Prevost-Stuff.com. Learned more there?

[lewpopp]

Why is it that all of a sudden the Prevost discussion has a lot more to offer than the POG?

Is it that the guy that are learning feel more comfortable there than going to POG and getting ridiculed. I have no fear, but some people are easily intimidated.

I'm also trying to become a menber of the Joint Chiefs of Staff so I can suck up and get some stars.:D

[Jerry Winchester]

http://jdub.smugmug.com/photos/65484413-M.jpg

[Jerry Winchester]

Just kidding........:)

[Jon Wehrenberg]

I think Lew has a valid observation. Maybe the answer is that there are more on the prevost-stuff site so there are going to be more posts and responses.

I can tell you that if a question is asked there, I answer there, and then sometimes find the same question is asked on the POG. Maybe I should reverse my list of sites I visit.

I doubt if anybody on the POG is intimidated. Very few have shied away from picking on anybody or exposing themselves to teasing. Except Lew. He seems to intuitively know when to take a shot, and how to ignore the resulting return of fire.

The recent postings from Coloradobus about leaking hub cover seal shows a perfect example of why his question and the ensuing discussion should have been on the POG site. First, if he included a photo of the leak area it might have shown hub cap brackets attached by using the hub removal holes instead of the studs. Then when questions and discussions followed, more photos could have been posted. Maybe the fault here lies with POG members and their fear to state the obvious on prevost-stuff. The obvious to me is to post questions on this forum so we can SEE what is being discussed.

I'll volunteer to start suggesting those who post certain questions to move their question to POG along with photos.

A question for Jeff or Jim: Is there any way to review among the numbers of POG members who actively post on prevost-stuff and who regularly post on prevost-stuff who are not POG members? If the answer is that few prevost-stuff regulars are not POG mmembers then maybe we should bias forum discussions to this site.

[Just Plain Jeff]

There will be a conversation at the POG rally about the two boards and how they may be working differently in the future.

POG members will have the opportunity to voice their opinions about several options which are under consideration.

There are advantages and disadvantages to many of the options; we've decided to talk about this in person rather than to try to post our way through the decision-making process.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Jeff
Member of the Milwaukee Heavy Duty Club

[Jeffery Raymond]

At the rally, there were a couple of conversations going on at the same time while we were discussing the operations of this site and some smart person said that the two sites should be combined (Prevost-stuff and POG).

Since our basic rule is that the person who brings up the idea owns it, can the person who brought that up tell us a little more about the idea?

Thank you, thank you very much.

[Jon Wehrenberg]

I don't know if you are referring to me, but we have discussed the Cessna owner's site (www.cessna.org ) and they have a two part set-up.

Some of the site requires membership and the other part is open to all.

The information sharing part of POG should require membership. The POG forum should require membership, but Mango suggested last night that maybe to entice new members the forum should be open for free for one month or something like that.

We discussed only leaving posts on Prevost-stuff for a very short time frame, and move the older posts to the POG forum.

What I do not understand is how you or Jim make money from these sites, so maybe you want to open everything up for free to get the hits so your advertisers "pay" your profits. Bus-nuts is an example like that.

AOPA and Cessna Pilots Association exist because of memberships and thus can limit their site's access.

[Ben]

Posting photos on the POG site requires that those photos be posted on another site (which I consider to be a huge pain in the A$$, so you won't see me posting my photos), so how is the posting of photos a real advantage of the POG site since someone could just as easily link to photos that are on an external site? This is the only board I've ever posted to that can technically show photos but requires them to be located on an external site.

[Jeffery Raymond]

You can post any image up to 97.7kb directly to the site without a link. If this is a problem in size, we can increase it!

[Ray Davis]

What I do not understand is how you or Jim make money from these sites

Certainly in a time sense, managing a board like this is a huge personal committment. But, costwise, the cost of a bulletin board system these days is really pretty minimal.


The vBulletin software costs $160 (one time fee) to own outright. Optional maintenance is $30/year.

A cheap website can run as little as $10/mo.
A reasonable website about $40.
A really nice one with good amount of space, $100/mo.


Prices above are assuming you are leasing time on a shared server, most likely with a VPS (virtual private server option). Costs CAN get a lot higher if you own your own server, leased lines etc.

[truk4u]

Jeff,
Tell me how to stick a JPG in my text?

