Dinosaur Toy Blog changes

[Halichoeres]

What do you think about me making the front page look like this as well? So, instead of seeing the full reviews, there is a large gallery of clickable recent reviews.

It would definitely drive up page views. It would look less like a blog, however. I think it makes more sense for archives than for the front page, personally.

You're right about the first two points. We are a blog because our CMS is Wordpress, but the nature of our 'little' website has changed over the years. Is it important that we look like a blog?

Well, fair enough. I don't suppose it is other than that it's called a blog. If it had other sorts of content besides reviews, such as general commentary on collecting, maybe the change would be more disruptive.

[DinoToyForum]

What do you think about me making the front page look like this as well? So, instead of seeing the full reviews, there is a large gallery of clickable recent reviews.

It would definitely drive up page views. It would look less like a blog, however. I think it makes more sense for archives than for the front page, personally.

You're right about the first two points. We are a blog because our CMS is Wordpress, but the nature of our 'little' website has changed over the years. Is it important that we look like a blog?

Well, fair enough. I don't suppose it is other than that it's called a blog. If it had other sorts of content besides reviews, such as general commentary on collecting, maybe the change would be more disruptive.

Well, we do have occasional announcements. I think I'll leave it as is for now, but may experiment in the future.

[Reptilia]

Nice touch to have a picture in the reviewers' bio, it is a way to make the blog and the community more friendly in my opinion.

[stegosauria]

I've tidied up the 'Authors', 'Top Companies' and 'Top Genera' sections, so the reviews on each page are arranged in a grid rather than in one long column. I've also added a new 'Groups' section to the top menu. Let me know what you think.

Personally I find it very satisfying to see all the reviews lined up like that, and I wonder if it might even be a better way to present the reviews on the main home page of the blog?

I have a few idea about the Groups section.

I don't think the Thyreophorans is needed because it contains probably all the reviews of the Ankylosaurs and Stegosaurs groups. And I think there's plenty of reviews which don't belong in either of the groups now.

Ok there's all the dinosaur groups- except the Prosauropods. I know there's not much toy about Prosauropods but if they don't deserve their own group in the list then the Sauropods group could be Sauruopods and Prosauropods. Otherwise- the Sauropods group contains just one Plateosaurus review and I think there is much more than one.

So besides the dinosaur group there's Birds and Mammals but what about the amphibians, the fishes, some invertebrates and the few plants which were reviewed on the blog? And there's plenty of other reptile groups- the Dimetrodon or the Glyphoderma from PNSO don't fit any of the groups.  So even if all of these groups won't get their own groups in the list (because then the list would be really long) but still it would be nice 2-3 groups about these so if you look for something strange (and don't know its name) you don't have to go through all the blog (which is a tremendous task because the reviews number will be slowly 1200).

So these groups could be Amphibians and Fish group, maybe Invertebrates and Plants group and Other reptiles group.

And I think in the Companies section should be a section about the toys that weren't produced by some big company so the search for a strange toy would be easier too there.

And now I noticed that the first review on the blog disappaered. It was just a few rows about the then new Schleich Triceratops but now the first review is about the Safari Great Dinosaurs Velociraptor (in wich the link to the Carnegie Velociraptor doesn't work) and in the new Ceratopsians section this review is missing too (okay that toy needed a new review anyway).

[Sim]

I have a few idea about the Groups section.

I don't think the Thyreophorans is needed because it contains probably all the reviews of the Ankylosaurs and Stegosaurs groups. And I think there's plenty of reviews which don't belong in either of the groups now.

There are some reviews of figures of Scelidosaurus, which is classified as a thyreophoran that isn't a stegosaur or an ankylosaur.  There's also a model in that section just referred to as "Thyreophoran".

Ok there's all the dinosaur groups- except the Prosauropods. I know there's not much toy about Prosauropods but if they don't deserve their own group in the list then the Sauropods group could be Sauruopods and Prosauropods. Otherwise- the Sauropods group contains just one Plateosaurus review and I think there is much more than one.

There is a name for members of the group that contains sauropods and "prosauropods", it's sauropodomorphs.  Sauropodomorphs are one of the three main dinosaur groups, the other two being theropods and ornithischians.

[stegosauria]

I have a few idea about the Groups section.

