12th January 2009, 10:29 AM
I'm perhaps too deeply involved in this subject to comment objectively, so feel free to tell me if i'm being far too biased.
The websites have different purposes and are being done by very different organisations.
CAF is great for everyone to get involved in and post the work of their groups. They can keep others updated and get advice from others. My main issue is the ease (or not) of filling things in. I'm not great with computers but am no wiz. And i can't figure out how to do it; hence none of our stuff is up there. So if i can't manage it, i'm certain the groups who we work with will largely not be able to manage it either. Plus it's more of a showcase than a site for advice. But still, very useful for making sure there is some publication of community based projects. And some groups are very good with this sort of thing.
Community Archaeology Ltd I am very curious of. The site could potentially provide a lot more information, but it essentially seems to be a lot of what i do for a living, but privately. I have thought about the scope for a thing like this, but couldnt figure out how it could pay for itself without, for example, the support i get from the rest of the teams in the County Council, or goverment funding such as the Nottinghamshire Building Better Communities fund. But still, the idea of a centralised website for advice on community archaeology appeals to me greatly.
Shorewatch i think is a great page for a community project. It's clear for a start, and not too wordy or difficult to navigate through. It also has standardised sheets available for download, so that all the groups are working to the same sets. And vitally important; it has reports available for download.
The York AT site is probably the closest to what i do, and i have to say i think our site is more comprehensive (i'm proud of what we do, so shoot me). A problem with sites like this is that often there is corporate design to think about. They can end up being fairly dry soulless things, which hardly reflect the enthusiasm, vibrancy, or professionalism. (Also we are having trouble getting approval for putting reports up on our site, which is a major issue.) I'm also rather suprised that the 'get involved' section says that they aren't taking on volunteers at the mo. ??!
Anyhoo...
~~~~~
Thunder rolled. ... It rolled a six.
The websites have different purposes and are being done by very different organisations.
CAF is great for everyone to get involved in and post the work of their groups. They can keep others updated and get advice from others. My main issue is the ease (or not) of filling things in. I'm not great with computers but am no wiz. And i can't figure out how to do it; hence none of our stuff is up there. So if i can't manage it, i'm certain the groups who we work with will largely not be able to manage it either. Plus it's more of a showcase than a site for advice. But still, very useful for making sure there is some publication of community based projects. And some groups are very good with this sort of thing.
Community Archaeology Ltd I am very curious of. The site could potentially provide a lot more information, but it essentially seems to be a lot of what i do for a living, but privately. I have thought about the scope for a thing like this, but couldnt figure out how it could pay for itself without, for example, the support i get from the rest of the teams in the County Council, or goverment funding such as the Nottinghamshire Building Better Communities fund. But still, the idea of a centralised website for advice on community archaeology appeals to me greatly.
Shorewatch i think is a great page for a community project. It's clear for a start, and not too wordy or difficult to navigate through. It also has standardised sheets available for download, so that all the groups are working to the same sets. And vitally important; it has reports available for download.
The York AT site is probably the closest to what i do, and i have to say i think our site is more comprehensive (i'm proud of what we do, so shoot me). A problem with sites like this is that often there is corporate design to think about. They can end up being fairly dry soulless things, which hardly reflect the enthusiasm, vibrancy, or professionalism. (Also we are having trouble getting approval for putting reports up on our site, which is a major issue.) I'm also rather suprised that the 'get involved' section says that they aren't taking on volunteers at the mo. ??!
Anyhoo...
~~~~~
Thunder rolled. ... It rolled a six.