The Best Woodworking Web Site?

Ok, your site does not suck. However, its not a website. Its a BLOG.

Bob

http://www.woodshopdemos.com/

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:42:22 +0000, LRod
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 5 Mar 2005 05:45:50 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Ok, your site does not suck. However, its not a website. Its a BLOG.
>
>I wish I knew what that was. Then I'd know whether to be insulted or
>not.
>
>Seriously, thanks for the "does not suck" vote.
>
>- -
>LRod
>

http://www.blogger.com/start

In article <[email protected]>, LRod-
[email protected] says...
> Of course the problem is, no one ever sends you email telling you your
> site sucks.
>
I have been known to do that. Just yesterday I sent an email to a
vendor pointing out that the photos on his site were beautiful, but it
took several minutes at 56K to load the page.

I'll check out your site.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On 2005-03-05, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote:

http://www.codesmiths.com/shed/workshop

I bought all the books that Andy mentioned under the Craftsman
style section. Cost me a hundred bucks... Worth it though.

He has a nice section on fuming white oak. I'll be doing that
next week, or perhaps the week after.

--
I can find no modern furniture that is as well designed and emotionally
satisfying as that made by the Arts and Crafts movement in the early years
of the last century.

Blatent promo...

http://www.nbjoinery.net

New UK one man joinery business...

maybe not the best but it's hosted on an ITX computer cased in an Ash Box
!!!

NMB


"Rick Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Unisaw A100 wrote:
>> OK, I know, there's more than one. The trouble is anyone
>> who owns the software and has an uncle that needs a Web page
>> is building Web sites, calling themselves Web site builders
>> and probably 99% of the sites suck and that includes most
>> nearly all the Web sites, like say 99%. I mean, these same
>> guys/gurls would have bought a typewriter (pre-Al Gore's
>> World Wide Web) and thought themselves to be the next
>> (insert name of great writer here/I say Hemingway)(1).
>>
>> Right?
>>
>> (Rant Off)
>>
>> So, without further ado, I nominate Pat Warner's site as
>> "The Best Woodworking Web Site".
>>
>> http://www.patwarner.com
>>
>> Your Mileage May Vary.
>>
>> Feel free to nominate your own.
>>
>> Just say no to banner ads, bad design, mouse droppings,
>> blinkies and (insert other annoyances Web site designers
>> have at their disposal here).
>>
>> (1) What I am most thankful for is these same people have
>> no foot hold into other areas of design like cars (imagine
>> the crap they'd come up with), clothing, print media,
>> housing and so on.
>>
>> Yeah I know, I went (Rant Off) above. Just can't help
>> myself when it comes to trashing Web page designers/you
>> can't trash them enough. The World Wide Web is the double
>> wide trailer of design. I mean, the damn thing oughtta be
>> regulated.
>>
>> UA100
>
> Welcome to the wonderful world of freedom.
> We see the same thing happen every time a new generation of tools comes
> along that makes what used to be the province of highly trained
> professionals available to anyone.
>
> We saw it in the 60s when cheap, easy, offset printing was taken up by the
> counter-culture and the result was things like the underground newspaper.
>
> We saw it in the 80s when desktop publishing and laser printers came
> along.
>
> And we saw it starting in the 1990s with web design. (Or lack thereof.)
>
> The fact is that when you put powerful tools in most people's hands you're
> going to get crap -- most of the time. I'm sure old-time cabinet makers
> felt the same way when inexpensive power tools made hobby woodworking
> popular.
>
> But on the whole it is a very good thing. In all cases we get an enormous
> outpouring of crap that by and large settles down into a lot of solid,
> pedestrian work and a whole new generation of really brilliant stuff from
> a small minority.
>
> I've been particularly struck by this in web design because I've only
> recently started working with it again after being away for about five
> years. Five years ago, when HTML 3.2 was new and Netscape and Internet
> Explorer were duking it out, web design was an unholy mess. It was
> dominated by refugee graphic designers who insisted that every element
> appear just exactly _so_ and would do anything to make that happen.
> One-pixel gifs, non-breaking spaces and all kinds of browser-specific
> tricks were the norm and people got very upset if you suggested that you
> actually respect the medium you were designing in.
>
> Today there's still a lot of ugly crap out there and, of course, a lot of
> juvenilia like blinking images, but things are a lot better. The dominant
> school of web design understands the medium better and is dedicated to
> working with it rather than fighting it.
>
> Meanwhile these new technologies enable us to share information better and
> more freely. Remember 'freedom of the press belong to he who owns one?'.
> Not nearly as true any more. Or just consider this NG.
>
> Now if we could just convince these people that content and not cream
> sauce is important. But that's the topic for another rant.
>
> --RC

Sat, Mar 5, 2005, 12:24pm (EST+5) [email protected] (Unisaw=A0A100)
says:
<snip> So, without further ado, I nominate Pat Warner's site as "The
Best Woodworking Web Site". <snip>



JOAT
Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold

Sat, Mar 5, 2005, 12:24pm (EST+5) [email protected] (Unisaw=A0A100)
says:
<snip> So, without further ado, I nominate Pat Warner's site as "The
Best Woodworking Web Site". <snip>

Damn, hit the wrong button, the first time.

