This post is the 100th post in this blog, and I decided this was an opportunity to reflect, and ask for feedback from readers. First though, I would like to make a request for more participation. When I post the comparisons between plastic and metal ranges, I do so from only two dimensions: height and sculpting style. However, there are other ways to compare figures, such as whether they are uniformed and equipped for the same time period. I don’t have the expertise to make such comments, but I would be very happy if knowledgeable readers would. So if you see two figures compared which are clearly for very different campaigns, let me know (either by posting a response on the blog, or by emailing me.) I will add in these comments to the main postings as appropriate, and credit the authors.
Other than that, I would really like to get feedback on this site, as it is shaping up after 100 posts. Here are some questions, but feel free to comment on anything else that you wish:
Do you find the site useful as a resource (specifically, do you “look things up” here, or just check to see what’s new)?
Is there information missing from the comparison postings which you think should be there?
The blog also includes news about 20mm ranges, provided by manufacturers. Is that a good idea, or does it detract from the main point of the blog?
There are many gaps still in the coverage of this site. Which do you want to see addressed first?
I have made the choice to focus on foot figures first, and leave cavalry and artillery comparisons until later. Does this work for you?
Given the confines of the Blogger template, could the site be made more user-friendly?
I welcome your comments as responses to this post, or by email to plastic.hussar (at) yahoo (dot) com.
I will also start a thread on the “Blogs of War” board at TMP, here:
Rough Wooing in the Valley
9 hours ago