Profile photo of Andrew Normand

OK…Your one thing done well should be (‘when the basics are in place’)?

You list three in your original post. I don’t disagree with any of them.

However I’d be interested in your thoughts of how you demarcate groups where you can expect support and an answer without the **equivalent** of a hub, etc. For the users we consulted that turns out to have been an essential…and it seems to be a big downside for you. I did try and explain why it was there…


The upside of PTNC is zero-thought before publishing(aka it’s easy). The downside is that everyone must pay attention — and not everyone will be interested and may well be put off by the presumptions of the debate. That’s what I meant by it being not-scalable. In something like TP more forethought and courtesy is demanded of the poster — which group / what tags seem to be things that will add enduring value of the post and target it. I suspect PTNC serves physics teachers but could not equally well serve teachers of physics. And the lack of flexibilty lead (?)some to abuse the system – we have people using email lists as a surrogate blog, for example.

The reason for the switch to a new platform is that the current one is a highly non-linear money-sink: developers cannot make it do what we want. That’s why there are frustrations of  things being harder than they should. The ‘future-proof’ element simply means that we anticipate taking all existing data over with us. We’d like to be in a position to do that next time (if, say, we chose Joomla and it then vanished….)



Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?