Can you explain exactly what you mean by , a closed forum ?
I lack to see anything in this photo other than water over a lense , if he wants a long stair case to heaven he needs to get one of these .
Database
- Thread starter TomFerry
- Start date
I lack to see anything in this photo other than water over a lense , if he wants a long stair case to heaven he needs to get one of these .
bharries
Member
Close the mine search function to paid members? I don't want to upset anybody by suggesting this but it has been spoken about back during the early days here if I remember. I will happily donate to help with running costs. Then again I do realise anybody can find mine information with a bit of research.
The screenshot I posted was related to the "Wrysgan - Buddlepit" you can see the hiking guy has just copied and pasted information from here which makes me believe people are using the forum to find places to explore and rightly so but these kinds of people only do it for their own glory through clicks, this then leads to others following suit and having no regard for their own safety and conservation of these places.
Aberllefenni is trashed now, it's sad to see these places being defiled.
This probably ought to be split into it's own thread for any discussion/comments as it's not really about Aberllefen(n )i.
Last edited:
Thankyou for responding,I appreciate your kind offer .
Its definitely not that simple, ill make sure all the others notice this post also.
The trust, to the best of my understanding was formed on the basis of a free database for all to view and use , I do understand where you're coming from . We sadly cant cherry pick who views what , I would love this, I personally would wipe all the wrong sort of the forum !
I have recently met younger mine explores and still have hope the new generation has got good people in it .
@BertyBasset
@CJ
@Alex
@ChrisJC
@Osian
Last edited:
It's a perennial question - should access to information be restricted?... It's fraught with difficulties - how do you choose?, how do you deal with the inevitable growth in the number of approved people. How many levels? Aditnow struggled with this point.
My view is to have factual information freely available to all. Most information is already out there anyway. At least we can be the source of truth.
Chris.
My view is to have factual information freely available to all. Most information is already out there anyway. At least we can be the source of truth.
Chris.
This is where we are at the moment.
Mine Search, the Gallery, and Documents are currently only available to registered users.
The Mine Details pages, which are accessed via Mine Search, are available to unregistered users if they have a direct link. These pages are therefore accessible via search engines such as Google, although their ranking will vary.
Individual mine documents and images are also accessible if the URL is known.
To take Aberllefenni and Wrysgan as examples:
With that in mind, it is worth looking at exactly what we are saying for each site:
Aberllefenni
Wrysgan
The intention is to provide a factual account of the history and current situation for each entry. I would not say that any of these descriptions are sensationalising either site.
Although, if I wanted to be critical, we could choose to remove references such as workings being approximately 600 ft high, or descriptions of workings extending through the hill and emerging at a pit with an abandoned crane. Likewise, statements such as “the mines contain extensive horizontal tunnels and vast underground chambers” are, in my view, generally known facts rather than sensitive revelations.
In the case of Wrysgan, we could choose to remove wording such as “most of the mine’s adits remain open”.
From an information-management point of view, we have two tools at our disposal:
As a Mining History Trust, we could not realistically hide everything behind a login or paywall.
I suggest that the best way forward is for people with a specific interest in particular sites to review what we are publishing in the database and submit change requests to redact anything that is felt might draw too much unwanted attention.
In any case, I think the Daily Post has recently done a much better job than us at sensationalising not only underground sites, but gorges, infinity pools, abandoned factories and mansions as well as fisherman's paths.
Sorry this is a bit rushed — it’s time to get dinner on the go!
Robin
Mine Search, the Gallery, and Documents are currently only available to registered users.
The Mine Details pages, which are accessed via Mine Search, are available to unregistered users if they have a direct link. These pages are therefore accessible via search engines such as Google, although their ranking will vary.
Individual mine documents and images are also accessible if the URL is known.
To take Aberllefenni and Wrysgan as examples:
- Aberllefenni: We currently rank well down the search results for “Moel Grochan”, but appear second for “Aberllefenni Quarry”.
- Wrysgan: We appear second in the search results for “Wrysgan”.
With that in mind, it is worth looking at exactly what we are saying for each site:
Aberllefenni
Wrysgan
The intention is to provide a factual account of the history and current situation for each entry. I would not say that any of these descriptions are sensationalising either site.
Although, if I wanted to be critical, we could choose to remove references such as workings being approximately 600 ft high, or descriptions of workings extending through the hill and emerging at a pit with an abandoned crane. Likewise, statements such as “the mines contain extensive horizontal tunnels and vast underground chambers” are, in my view, generally known facts rather than sensitive revelations.
In the case of Wrysgan, we could choose to remove wording such as “most of the mine’s adits remain open”.
From an information-management point of view, we have two tools at our disposal:
- Change requests – one option is to request the removal of sensitive information.
- Unregistered-user redactions – we can hide selected sections from users who are not logged in.*
As a Mining History Trust, we could not realistically hide everything behind a login or paywall.
I suggest that the best way forward is for people with a specific interest in particular sites to review what we are publishing in the database and submit change requests to redact anything that is felt might draw too much unwanted attention.
In any case, I think the Daily Post has recently done a much better job than us at sensationalising not only underground sites, but gorges, infinity pools, abandoned factories and mansions as well as fisherman's paths.
Sorry this is a bit rushed — it’s time to get dinner on the go!
Robin
I think the guy just uses AI sometimes and he thinks it's called 'Wrysgan Buddle Pit mine' which is why he used it. And also the AI probably stole the text off Buddlepit.
