably tell us that one! I doubt logic, reason, opinion, awareness or understanding even comes into it. It's probably got more to do with rules, honour, respect and group dynamics. Not everyone is being honest when they make those votes, but then that's the way society generally functions unfortunately! Now, these views are an opinion (my own). I'm sorry I couldn't provide a more simple answer.

will greenwood · Post by **will greenwood** » 10 Feb 2008 20:16

The images on this site are more interesting to me than the ones posted by Will:

whats that got to do with anything?
I found them very interesting...as did I the images on that othe site....

...I'm really beginning to wonder if I should just keep this stuff to myself, to be honest.
I had no idea it was so complicated..
I'd love Hi res pics of everything, but thats not always possible...and if I had a server of my own i would do my best to upload hi res images...but I'm just chuffed to even see some of these images.

I thought it was about sharing and making available knowledge and awareness of a subject in which we all have an interest.

If I had a way to offer Hi res, I would do so!

tulse hill terry · Post by **tulse hill terry** » 10 Feb 2008 20:28

Tulse Hill Terry has left me in limbo re: Crystal Palace pics! I'm so unorganised with those that I don't know what to do!

Pardon?

It's obviously a matter of opinion whether to imbed to link to images.

As contributors it maybe better to consult together before long threads are embarked upon. Though open discussion is surely the point of a forum.

I fear Will Greenwood is starting to follow Falkor in posting lots images with no source, and that, I suspect, are already present elsewhere on the net.

Without some attempt at a coherent presentation, it can all just seem like showing off to the general public. I do sometimes pity the audience of lurkers having to scroll through the resulting threads of jumbled images.

I had all sorts of motivations with the "walk through the nave" thread - the main priority at the time was speed, and I do hope to go back to it soon, with added material, links to sources for the images I purloined, as well as drawings I have created myself of the main and upper floors of the building.

Citing sources is an academic convention, in science it enables peers to corroborate findings, in the humanities it gives scope to build on the work of others, and in this instance it gives potential consumers the ability to purchase images as products, even if the original poster considers the cost too high. [I'm thinking here of the Notre Famille site, which Falkor complained about the prices of, as well as avoiding the citing of it's name.]

It is only collectors that hoard what they collect, and fearing competition, conceal their sources, and only share what they have gathered for the affirmation of their subject, and the envy of their fellow collectors.

Falkor · Post by **Falkor** » 10 Feb 2008 20:37

whats that got to do with anything?
I found them very interesting...as did I the images on that othe site....

Sorry, no disrespect, but you would be more angry with me if you found out I was lying to you (or not being straight) regarding that example.

...I'm really beginning to wonder if I should just keep this stuff to myself, to be honest.

Many collectors have this "holding back" mentality, which is a topic within itself. I don't agree with it, and I have faith you won't be tempted to go down this route (the darkside).

I had no idea it was so complicated..

Come on Will, it's easy when you know how!

I'd love Hi res pics of everything, but thats not always possible...and if I had a server of my own i would do my best to upload hi res images...but I'm just chuffed to even see some of these images.

Yep, hi-res is the best, and I agree with the way you are thinking now: being open, honest, and sharing is the way to go. If I hadn't seen most of those images before then I would be chuffed, too. By embedding them there is no inconvenience to be had either way.

I thought it was about sharing and making available knowledge and awareness of a subject in which we all have an interest.

I agree, but sometimes the method of sharing can cause anxiety and frustration. When somebody starts posting images in really low res then it's almost like stabbing everyone with a knife.

If I had a way to offer Hi res, I would do so!

I know you would, Will! And I'm glad you're now on board with us and posting away... It makes me seem like I'm no longer the only poster round here with my name at the top all the time.

will greenwood · Post by **will greenwood** » 10 Feb 2008 20:38

I'm sorry!
I made the mistake of thinking this was for people to share their images, memories, etc etc

Citing sources is an academic convention

I'm well aware of this, but, again, I was unaware of this site being particularly 'academic'

I just want to know...to see...to understand!!

I do not care to get bogged down in politics, but 'coherence' is a good word here.

is there a moderator?

if this is an academic project, surely we need a curator as well.

It is only collectors that hoard what they collect, and fearing competition, conceal their sources, and only share what they have gathered for the affirmation of their subject, and the envy of their fellow collectors.