[Ray Davis]

I haven't tried it, but down below the reply entry form is a button titled manage attachments. This brings up a dialog which allows you to upload. As a test, I'll attach a small image here.


ray

Well bummer, that doesn't end up in the message

64

Second bummer. According to online help, and similar info in googled sites, the syntax

64

should have worked, (my attachment id was 64) but it seems that the image is pointing to the wrong location .staging.prevostownersgroup.com, rather than just prevostownersgroup.com. I noticed a similar issue with subscription emails, also pointing to staging.xxxx.

This might be just a simply vBulletin config setting which wasn't updated when the board was brought online? We use vBulletin at our company, but it's an older version, and they've changed the image attachment stuff dramatically.

-ray

[MangoMike]

test message

[Jeffery Raymond]

As part of the upgrade to full status, apparently one of the functions for posting is in fact on staging and we will notify the Over Priced Software People to get it fixed!

[Jeffery Raymond]

We just received confirmation from the Over Priced Software People that they are going to get the full board moved.

Here's the story:

This is a completely different structure in the overall site than, well, the other one, using something called, "Site Manager," which will allow for much more flexibility over the years. What we did is get the site designed as www.staging.prevostownersgroup.com to get this moving early on.

As the site has become populated with more features, such as the many articles on the front page, they have been tweaking functionality. One of the remaining things is to moving this forum into full operational mode. That should be done today.

We have a flexible forum here and if you are experiencing any difficulties, pls PM us for support on specific issues; we're getting closer and closer.

Thanks much!

[Ben]

Here goes my test... if it works, check out the pic... it's a prevost with an interesting license plate. It drove past me a few months ago in Florida.

YES! It worked!
I just wish it would show the image full size within the message without having to click on it.

[Ray Davis]

Ben, did you just attach the image?

Supposedly if you do something like 64 where the number is your attachment ID it's supposed to display the image. Did you try that?

Ray

[Ray Davis]

Let my try one more time. Perhaps it's working now?

77

Nope, when you use the attach syntax in the message body, it works, however the URL points to staging.prevostownersgroup.com. Bummer.

[Ben]

I was able to attach the image. I click the Manage Attachment button at the bottom of the reply screen, fed it an image, clicked upload and it was attached to the message. I didn't have to do anything special in the message itself.

As an expiment, this time I did as above, but then clicked on the link for the image in the Attache Files area below the reply area that I'm typing this text into, which opened the image and then I copied the URL for that image and now I'm inserting that via the Image icon that I usually use to attach images that are on external web sites (ya know the mountain icon that's above the reply field). That way I have a URL and it just happens to be a prevostownersgroup.com URL.

http://www.prevostownersgroup.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=78&stc=1&d=1152751191

I'm guessing that didn't work because it doesn't end in .JPG or any other image formats file extension so the boad didn't recognize it as an image.

Here I'll try the tex that Ray suggested:
78

And that didn't work either. So, I guess we're stuck with a tiny preview that you have to click on to view full sized. That's not all that idea, but it better than nothing.

[Jim Skiff]

Let's try something here...

86

Looks like it's working now. Just use the
attachmentid syntax.

Matthew, logged in as Jim.

[Ray Davis]

Mathew & Jim,

What's different here about your CNN logo vs the attachments that Ben and I tried. I now see that my attachment (and Ben's) has appeared, but in those cases they are thumbnails, not the full sized images. Clicking on them goes to a page to view the image.

However, your CNN logo is larger than a thumbnail, and it doesn't "click".
What's different?

Ray

[Jim Skiff]

I think the difference has to do with the resolution (size) of the original image. If it's over a certain limit, it creates a thumbnail and links to the full-size image. If it's under the limit, it displays it full-size in the text.


I now see that my attachment (and Ben's) has appeared, but in those cases they are thumbnails, not the full sized images. Clicking on them goes to a page to view the image.

[Ray Davis]

That makes sense. I noticed one of my smaller attachments (earlier in the thread) actually displayed just fine.

It might be nice to verify what that size is. The last image I attached (and Ben's as well), were not all that big, and I would have thought they were acceptable for display. Mine were only 640x480 type of resolution.

[MangoMike]

Ok Jim it's time to upgrade those non thumbnail limits. Let the spirit free so we can display some nice pixs without having to post them someplace else first then link. I promise no naked pictures of JPJ.

Thanks
Mike