Chiff and Fipple Forums

How about a sticky for on-line whistle instruction and perhaps another for recommended instruction books.

These questions seem to come up with a great deal of regularity and the sticky/reference might help newcomers. Might be at least as worthwhile as a ten year-old message on the status of Copeland whistles.

Just sayin'

Best wishes.

Steve

Brilliant!

Piper Joe

Not a bad idea. We'll have a look at it.

It's up and running.

Right now we're looking at it as an experiment, but we're hoping it will fill a need. Between Ben and me it took some forging to finally get it right, but we think the result is acceptable.

Please sing our praises here, and not on the sticky.

A big tip o' the hat goes to Steve. Thanks for the idea.

Hope the sticky thread is successful and eliminates much redundancy elsewhere.

That's the idea. You're still going to get some redundancy popping up here and there, but that's life on the Chiffly plane. What's important is that, like the CCCP, it's something you can point or go directly to, instead of having to search all over with your fingers crossed.

I like the idea of a sticky, but also I think it helps the newcomer feel welcome for us to engage them in conversation right off the bat. This opportunity to say, "Hello" and "Welcome" and "Here's what I think may help you" on an individual basis humanizes the whole process. Those of us tired of answering what appears to be a repetitive question can just skip the topic, no harm no foul. I know it does seem like the same question is getting asked repeatedly. It is and it should be.

Of course the sticky is not meant to eliminate the need to be helpful to newcomers. What it does is have it all out there for you in one place, and telling a newcomer about it is not necessarily a brushoff. If you see one resource that gets your interest, you can ask about it in the Forum, or send a PM to the poster for his or her further commentary. If the selection is too big to choose from, you can still ask for recommendations in the Forum. That's what we're here for. Plus, there might be something there that we'd forgotten.

Nanohedron wrote:It's up and running.

Please sing our praises here, and not on the sticky.

A big tip o' the hat goes to Steve. Thanks for the idea.

Looks like a great idea! Thanks for getting it going! (And hopefully will be kept up to date as links expire and resources move or cease to exist.)

Will have to check out this Chiff Fipplesford! Boy howdy! Tuba and whistle!!!

Actually, the full name is Chiff N. Fipplesford, but we didn't want to go overboard with minutiae.

Made a clarification in the first paragraph, as it occurred to me that print also exists online, and can rightly be included with books. Instead of "online" as a category, I changed it to "live/recorded", to denote e-video recordings, DVDs, and real-time online tutelage. If someone has a better term than "live/recorded", I look forward to your input.

OK, I made a start using references from some recent postings. Hope others will add to the list.

Best wishes.

Steve

Steve Bliven wrote:OK, I made a start using references from some recent postings. Hope others will add to the list.

Best wishes.

Steve

Good man yourself. A minor quibble: we did ask that unrelated entries (different authors, IOW) be posted separately. TBH I'm not sure how important this really is, but it would help in better indicating, at a glance, the volume of material out there. But, it is what it is. I see no call for the mods to be actively involved in policing that.

I've changed the wording for better clarity.

So I posted separate sites for a few tutorials. Not sure separating makes a difference unless it matters to the number of hits or C&F technical requirements... need of numbers? I've posted in previous threads with a short list of helpful instruction on one post. Either way would seem to work.

ytliek wrote:Not sure separating makes a difference unless it matters to the number of hits or C&F technical requirements... need of numbers?

Neither. As I pointed out:

Nanohedron wrote:...it would help in better indicating, at a glance, the volume of material out there.

That's all. Not sure how important it is, but the more I think about it, the less I suspect it matters. So I thank you for complying with the request, because it gives me something solid to weigh against Steve's post in this regard. I might even get rid of that "requirement" as utterly unnecessary. As we've said, this is an experiment at this point, so it'll become what it is naturally.