Crap!
I have no money and the only access to this stuff is via my Open University library access, and what I can find on the internet.
I find them, and show them here....not academically...and certainly not to show off

this is all open source material...and I certainly can offer more information if asked, but I dont have all day to be creating exhibits for the town museum...thats something totally different!!!

I've been on here for a bout a month now, and I've learnt loads, and hopefully contributed a small amount to the general well of local knowledge.....
some of its been amazing......

Just explain wot its for, and whether my initiative was inappropriate, and I shall remove my 'exhibitionism' forthwith.

I apologise if I got it wrong!!!!!

tulse hill terry · Post by **tulse hill terry** » 10 Feb 2008 20:59

is there a moderator?

I haven't noticed any sign of one. My Crystal Palace thread was stuck to the top of this section of the forum without any communication with me - not that I'm complaining.

I was unaware of this site being particularly 'academic'

The level of discussion in this section often reaches the intensity of historical studies, even if amateur. My previous post, was in response to Falkors, which was the equivalent of academic peer review on your thread. This can often seem harsh, but then that is the price of presenting it to peers I suppose.

I made the mistake of thinking this was for people to share their images

As to collecting, I am always spending more than I can afford of tangible items of local history, but the collecting of virtual material [digital images] means my analogy still holds. I certainly don't have the income to match major collectors of this kind of material in tangible form. Re citing sources, well this has been discussed in this forum before, around copyright, ownership whether by the creator or buyer. I do think this is as much a consumer issue as much as a creator or poster. To what extent can we call them "our" images.

Just explain wot its for, and whether my initiative was inappropriate

I was responding to the criticisms stated in this thread by S. Grindlay and Falkor. I would have thought it is up to the admin what is actually inapproriate for this forum.

will greenwood · Post by **will greenwood** » 10 Feb 2008 21:02

I agree, but sometimes the method of sharing can cause anxiety and frustration. When somebody starts posting images in really low res then it's almost like stabbing everyone with a knife.

what a comfortable life you all must lead!

I'm sorry again...but, for instance, I can see Oareboro rd, the world of my ancestors for the first time sinvce I was a kid.....sure its grainy, but, unless i come up with £10 an image, I cant even see them.
is it me who's wrong to put them on here like that, or is it wrong for the local studies people to 'hoard their data, jealously'

I think it should all be available for people to see...then we'll get to the bottom of the things we've all missed.

will greenwood · Post by **will greenwood** » 10 Feb 2008 21:04

ps,
Please lets not take any of this personally, eh?

Falkor · Post by **Falkor** » 10 Feb 2008 21:14

Pardon?

I meant in a jokingly way that you've spoilt us...

It's obviously a matter of opinion whether to imbed to link to images.

I don't think so, but then to justify why is not easy.

As contributors it maybe better to consult together before long threads are embarked upon. Though open discussion is surely the point of a forum.

Images say a thousand words. I would like a forum where discussion is secondary to the contribution of images. Regarding your first point, I've never thought about it before.

I fear Will Greenwood is starting to follow Falkor in posting lots images with no source, and that, I suspect, are already present elsewhere on the net.

We've had this discussion before. In my opinion, I think posting the source is unecessary unless requested by somebody.

Without some attempt at a coherent presentation, it can all just seem like showing off to the general public. I do sometimes pity the audience of lurkers having to scroll through the resulting threads of jumbled images.

The lurkers are the ones who probably feel inferior to us contributors and think we are showing off because they have nothing to contribute themselves. You know, I really detest lurkers in a big way. It turns out that members of the Virtual Norwood forum often visit here just to spy on us. It's very off-key...

I had all sorts of motivations with the "walk through the nave" thread - the main priority at the time was speed, and I do hope to go back to it soon, with added material, links to sources for the images I purloined, as well as drawings I have created myself of the main and upper floors of the building.

Your thread is probably the single best contribution this forum has ever had. I hope you resume it soon... It's just a shame that none of the lurkers came out of the woodwork.

It is only collectors that hoard what they collect, and fearing competition, conceal their sources, and only share what they have gathered for the affirmation of their subject, and the envy of their fellow collectors.