Well, depends on how you consider it. Pat's site is good, which is
why I have a link to it on my woodworking page, loads of good stuff
there. But, as far as web pages go, my personal favorite is my own. Not
because it's fancy, or just because I made it; rather, because
everything there is something I use, will use, or am interested in. I
don't much care if people look at it, or not; it's a reference site, for
me, and has what "I" want on it, with stuff added, or discarded, about
daily.

Here's the wood portion of my web page. Don't expect it to not
change. http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/WOODSTUFF/



JOAT
Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold

http://www.inthewoodshop.org

This was the one that got me started in woodworking about 3 years ago. I
think Howard does a good job of keeping it up to date.

TonyMo
Ontario

Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> OK, I know, there's more than one. <snip>
>
> So, without further ado, I nominate Pat Warner's site as
> "The Best Woodworking Web Site".
>
> http://www.patwarner.com
>
> Your Mileage May Vary.
>
> Feel free to nominate your own.
>

Yes, Pat's is good. I've learned much there, and bought a little.

Maybe not in the vein that you intended, but as an all- around,
excellent wReck supplement/supplant, I offer the group effort

www.woodcentral.com

Thank you Mssrs. Walentine, et al...

In the category of "the design is dated, but not compared to the
content":

www.supertool.com

Thank you again, Mr. Leach.

And an honorable mention, and word of gratitude, is certainly due Jeff
Gorman, from the side of the pond which spells funny...

Patriarch,
who rather likes these 'on-topic trolls'...

"Unisaw A100" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OK, I know, there's more than one. The trouble is anyone
> who owns the software and has an uncle that needs a Web page
> is building Web sites, calling themselves Web site builders
> and probably 99% of the sites suck and that includes most
> nearly all the Web sites, like say 99%.

(snip)
> Yeah I know, I went (Rant Off) above. Just can't help
> myself when it comes to trashing Web page designers/you
> can't trash them enough. The World Wide Web is the double
> wide trailer of design. I mean, the damn thing oughtta be
> regulated.
>
> UA100

Yeah, and how come

...GM can't design interiors?
...women over 200 pounds wear sweats?
...Howard Stern is allowed to appear in public?
...we all can't just get along?

I'm thinking it has something to do with our humanity, but what do I know?

Bob

LRod wrote:
>Gulp. Now I'm shaking in my boots. Especially since you just recently
>mentioned mine. I thought I'd worked out most of the web-design-no-nos
>on my page. I know I don't have banner ads or blinkies. I don't know
>if I have mouse droppings or bad design.

I'm more looking at the "professional" sites. Pat sells
from his. You don't. In other words, we turn a blind eye
to ho-mades.

>Of course the problem is, no one ever sends you email telling you your
>site sucks. And what if the gush email you do get is just someone
>trying to be double-wide polite? What do you learn from that?

I appreciate complements. I learn from criticism.

UA100

Unisaw A100 wrote:
> OK, I know, there's more than one. The trouble is anyone
> who owns the software and has an uncle that needs a Web page
> is building Web sites, calling themselves Web site builders
> and probably 99% of the sites suck and that includes most
> nearly all the Web sites, like say 99%. I mean, these same
> guys/gurls would have bought a typewriter (pre-Al Gore's
> World Wide Web) and thought themselves to be the next
> (insert name of great writer here/I say Hemingway)(1).
>
> Right?
>
> (Rant Off)
>
> So, without further ado, I nominate Pat Warner's site as
> "The Best Woodworking Web Site".
>
> http://www.patwarner.com
>
> Your Mileage May Vary.
>
> Feel free to nominate your own.
>
> Just say no to banner ads, bad design, mouse droppings,
> blinkies and (insert other annoyances Web site designers
> have at their disposal here).
>
> (1) What I am most thankful for is these same people have
> no foot hold into other areas of design like cars (imagine
> the crap they'd come up with), clothing, print media,
> housing and so on.
>
> Yeah I know, I went (Rant Off) above. Just can't help
> myself when it comes to trashing Web page designers/you
> can't trash them enough. The World Wide Web is the double
> wide trailer of design. I mean, the damn thing oughtta be
> regulated.
>
> UA100

Welcome to the wonderful world of freedom.
We see the same thing happen every time a new generation of tools comes
along that makes what used to be the province of highly trained
professionals available to anyone.

