[thesite] Re: [admin] Burning gifs from the past

[Martin]

On Saturday, March 30, 2002, at 09:50  pm, A. Erickson wrote:

>> Sure, some of the articles in that section *could* be dated. But
>> a) only some of them - others are as relevent now as they were then
>
> So, are you thinking it's not a priority?

I think it's not a priority to remove them. And I think that some of
the articles in that section we'd be nothing short of dumb to
dismiss *just* because they're in that section.

>> b) is that a problem for a 'revived article'?
>
> I think it is. As a user, I'm *so* not interested in irrelevant info.
> Personally, as a user, I'd be more interested in a "staff picks" type
> thing for article revival instead of just a randomizer.

Well yes, so would everyone I think. But looking back at how
we were then *is* interesting, particularly when it's opinion
and commentary rather than hard news that you can research
anywhere.

Cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
email: martin at easyweb.co.uk             PGP ID:	0xA835CCCB
	martin at members.evolt.org      snailmail:	30 Shandon Place
   tel:	+44 (0)774 063 9985				Edinburgh,
   url:	http://www.easyweb.co.uk			Scotland