In response to Jody's footnotes below Bill Maguire's post, purely
from my own perspective, I think Jody and Robbie have the current
format exactly right. In essence it hadn't changed much [since 1995].
The content heading is perfect. A quick visual scan tells each and
everyone of us if or not there is something in our sphere of interest.
There's an uncanny ability with editors to add an appropriate link when
This format is tried, trusted and so easy -- it's a breeze. If it's
starting to get short of post's, in all probability it's due to the
common problem in our field of interest, that existing subscribers pass
away faster than they can be replenished. So what can be done to keep
our fraternal passion alive. This question has been deliberated at
great length of recent years.
The MBSGB, while trying to address this seemingly futile problem in
part, looked at what could be done about improving our web design.
Outside opinion was sought by a specialist web content manager who
quickly picked up on the age of the people in the photographs. More
specifically, there were no young people.
That's something just a fair number of us can do something about.
Christmas is coming, get some family pictures and videos of youngsters
18 to 30 operating a machine, and press them to humour you by sharing
on social media by telling them that you have noted similar have had
100's of likes and 1000's of views. (We only need look at YouTube hits
If we can get younger family members posting on Facebook, they will
generate the much coveted 'likes' and hopefully open us up to a wider