I don't think the Thyreophorans is needed because it contains probably all the reviews of the Ankylosaurs and Stegosaurs groups. And I think there's plenty of reviews which don't belong in either of the groups now.

There are some reviews of figures of Scelidosaurus, which is classified as a thyreophoran that isn't a stegosaur or an ankylosaur.  There's also a model in that section just referred to as "Thyreophoran".

Ok there's all the dinosaur groups- except the Prosauropods. I know there's not much toy about Prosauropods but if they don't deserve their own group in the list then the Sauropods group could be Sauruopods and Prosauropods. Otherwise- the Sauropods group contains just one Plateosaurus review and I think there is much more than one.

There is a name for members of the group that contains sauropods and "prosauropods", it's sauropodomorphs.  Sauropodomorphs are one of the three main dinosaur groups, the other two being theropods and ornithischians.

I thought that probably some basal dinosaurs could be the reason behind the Thyreophorans group. The question is what is the purpose of the Groups section exactly? Because if to help for people to search for some figures then we have to consider that not everybody is an expert in dinosaur taxonomy and I would think for them is quite unnecessary to list all the Ankylosaurs and Stegosaurs separately and then in another group again but just a few reviews among them which don't appaer in the other two groups.

While this probably isn't ideal too but I would think as easier- that few Scelidosaurus and that Thyreophoran reviews could be in both the Ankylosaurs and Stegosaurs groups. It's much less annoying if a few reviews appaer in two places, then in a third tried to find them in a merged and bigger group. I don't know if the Thyreophorans could be separated a little in the groups but if it's possible that would be help too for others.

This question probably will appaer every time when some basal dinosaur toy is reviewed and I don't think it would be necessary to make a group for all of them separately.

About the Sauropomorph is the same- not everybody is an expert. Somebody who didn't have that knowlegde would just ask what the heck is Sauropodomorph? This is why I suggested Sauropods and Prosauropods as a name for this combined group.

[stargatedalek]

We shouldn't make things up or label things incorrectly just because we're afraid we might confuse someone. If it's that big of a concern some brief definitions of the groupings would serve far better.

[DinoToyForum]

I've tidied up the 'Authors', 'Top Companies' and 'Top Genera' sections, so the reviews on each page are arranged in a grid rather than in one long column. I've also added a new 'Groups' section to the top menu. Let me know what you think.

Personally I find it very satisfying to see all the reviews lined up like that, and I wonder if it might even be a better way to present the reviews on the main home page of the blog?

I have a few idea about the Groups section.

I don't think the Thyreophorans is needed because it contains probably all the reviews of the Ankylosaurs and Stegosaurs groups. And I think there's plenty of reviews which don't belong in either of the groups now.

Ok there's all the dinosaur groups- except the Prosauropods. I know there's not much toy about Prosauropods but if they don't deserve their own group in the list then the Sauropods group could be Sauruopods and Prosauropods. Otherwise- the Sauropods group contains just one Plateosaurus review and I think there is much more than one.

So besides the dinosaur group there's Birds and Mammals but what about the amphibians, the fishes, some invertebrates and the few plants which were reviewed on the blog? And there's plenty of other reptile groups- the Dimetrodon or the Glyphoderma from PNSO don't fit any of the groups.  So even if all of these groups won't get their own groups in the list (because then the list would be really long) but still it would be nice 2-3 groups about these so if you look for something strange (and don't know its name) you don't have to go through all the blog (which is a tremendous task because the reviews number will be slowly 1200).

So these groups could be Amphibians and Fish group, maybe Invertebrates and Plants group and Other reptiles group.

And I think in the Companies section should be a section about the toys that weren't produced by some big company so the search for a strange toy would be easier too there.

And now I noticed that the first review on the blog disappaered. It was just a few rows about the then new Schleich Triceratops but now the first review is about the Safari Great Dinosaurs Velociraptor (in wich the link to the Carnegie Velociraptor doesn't work) and in the new Ceratopsians section this review is missing too (okay that toy needed a new review anyway).

Thanks for the suggestions. I had some of these in mind already and just added pages for invertebrates, plants, fish, prosauropods and amphibians. I'm considering an "other reptiles" page, and other sub-groups of dinosaurs, but I don't know if it is necessary.

The point of the group pages is for visitors to browse by group. They are not supposed to be exhaustive. Just as the company pages and genus pages are restricted to the most popular ones. If someone is looking for something specific then they can use the search function.

