On the home page...
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31116
Printed Date: November 29 2024 at 22:00
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: On the home page...
Posted By: toolsofthetrade
Subject: On the home page...
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 09:17
|
...it says `As of today, the discography lists 12,872 titles from exactly 2,549 bands'
...i'm not to fond of the `exactly' put in there...it's superflous and isn't needed and draws attention from us obsessive pedants. It would be needed if, say, the number of bands was like a round number, like 2,500, but of course its not going to be like `2,549 and a half bands'
If it has been put in place to show how good prog archives is at keeping track of the number of bands that are listed in it, kinda like `oh yeah we're so clever we know the exact number of bands on our website' can i suggest that it be re-phrased to something like - `the exact number on bands listed on prog archives, as of today, is 2,549. This still has the same effect but it sounds better.
Thankyou! ------------- Tool backwards is Loot. Best signature EVAR! Now smell my mattress! |
Replies:
Posted By: Firepuck
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 09:38
|
You are correct, in this context the work 'exactly' is redundant.
The 'As of today...' should remain as is but it wouldn't bother me if 'exactly' is removed. In truth, it doesn't bother me that it is there either... ------------- Kryten : "'Pub'? Ah yes, A meeting place where humans attempt to achieve advanced states of mental incompetence by the repeated consumption of fermented vegetable drinks." |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 09:43
|
this is a site improvement issue. and I disagree, at such a valued number, I see no problem in "exactly" or "specifically" pointing out how many bands are we dealing. suggestion: "x.xxx and counting" instead of "exactly x.xxx"? ------------- 
|
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 09:49
Hey, isn't this a case of the pot blaming the kettle? |
toolsofthetrade wrote:Posted By: toolsofthetrade
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 10:01
|
`Hey, isn't this a case of the pot blaming the kettle?'
That was intentional. A little joke. ------------- Tool backwards is Loot. Best signature EVAR! Now smell my mattress! |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 13:15
|
I like Ricochet's suggestion.
On a side note, toolsofthetrade, Tool may be loot backwards...
BUT!
Embargo! (go figure it out)
|
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 14:26
I think you guys have way too much time on your hands!!!! ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: eugene
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 14:40
 that's true------------- carefulwiththataxe |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 14:41
|
------------- sig |
Posted By: toolsofthetrade
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 15:01
|
Embargo! (go figure it out)
....ograbme? i don't get it... ------------- Tool backwards is Loot. Best signature EVAR! Now smell my mattress! |
Posted By: toolsofthetrade
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 15:05
|
has it got something to do with the term embargo in international commerce and politics, where an embargo is the prohibition of commerce and trade with a certain country, in order to isolate it and to put its government into a difficult internal situation, given that the effects of the embargo are often able to make its economy suffer from the initiative?
less economy...loot(money)...is that it? ------------- Tool backwards is Loot. Best signature EVAR! Now smell my mattress! |