The ORM Foundation

Get the facts!


Last post 05-30-2008 9:08 by Ken Evans. 5 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (6 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 05-29-2008 19:52


    Hi Ken,

    Your proposal was to leave nORMa at the top of the Tools Forum, and have 'Other' as alternative. I accepted that.

    This morning, when I log in, I find nORMa and COGNiam, and Other.

    Is it at all possible that there is a natural bias towards these two software packages, that is now reflected in the site?

    Of course, I agree that more forums can't be added for technological reasons by way of pacifying. For want of sheer will, if there was.

    I think your readership is wise Ken, and if the site shows bias, then it loses relevance. And it's not fair on the ORM community. We're just not that dumb.

    It's no disrespect to Halpin or Nijssen to say that it does their tools no good service by actively promoting theirs to the discount of others. Where is the benefit in that? Where is it, that this is not bias? or 'marketing' as you put it.

    It's your site, but it drops a notch in 'relevance' (in my opinion) if there is no focus on standards as above 'tools', and where tools aren't treated equally and on merit.

    Perhaps it's an innocent oversite. I'd need evidence of that.

    I remain, yours and with
    Best regards

    Victor Morgante




  • 05-30-2008 5:21 In reply to

    Re: Richmond



    If you had read my earlier post carefully you would see that the decision was based on traffic.
    None of the topics that are now in "other tools" have any traffic.
    I have also previously explained to you that my approach is also influenced by a policy of "let the market decide".

    No traffic = No forum - Get it?



  • 05-30-2008 7:17 In reply to

    Re: Richmond

    Sure I get it Ken.

    You just deleted something like 3 forums, so going from what you said, you now have space to start a new forum.
    If Richmond doesn't get the traffic, then you delete it. Get it!!

    I didn't expect you to delete the other forums, just because of my request. Now they are gone too.
    As a customer, I was kinda hoping they would have got posts at some stage too. That's fair. OF is not that old. Capice!
    Cogniam has 4 posts.

    Look, I don't mind you being brief, but you have to understand other people's point of view.

    Maybe if Richmond gets 4 posts, you'll grant it a Forum, theres 3 open now and we'll see who gets it ;)

    I remain comfortably yours

    How much does it cost to buy new forum licences by the by? Maybe we can chip in an buy some more. We'll pass the hat around


  • 05-30-2008 8:06 In reply to

    Re: Richmond

    Hi Victor,

    Oh dear - you keep finding the wrong end of a stick that isn't there.
    I was planning to consolidate the forums long before you made your request about Richmond so there is no need for you to feel guilty about that.

    There is nothing that prevents people from making posts about any tool in the "other tools" section.
    CogNIAM hasposts from several people. In addition (what you cant know) is that the internal stats show that the number of people who viewed threads about SBVR/CogNIAM & ORM is much greater that views on the other forums. So IMHO, the market has decided.

    As you say - if there are several posts about a tool from several people, and the stats show that there is "viewing interest"  then I will give the tool its own forum.

    It is nice of you to suggest chipping in for site licences and development. Thank you for the thought.
    FYI. To go to the "next level" would take several thousand dollars in license fees plus about a month's technical work to upgrade the site.
    (This site is based on over 500,000 lines of complex code plus a 110 table SQL Server 2005 database.)

    The licence fees don't bother me as much as the effort of a month or more. What you see at present is the result of over two thousand hours of my time plus '000s in direct cash costs.

    Hope this helps you to better understand where I am coming from.


  • 05-30-2008 8:37 In reply to

    Re: Richmond

    Hi Ken,

    Okay, okay. I concede. In another life I would have been a lawyer. I certainly have enough paranoia to ask the probing questions!
    You do well to to see me for what I am, harmless but shrewd. Certainly I get to know you this way and visa versa.

    That's a shame about the the effort required. That's pretty harsh.

    To be honest, it wouldn't be before the point where you could start attracting and charge for advertising on your site, Ken.
    I'd certainly look at it. It's early days for Richmond of early, but you have my vote for interest, I'll say that much.

    Well, I hope there is a way such that the community can benefit from more forums sometime soon.

    My point is scincere. Even though those other tools (like the online one, which I couldn't find on Google) didn't have posts, it was good to know they (the tools) were there, and I thouht they were there for the express point of 'just letting people know' and hopefully attracting posts.
    Certainly, the economies dictate the restructure (as you say).

    Touche, i bow my head. I think well of you.

    Best regards



  • 05-30-2008 9:08 In reply to

    Re: Richmond

    Hi Victor,

    I'm glad that we have come to an amicable agreement based on understanding. Thanks for your patience.

    Regarding "advertising" - Yes, I could quite easily switch on advertising and get a little bit of income.
    The reason that I don't do such things has to do with my purpose for creating, maintaining and evolving this website.

    My primary aim is to create a global ORM Community.
    Since I feel that most website members and guests would regard advertising as an irritating distraction I have not enabled it on this site.

    Hope this helps to further clarify things.



Page 1 of 1 (6 items)
© 2008-2014 The ORM Foundation: A UK not-for-profit organisation -------------- Terms of Service