The lists are all generated using the tags and categories. So, let me know if you see any reviews missing and I will categorise them correctly.

I recently culled some of my earliest reviews because they were just a sentence or two with a promo pic. They were not up to the high standards we've come to expect and so I found them unsatisfactory. Some of the figures were reviewed properly later, so the earlier 'reviews' were unnecessary duplicates. I also didn't want the old 'reviews' to put people off of reviewing the figures properly on the basis that they were already reviewed.

[Sim]

I agree with stargatedalek.

While this probably isn't ideal too but I would think as easier- that few Scelidosaurus and that Thyreophoran reviews could be in both the Ankylosaurs and Stegosaurs groups. It's much less annoying if a few reviews appaer in two places, then in a third tried to find them in a merged and bigger group. I don't know if the Thyreophorans could be separated a little in the groups but if it's possible that would be help too for others.

This doesn't make sense since those figures of Scelidosaurus and that thyreophoran are not of animals classified as stegosaurs or ankylosaurs.

About the Sauropomorph is the same- not everybody is an expert. Somebody who didn't have that knowlegde would just ask what the heck is Sauropodomorph? This is why I suggested Sauropods and Prosauropods as a name for this combined group.

"Somebody who didn't have that knowlegde would just ask what the heck is Sauropodomorph?"  And then they click on the group and see the answer: sauropods and their more basal relatives.  If they still want to find out more, they can do a quick search on the internet and learn something.  I think it's not a good idea to stay unduly stuck with the more commonly known group names as it can be misleading, and it can hinder a development in dinosaur knowledge among people interested in the subject.

[stegosauria]

Wow, you're really quick. The Amphibians group is suprisingly short really short but there's much more fishes. A little strange.

I did a quick browsing through the groups. These what I find missing (mostly by my memories, the figures I have or now yet wish to have).

Birds group- Bullyland Archaeopteryx
Mammals group- Bullyland Chalicotherium, Safari Missing Links Woolly Rhino, Schleich Macrauchenia
Amphibians- Elginerpeton plush
Ornithopod- Safari Edmontosaurus
Hadrosaurs- all the Edmontosaurus (except the Safari)
Stegosaurs- Battat Terra Dacentrurus, CollectA Miragaia
Theropods- new Safari Giganotosaurus, PNSO Allosaurus

Some reviews happened to be in wrong places:

Ornithopod- Battat Gallimimus, Papo Pachyrhinosaurus
Theropods- three Archaeopterx reviews, Copepteryx, Safari dodo, Safari Gastornis, CollectA Kelenken, X-Plus Phorusrhacos (it's simpler if they are in just the Birds group), Bullyland Pachycephalosaurus

Other things I find- the Furkan Nodosaur in the list has picture while in the actual review the pictures disappaered. The Kabaya Seismosaurus' problem is reverse- in the Sauropod list the picture isn't there but the review has pictures. And the Kenner baby T-rex's pictures is missing too.

While I get through the groups I noticed that among the top companies the Yowie is missing. While at first I thought about its figures as something like Kinder Surprise figures. As more figures appeared on the blog I became curious and now I think its figures are really interesting and plenty of the figures are really good (yeah now I possess three of them and there's much more on my hunting list).

And why I think there should be the Other reptiles group? Because probably there are people who would like to browsing among them just like all in the other groups. And the search isn't a big help if you don't remember the figure's name.

[DinoToyForum]

Wow, you're really quick. The Amphibians group is suprisingly short really short but there's much more fishes. A little strange.

I did a quick browsing through the groups. These what I find missing (mostly by my memories, the figures I have or now yet wish to have).

Birds group- Bullyland Archaeopteryx
Mammals group- Bullyland Chalicotherium, Safari Missing Links Woolly Rhino, Schleich Macrauchenia
Amphibians- Elginerpeton plush
Ornithopod- Safari Edmontosaurus
Hadrosaurs- all the Edmontosaurus (except the Safari)
Stegosaurs- Battat Terra Dacentrurus, CollectA Miragaia
Theropods- new Safari Giganotosaurus, PNSO Allosaurus

Some reviews happened to be in wrong places:

Ornithopod- Battat Gallimimus, Papo Pachyrhinosaurus
Theropods- three Archaeopterx reviews, Copepteryx, Safari dodo, Safari Gastornis, CollectA Kelenken, X-Plus Phorusrhacos (it's simpler if they are in just the Birds group), Bullyland Pachycephalosaurus

Other things I find- the Furkan Nodosaur in the list has picture while in the actual review the pictures disappaered. The Kabaya Seismosaurus' problem is reverse- in the Sauropod list the picture isn't there but the review has pictures. And the Kenner baby T-rex's pictures is missing too.