A few posts further down he posted this:
I think Robin's suggestion of taking guidance from those with a particular interest and encouraging them to submit change requests. As long as information remains factual, that should work. And removing any hyperbole is a good thing (if there even is any!)
Chris.
Chris.
photobilly
New member
i think these people get there information from other influences, i see so many posts of mines or features with nicknames or local village names because they simply don't know nor are they indeed interested in finding out, all they want to know is how to know find it, insert arse picture click bail thumbnail and reap the likes. these are easy to spot as there missing a lid and armed with a temu 10 million lumen head torch. while i would be happy to pay for access i think the problem lays else wear and for witch i have no remedy, just hope its a passing trend and they move back to infinity pools what ever they are.
photobilly
New member
bit of a rant
vicarage
Active member
I spend a lot of time gathering and displaying freely accessible underground resources. It would be a great shame to remove all of my Buddlepit references because it was hidden behind a paywall. And interest in the site would dry up if search engines could not see it. I don't see why the Trust would spend the time gathering information for <100 users.
For sensitive sites we could keep any references to underground access or recent photos from underground out of the database entry.
I imagine the attention seekers wouldnt be as interested if there is a chance they are just going to find a run in entrance. Of course they could get this information from somewhere else , but there is little we could do about that.
I imagine the attention seekers wouldnt be as interested if there is a chance they are just going to find a run in entrance. Of course they could get this information from somewhere else , but there is little we could do about that.
Well sAid
This is how I feel also , we would be cutting of the hand that feeds us new members also .
I don’t want you to only have all “old aditnow “
I personally wouldn’t agree to make this happen , I am confident it won’t also .
tdobson
Member
I'm grateful for this conversation, and want to extend my gratitude to the DB contributors, admins, staff members and community members who care about this resource.
I too get very upset by the style of posts OP linked and the loss of sites which I felt were jewels in a crown (despite the frustration that I empathise with the position the owner is in).
I've wrestled with this problem in my head across several threads and I'd like to encourage anyone with new ideas to contribute to a thread I feel is still somewhat unresolved - namely asking "what level of exposure is it appropriate to give different sites?" - (Go read that thread and answer there)
This is a topic it's normal to find emotive, and everyone's doing a great job at being kind to each other even when we disagree. Let's keep doing that.
I too get very upset by the style of posts OP linked and the loss of sites which I felt were jewels in a crown (despite the frustration that I empathise with the position the owner is in).
I've wrestled with this problem in my head across several threads and I'd like to encourage anyone with new ideas to contribute to a thread I feel is still somewhat unresolved - namely asking "what level of exposure is it appropriate to give different sites?" - (Go read that thread and answer there)
This is a topic it's normal to find emotive, and everyone's doing a great job at being kind to each other even when we disagree. Let's keep doing that.
More people that bring forward ideas the better .
No one is going to get ate alive for suggesting something .
I personally would love to mute @Alex a lot of the time, but I would get told off ….
Having analysed the information further, Alex appears to be correct. This chap's done the Wrysgan trip, then got AI to give him a description to apply to his video. If you Google ''tell me about stairway to heaven wrysgan" and choose AI response you get-
Which if you check the Youtube description above are incredibly similar.
The 'Wrysgan-Buddlepit' text on the other screen grab in the other thread appears to be AI harvested tab title for the Wrysgan database entry which AI has mistakenly taken to be the mine name.
tldr; I'm satisfied that he's not been inspired by sensationalistic info on Buddlepit to do his trips, but he's just cut a few corners in documenting his videos.
Which if you check the Youtube description above are incredibly similar.
The 'Wrysgan-Buddlepit' text on the other screen grab in the other thread appears to be AI harvested tab title for the Wrysgan database entry which AI has mistakenly taken to be the mine name.
tldr; I'm satisfied that he's not been inspired by sensationalistic info on Buddlepit to do his trips, but he's just cut a few corners in documenting his videos.
Sadly there's a lot of AI Sloppers appearing now, I've been watching one local one for almost a year, he's built himself quite a following by posting drone photos and videos of sites (not just mine related) but gets very hissy and dismissive if anyone dares to point out any issues or misinformation with his commentary or words. I've watched to see if his interest 'develops' and he starts asking for more info and shows signs an actual interest in what he's showing... but he doesn't appear to be interested in broadening or deepening his knowledge (which is nill at present).
I don't know what the answer is to having an open or closed database. Perhaps some form of 'length of membership' or 'level of contribution' to the forum measure, so at least some basic level of interaction with Buddlepit needs to have been done before the access opens up to more info. Certainly more than just a single 'intro' posting and/or 'lurking'. it would mean people would have to make an effort and wouldn't be able to access (and run off with) the info immediately they joined up.
I don't know what the answer is to having an open or closed database. Perhaps some form of 'length of membership' or 'level of contribution' to the forum measure, so at least some basic level of interaction with Buddlepit needs to have been done before the access opens up to more info. Certainly more than just a single 'intro' posting and/or 'lurking'. it would mean people would have to make an effort and wouldn't be able to access (and run off with) the info immediately they joined up.
vicarage
Active member
In a world of AI slop, we need reputable, curated sources more than ever. This website is not competing against internal YouTube searches or general video searches, it just needs to come high in the text searches for the engines. And it will only do it partly if other mining groups mention it (and we could check and encourage mutual links), and mainly if it comes high in automated searches, and for that it needs to be visible to all. I'm currently hardening my wikis against AI scrapers, but am making sure that the key search engines can see them, otherwise what I've done will never be noticed.