Pages

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Looking for Feedback

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:

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=177350

9 comments:

Mad Carew said...

As a 20mm gamer in multi-periods/genres I find your site extrememly useful. I don't personally think you need to change anything. Thanks for the resource.

Alex K said...

I find your site very useful - especially when considering buying figures from a particular range it's great being able to see how they will mix with a range you already have. I don't think you need to change anything either - except more WW2 comparisons please!!!

jmodule said...

Since I've found you're blog I've been checking back just to see what's new. But I have used the labels to see what is you've reviewed in my favorite periods. I'll also echo the request for more WW2 comparisons.

Matt said...

Keep the current format-I find it all extremely useful. I visit every week to check on your progress.

Plastic Hussar said...

Thanks everybody for all the positive reinforcement, and the suggestions. I will certainly take the latter seriously. My next project will be to gather a selection of WW2 samples. (If any of you have any that you could trade to me, send me a note.)

Chris

Rafael Pardo said...

Hi
I am an old 1/72 - 20mm napoleonic wargamer and I are finding your blog very interesting.
Keep the good work!
Regards
Rafa

Anonymous said...

I've only just discovered your page and find your concept very interesting. There is too little information out there how well 20mm metal figures fit to plastic ones. I'm into 1870-1945 so I hope for more about that period.

One suggestion: It would be good if you could include an URL of the manufacturers or main distributors so if one wants to order the figures, he will know where. Thanks.

EY said...

If the metal figures come in sets, it would be nice to know the number of different poses that are provided. Otherwise, I think the current format is just fine.

I don't think I've seen one on your blog, but a comparison shot of the five different types of body build that you use in your reviews would be useful.

Plastic Hussar said...

Thanks again for the feedback. I will try to address all the suggestions.