While I get through the groups I noticed that among the top companies the Yowie is missing. While at first I thought about its figures as something like Kinder Surprise figures. As more figures appeared on the blog I became curious and now I think its figures are really interesting and plenty of the figures are really good (yeah now I possess three of them and there's much more on my hunting list).

And why I think there should be the Other reptiles group? Because probably there are people who would like to browsing among them just like all in the other groups. And the search isn't a big help if you don't remember the figure's name.

Thanks for the updates, that's really helpful and I'll implement most of them. I will leave the birds classified as theropods and maybe go the other way instead, i.e. add the other birds into the theropod category, too.

There are only six Yowie reviews so far, but that's probably enough to justify making a page for them, so I will. It might even encourage reviewers and guest reviewers to consider writing more Yowie reviews, there are certainly enough to keep us busy for some time!

[stegosauria]

Nooo, the Theropod list is already a giant, poor birds would just get lost among them.

Yeah, there's really a big bunch of Yowie figures. I tried to search complete list of them (it is quite hard because there isn't a place where they list all the figures with pictures too) but there's more than 100 figures.

[DinoToyForum]

Nooo, the Theropod list is already a giant, poor birds would just get lost among them.

As they should

Fixed all the other things you pointed out, and added a Yowies page. Thanks again for your help!

[stegosauria]

Nooo, the Theropod list is already a giant, poor birds would just get lost among them.

As they should

Fixed all the other things you pointed out, and added a Yowies page. Thanks again for your help!

Then at least they got into the Dromaeosaurs group too- that's size is better.

[DinoToyForum]

Nooo, the Theropod list is already a giant, poor birds would just get lost among them.

As they should

Fixed all the other things you pointed out, and added a Yowies page. Thanks again for your help!

Then at least they got into the Dromaeosaurs group too- that's size is better.

But birds aren't dromaeosaurs. Dromaeosauridae is a monophyletic clade that excludes birds, while Theropoda is a monophyletic clade that does include birds. Talking cladistics is difficult without diagrams. 

[stegosauria]

Nooo, the Theropod list is already a giant, poor birds would just get lost among them.

As they should

Fixed all the other things you pointed out, and added a Yowies page. Thanks again for your help!

Then at least they got into the Dromaeosaurs group too- that's size is better.

But birds aren't dromaeosaurs. Dromaeosauridae is a monophyletic clade that excludes birds, while Theropoda is a monophyletic clade that does include birds. Talking cladistics is difficult without diagrams. 

But the birds are Maniraptorians. Or not? But it's better they have their own group here (now figured you were just kidding  .

[Sim]

On this topic, the Birds group on the Dinosaur Toy Blog includes a Microraptor figure.  I actually don't mind it was tagged with bird, dromaeosaurids were very similar to birds.  But now that the tags are used for these groups pages, it appears to be an inconsistency, since dromaeosaurids are not considered birds, and other figures of Microraptor and other dromaeosaurids aren't on the Birds group page.

[Patrx]

Generally, I'm not too opinionated about this setup, but birds should definitely be categorized alongside the other theropods. Putting them aside is all too common, and misleading.

[Halichoeres]

If we are making all the categories monophyletic, I'm afraid I must insist that all tetrapod reviews of any kind be moved into "fish"   

The Amphibians group is suprisingly short really short but there's much more fishes. A little strange.

I daresay that a lot of that imbalance is my fault.

It's worth asking, for the purposes of the blog, what constitutes an amphibian. I usually only use it to refer to the total-group Lissamphibia, but that's probably too narrow here.

[stargatedalek]

Bird is a subjective definition, some draw the line at Avaialae but others prefer to draw the line at Ornithothoraces, and others still (myself included) draw the line at Aves.

If you were to ask my opinion I would tell you that Archaeopteryx is not a bird, but someone else might tell you that it was (though I should hope because they actually knew what they were saying and not because "it's the first bird!" ).