I've just spent a fantastic weekend at Coniston Copper Mines, and was wondering about the indexing for it, and whether people think it should be changed, as there actually isn't a Coniston Copper Mine, its just the area, making the pictures of the sights and levels incorrect - at the moment the main album is a collection from many different mines, which to me feels wrong.

For example all the mines around Nenthead have their own pages and albums, its not all stuck under a homogenised Nenthead Lead Mine.

Any thoughts on cleaning it up and adding the actual mine names, such as Deep Level, Flemings Level, Taylors Level, Grey Crag Level etc.... As there is just over a 100 pics, it should not be such a big job??

---

My suggestion is to re-arrange areas such as this with a main and sub name system separated by a colon. For instance "Coniston Copper Mines: Hospital Level" and "Nenthead Mines: Smallcleugh"
In the alphabetical index all Coniston mines would be together under "C" but this would be a benefit to someone who wanted to browse Coniston mines.

---

Why not create a separate album for each individual mine within the main Coniston Copper Mine entry (I think this has been done elsewhere)

I was thinking about a similar thing for the Old Gang Mines 😉

---

Jimbo's suggestion would work nicely.

It's the approach that was taken for some (not all) of the mines around Nent IIRC.

What are other people's feelings on this? Especially those with in-depth knowledge of Coniston (which I certainly lack).

Ta

---

Mr Jimbo's idea sounds better than mine and I go with it.

It’s also more logical as in computer directories and sub directories in the form of a tree, it’s the same in the Windows registry. So main area becomes equivalent of a ‘root folder’ in MS newspeak

Trust me to complicate it!

---

Actually I didn't think there was anythng wrong with your idea either Roy... the other one just seemed like less work :angel:

So if everybody is happy with that approach, one of the regional editors can set up a load of albums (suggest a user and archive for each entry).

Colonel - I don't know anybody who has explored there more than you, what are your thoughts on this?

:flowers:

---

So if everybody is happy with that approach, one of the regional editors can set up a load of albums (suggest a user and archive for each entry).

:flowers:

That sounds fine to me, however will there be a description space generated for each album for the particular mine put in like there is if you were to enter a mine in, in its own right? If not would it not be breaking away from the normal format that has been used for all other mines...

Would it be that hasslesome to move over the 100 or so pics into the proper respective mines?

---

The premise under which this reorganisation has been proposed is incorrect. There IS a Coniston Copper Mine and it is not just an area encomassing a lot of different mines. There was never more than one lease in effect at Coniston at any one time. All of the areas of this huge complex are connected, there are no individual mines. Because it is big, comprises many levels, shafts and stopes is no reason to slice up into small pieces and attempt to compartmentalise it. It is one single very large and complex system.

---

Dont try and fix something that aint broken!

---

Dont try and fix something that aint broken!

Wise words there :flowers:

Colonel - do you think it is worth entertaining the idea of albums for specifc, and named, areas of Coniston. Something we've (well Vanoord mainly in one of his thinking up jobs for me moments) have considered with places like Cwmorthin. In order to categorise photos more specifically... Back Vein workings, Old Vein workings etc.

---

OK, so there is a Coniston Copper Mine, fine another mine to the database. However, how can I actually find out if someone has posted any information on it, how can I sort out which photographs are from workings accessed from it, etc… I cannot, because is all under one heading.

Another example, if I was trying to look at some photographs specifically from Hospital Level, I cannot do that, because it is not indexed, and photographs from it are mixed in with photos from various stopes and other levels across two valleys – all in one album.

Yes it is a large a complex system all connected, but there are multiple access levels to it in two valleys and this is why I think each should either have its own album or actual index, as at the moment it is all a mismash. Each level has a history etc… and accessed a specific area, which over time ended up be connected to others – sound familiar, same thing in Nenthead, but it would be a horrible mess if everything was indexed under one name, which I feel is starting to happen.

Do you really think Colonel, that for example sticking photographs from say Taylors Level, in with Hospital Level, both in different valleys makes sense?

Simonrl, do you have objections of me making albums as suggested earlier on for the different levels all under Coniston?

Surely we could have some more input from the 100’s of users on AN on this topic????

---

AditNow started as a resouce for mines, but has expanded to include quarries, mills and even railways. I would caution against dissecting individual mines into component parts, though. This I think is a step too far. However, if you feel strongly about it, please provide a list of the required albums via pm and I will be happy to create them for you. Dont forget though... as the spoil heaps wre re-worked they will require their own album. Or maybe more than one if we decide that each spoil heap requires its own album .. :lol:

---

Perhaps the way to go is to convince contributers of pictures to put descriptions on each one. Perhaps a 'tweak' of the photograph search is required to allow someone to open the Coniston page then be able to search just those albums (maybe you can do that already?).

The trouble with creating new albums for large mines is when you come to, say, a sub level between Taylors level & Flemings - what album do you put it in? But if it was simply titled 'Sub level between Taylors & Flemings Level' you could search for the relevent keyword.

Smallcleugh's user album is getting larger by the day - full of pictures of a bit of level that in a couple of years (months?), no-one will remember where in the mine it is - total waste of space, in fact I'd go through the whole lot, and if it wasn't labelled - delete it! Imagine a museum full of artifacts with no label or description - just a room full of stuff!

As a general principle I'd have no problem splitting a large and complex mine into albums, provided there was good cause for it and it can be done logically, so I think Mr Mike's suggestion is valid.

However I also think the Colonel and Heb have equally valid points (I'm not sitting on the fence...) in that distinct areas need to be defined and crossover and confusion dealt with from the outset.

In the past the use of albums has been very successful, in example such as GrahamI's album collections of a specific Welsh slate mines in specific decades, see Oakeley and Maenofferen (Maen Offeren) as examples. This put a collection of photos together with an historical context.

I a project like categorising Coniston photos can be achieved between somebody with the enthusiasm to see it through and somebody with the in-depth knowledge to advise on how best to do it then I think it would be successful.

I also take Heb's point very clearly that unlabelled photographs are not particularly useful. I've held my hand up to this in the past and do intend still to get around to adding sensible captions to any of mine that remain uncaptioned.

---

...equivalent of a ‘root folder’ in MS newspeak...

I think UNIX beat M$ to the usage of root... 😉