Where the fourteenth fret falls - a first timer asks the community for input...

[Mark Riess]

I'm building my first steel string, a small body cutaway, and I've arrived at an unresolved issue: I've cut my fret slots for a short scale. The fourteenth fret is falling 1/4" shy of the guitar body. I'm attaching 2 pics to illustrate. Is this detail merely a convention or is there a compelling reason to insist the neck meet the body under the 14th fret? Is there any other unforeseen problem I'm missing if I proceed without shortening the neck at the heel 1/4". I've checked that the bridge will still sit fully over the bridge plate. I'm using the bolt on method, no tenon. The inserts are placed and the joint was difficult to get perfect because the body-side is not quite flat at the joint. I don't want to have to refit that, and it would reduce the heel to 11/16" at it's bottom, assuming I can set the inserts in another 1/4". I fear it would weaken the heel too much to drive the inserts in further and reduce the heel thickness.

[Ned Knepp]

Hi Ron,

 I'm still collecting book and magazines. It's just about the only type of published material that I still want in hard copy instead of in digital form.  I find that I keep going back to my old material too.

The issue isn't that the old threads are not worth reading, they certainly are worth reading if you are looking for information covered in that thread. The information stored in the old threads on this site is priceless, as in it's value really can't be estimated but content of this forum would be pretty hard to duplicate in book form.

The difference  between my personal library and this forum is that I can pull out one of my old books and read it and make notes from it for myself without bring the book to the attention of everyone around me. In the case of old threads on an Internet forum, adding a comment moves the old thread to the top of the "new" stack for everyone else to see that there are comments. This is usually referred to as a "bump" in Internet speak" and is intended to bring everyone's attention to the thread.  

Think of it each thread as a conversation on a certain subject. The members and visitors make comment about the subject more or less as they wish. Sooner or later, everyone is finished making comments and the thread no longer remains "active". It will fall off of the first page of the forum because newer threads and newer comments will always be at the top of the stack. The "conversations" that are finished will fall further down the list as they remain inactive. 

When you "open the book" on an old thread, you can read it as much as you want and it will not effect anyone else BUT making a comment will, automatically move that old, inactive, thread to the top of the first page, no matter how far down the stack it was before you made the comment. In effect this injects an inactive conversation into the stream of active conversations that are currently going on in the forum. Most of us assume that any conversation ( thread) at the top of the first page is new, or at least active so when you activate an old thread with a comment, it's normal for most of us to start reading it without check the time/date.  Again, it's not that the information isn't valuable, it's that it not active. Chances are the original question is answered, the guitar is repaired, the finish is fixed. Sometimes the original poster isn't even around anymore. In other words, the material isn't currently relevant to anyone that isn't looking for specific information. Old threads contain good information but the information becomes more like a encyclopedia  than a conversation. It's good to look up things and to learn from them but they are finished as conversations.

Sometimes a thread my become relevant again but it's usually best to start a new thread rather than "bump" an old one because it allow the focus of the thread to be shifted to the specific issue rather than trying to adjust an older thread to a new focus.

I'm not sure how you view these forums, Ron. I can only "delete" my personal posts, not any threads I don't want to read. Maybe this is part of our misunderstanding. Anyway, I want you to know that I have a lot of respect for you and your contribution to this place. I've learned a lot from you over the years. I don't mean this to be a "gripe session", I just think that we need to clarify for you, why so many of us are asking that you stop opening old threads. 

 

[Ron Frazier]

seems like you and others have written close to 1000 words to correct me when you could have just moved on and not wasted my time

Ron

[Ned Knepp]

Yes, Ron. It's gone on long enough. I don't think it's a waste of time if I can help you understand why many of us object to placing comments on long inactive threads. I hoped that an explanation of how it works and why this appears to bother many of is would help you understand why this keeps coming up. I had hoped that spending time on it now would avoid spending time on it later. 

Thanks for listening.

 Ned

[Thomas James]

My thoughts are that Frank is the moderator of this forum. There have been many posts instructing folks what and how to post here? IMHO - Not your call.

Frets.Net "A meeting Place for Instrument Builders, Repairers, and Players"

[Steven D. Wilson]

Well said, Thomas

[Ned Knepp]

Hi Thomas

I acknowledge your right to hold opinions that differs from what I hold. Please allow me the right to hold opinions that are in disagreement with opinions you hold. We can't agree on everything, what would we talk about?

The target of your objection is part of an exchange between two forum members on ideas about the purpose and use of inactive threads on a forum. In essence you're objecting to personal views that I posted in a personal conversation in which , before this point, you had no involvement. You don't need my permission to take part in an open forum which, of course, includes this thread but it would be nice of you were a bit more careful of your assertions until you have your facts clear.  

I believe that it would be very hard to support your inference that I'm trying to play "Moderator of this forum" if you read my first post on page 2. If you read it, you will find that I never mentioned or even inferred that I represented anyone other than myself.  A particular quote from that post should make this abundantly easy to see this fact;

...I would appreciate it if you could refrain from posting comments on them.

Please note that "I" made a personal request of Ron and did not act in any way that is not fitting of a forum member nor did I acted in a manner that would infer any authority other than what any other member of this forum holds. I did not threaten or imply retribution in any sense in my post. My position then and now is that Ron is worthy of my respect. I can only assume that you did not, in fact, read this post which, I hope,  explains why you inferred that I attempted to use authority that is not mine when it is actually very clear  that I didn't attempt to use any "authority" except what is available to all of my fellow forum member. 

Now, with your permission, may we continue with our previously scheduled programming?

[Thomas James]

Ned, You don't need my permission. And you are an asset here. I like you.

Your right. It's just that there have been many posts as of late that seemed to be heading that way. Sorry.

Tom

[Ron Frazier]

Sorry again. I will not bother you all again.

Ron

[Ned Knepp]

Thank you Ron and Steve,

 I'm really not trying to be the forum police.  I just know from past experience that forum etiquette isn't taught in school or anywhere else, for that matter. We either pick it up by pissing off people until we figure it out why they are upset OR someone takes the time to explain things to us. It's unfair for any of us to expect others to understand why we don't like any given activity If we don't communicate the "hows and whys" of things and  there is almost no chance of coming to agreement about how to proceed without this communication. My intention was to present the "hows and whys" so that it is easier for you, Ron, or anyone else,  to understand why adding new comments to inactive threads could be an issue for some, if not most, of us. 

That was my intent. I certainly am not interested in running anyone away from the forum.

[Ron Frazier]

there has been 9 posts since I said I was sorry.  Drop it please!

ron

[Tim Mace]

All apologies and future comments are practically useless now....hope this helps !(this thread only) imo