You raise some good points... I've discussed this at length before, and what came out of it was truly disturbing. I would rather not speak about hoarders ever again. What I will say is that it's a very complicated subject, and the Germans are the worst holding back nation in the world!

tulse hill terry · Post by **tulse hill terry** » 10 Feb 2008 21:15

Well I can't answer for anyone one else as to how comfortable their lives are. I have had to make many sacrifices to buy what I have. My motivation in collecting started with the frustration I had in waiting for private collectors to share what they held.

The convention is, I have always been lead to believe, that any fees charged go to funding the libraries that hold this material. At least they are open to the public and a fraction of the cost that this material would reach in the open market.

I have met quite a few impoverished academics now, who fund the creation of articles out of their own pocket, for publication in hard copy. They can end up paying quite high fees for the right of publication of images, some of the very images that are posted on this forum.

Perhaps we should be grateful the internet is enough of a no-mans land, at the moment, that we have the freedom to post whatever we can get our hands on.

I was once refused the right to photocopy more than two pages from a book at a nationally respected library. I cam home, in much embarassment, and found it for sale on the net for less than it would have cost to photocopy the whole book - about £10.

Sydenham · Post by **Sydenham** » 10 Feb 2008 21:17

As a consumer of these posts it doesn't matter to me whether they are embedded or on another site (e.g. Flickr). I don't mind whether the images are with, or without comment. I really like it when there's debate about the material - academic or otherwise. For my education and entertainment as well - its why debates are great fun even as a 'listener'.

Please don't stop contributing - the sum of knowledge you have between you (referring to the contributors) is priceless and should be shared.

However is there a cost on storage or bandwidth use? I wouldn't like ADMIN to be out of pocket. In reality I don't know how this forum is funded - but it can't be free.

will greenwood · Post by **will greenwood** » 10 Feb 2008 21:23

I think, really, we're all on much the same wavelength, here, and its a complicated issue, these days, copyright etc...
As I said, all my images are from open source material, but I do accept the importance of acknowledging the artist, if not the photo library,

theres no way I can source some of this stuff, it is too complicated, believe me, in my circumstances...

Perhaps, as the forum grows there needs to be more of a concensus as to how it works, but I agree with each of you in different ways, so lets make something beautiful out of it, maaan

tulse hill terry · Post by **tulse hill terry** » 10 Feb 2008 21:24

The lurkers are the ones who probably feel inferior to us contributors and think we are showing off because they have nothing to contribute themselves. You know, I really detest lurkers in a big way. It turns out that members of the Virtual Norwood forum often visit here just to spy on us. It's very off-key...

I don't get you.

I use the convention of lurkers, as people who read but don't respond.

Audiences are by nature passive. That is their freedom. I'm sure amongst them there are some who could contribute, but that is their choice.

The internet is public, people are free to read whatever sites they want.

It's inevitable that there should be an overlap of readership between virtualnorwood and sydenham town forum. I always think that what is local history for example, depends on what is local to a particular local historian.

Citing sources gives the reader a chance to follow up leads, and onto other subjects, which is what the net is all about surely.

Falkor · Post by **Falkor** » 10 Feb 2008 21:41

I'm sorry again...but, for instance, I can see Oareboro rd, the world of my ancestors for the first time sinvce I was a kid.....sure its grainy, but, unless i come up with £10 an image, I cant even see them.
is it me who's wrong to put them on here like that, or is it wrong for the local studies people to 'hoard their data, jealously'

Hey Will, posting low res is fine if that's all that is available. It's when somebody purposely downgrades something to tease people (this is what I would call showing off). But still... even that can serve a purpose if the owner is open to request/negotiation. The worst people/organisations are the ones who sell images online for different prices based on resolution, or, the Centre For Kentish Studies who won't even let you take a copy of certain stuff--atleast without the historian having to pay BIG bucks first.

I was once refused the right to photocopy more than two pages from a book at a nationally respected library. I cam home, in much embarassment, and found it for sale on the net for less than it would have cost to photocopy the whole book - about £10.

A similar thing happened to me at Medway Studies. They were trying to charge me big time for photocopying only a few pages of a book that was still in copyright. I spoke to my solicitor who said they aren't allowed to do that unless the money is going to a "copyright agency" (something along those lines anyway). They were the ones breaking the law. Like you, I got the book somewhere else.

Sydenham Town Forum

The Community Voice for London SE26 since 2004

miscellaneous views

miscellaneous views