We saw it in the 60s when cheap, easy, offset printing was taken up by
the counter-culture and the result was things like the underground
newspaper.

We saw it in the 80s when desktop publishing and laser printers came along.

And we saw it starting in the 1990s with web design. (Or lack thereof.)

The fact is that when you put powerful tools in most people's hands
you're going to get crap -- most of the time. I'm sure old-time cabinet
makers felt the same way when inexpensive power tools made hobby
woodworking popular.

But on the whole it is a very good thing. In all cases we get an
enormous outpouring of crap that by and large settles down into a lot of
solid, pedestrian work and a whole new generation of really brilliant
stuff from a small minority.

I've been particularly struck by this in web design because I've only
recently started working with it again after being away for about five
years. Five years ago, when HTML 3.2 was new and Netscape and Internet
Explorer were duking it out, web design was an unholy mess. It was
dominated by refugee graphic designers who insisted that every element
appear just exactly _so_ and would do anything to make that happen.
One-pixel gifs, non-breaking spaces and all kinds of browser-specific
tricks were the norm and people got very upset if you suggested that you
actually respect the medium you were designing in.

Today there's still a lot of ugly crap out there and, of course, a lot
of juvenilia like blinking images, but things are a lot better. The
dominant school of web design understands the medium better and is
dedicated to working with it rather than fighting it.

Meanwhile these new technologies enable us to share information better
and more freely. Remember 'freedom of the press belong to he who owns
one?'. Not nearly as true any more. Or just consider this NG.

Now if we could just convince these people that content and not cream
sauce is important. But that's the topic for another rant.

--RC

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 12:24:52 GMT, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]>
wrote:

>OK, I know, there's more than one. The trouble is anyone
>who owns the software and has an uncle that needs a Web page
>is building Web sites, calling themselves Web site builders
>and probably 99% of the sites suck and that includes most
>nearly all the Web sites, like say 99%. I mean, these same
>guys/gurls would have bought a typewriter (pre-Al Gore's
>World Wide Web) and thought themselves to be the next
>(insert name of great writer here/I say Hemingway)(1).
>
>Right?
>
>(Rant Off)

>
>Just say no to banner ads, bad design, mouse droppings,
>blinkies and (insert other annoyances Web site designers
>have at their disposal here).
>
>(1) What I am most thankful for is these same people have
>no foot hold into other areas of design like cars (imagine
>the crap they'd come up with), clothing, print media,
>housing and so on.
>
>Yeah I know, I went (Rant Off) above. Just can't help
>myself when it comes to trashing Web page designers/you
>can't trash them enough. The World Wide Web is the double
>wide trailer of design. I mean, the damn thing oughtta be
>regulated.

Gulp. Now I'm shaking in my boots. Especially since you just recently
mentioned mine. I thought I'd worked out most of the web-design-no-nos
on my page. I know I don't have banner ads or blinkies. I don't know
if I have mouse droppings or bad design.

Of course the problem is, no one ever sends you email telling you your
site sucks. And what if the gush email you do get is just someone
trying to be double-wide polite? What do you learn from that?


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:16:07 -0600, Patriarch wrote:

> Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> OK, I know, there's more than one. <snip>
>>
>> So, without further ado, I nominate Pat Warner's site as
>> "The Best Woodworking Web Site".
>>
>> http://www.patwarner.com
>>
>> Your Mileage May Vary.
>>
>> Feel free to nominate your own.
>>
>
> Yes, Pat's is good. I've learned much there, and bought a little.

Agreed. Same here. But,
<snip>

> And an honorable mention, and word of gratitude, is certainly due Jeff
> Gorman, from the side of the pond which spells funny...

I think more than an honourable mention. It is my favourite. Simple, clean
and a wealth of useful info.

http://www.amgron.clara.net/
>
> Patriarch,
> who rather likes these 'on-topic trolls'...

--
Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html

Rick Cook wrote:
>Now if we could just convince these people that content and not cream
>sauce is important. But that's the topic for another rant.


Agreed that we should convince people but I disagree that
it's for another rant.

UA100

On 5 Mar 2005 05:45:50 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>Ok, your site does not suck. However, its not a website. Its a BLOG.

I wish I knew what that was. Then I'd know whether to be insulted or
not.

Seriously, thanks for the "does not suck" vote.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net