I am humbled by the ability of some to write so coherently and well. What I thought were a few (hopefully) insightful, nay, luminous comments of my own are in retrospect wooden lumps.
Well done all contributors, and especially those who stand up and write articles, foremost TD of course.

Some humble suggestions:

1) Ways to improve impact and readability:
a) ability to format in bold or italics
b) different font or greyscale allows quotes from previous posters to be seen in the text (is HTML too hungry?)

2) Ways to make information more accessible:
a) insert tables from Excel?
b) pasted pictures could be worth a thousand words….so long as the copyright is respected.

3) Ways to follow conversations
a) How to know if your own comments have been replied to? (email fn next to submit button is too generic, you get swamped)
b) Allow searching by commentator?

4) Ways to move a debate towards an opinion/show consensus
a) A like button on comments?
b) A vote button on issues? This could be really good fun, and can be used to focus within a thread as the thing moves.

5) A recommended book/reading list for newbies. Star rate them, preferably with container icons…

PS: I’m sure you said above the edit is 10mins, but I have 5?

Oh, well – another typo-rich somment from DD

1/. Could there be a way of getting posters to “log in” to the site? This would help when trying to get a personal history of your posts, and prevent losing track of a debate in some of . . . raucous comment threads (sorry, lost track there

2/. It’s a shame you feel that way about the forum model. You could easily (I assume?) adapt it to allow only a limited number of members to write posts, and give everyone else “reply” priviledges. That may allow you to have some of the posting burden taken away from you (at the loss of some control, as posters wouldn’t need to send articles to you for screening and data entry)

3/. Definitely widen the focus to global issues. Especially the equipment the MoD may be buting, or the forces we may be allied to / facing off.

4/. History is good, but not just equipment and tactics. Looking at the history of the strategies employed by our armed forces (spin is nothing new, just look at the Duke of Wellington’s Peninslar war Dispatches to see how he tried to keep a divided parliament “on side”). Which brings me to,

5/. If History is good, strategy is better! After all many commenters (and some “commentards” to use a Reg-ism) have said that formation and equipment can only stem from Strategy. Which finally segways me into . . .

6/. Campaigning. Campagining to save units, capabilities or equipment is, as you say, on a hiding to mothing – there are much better funded and vociferous lobgby groups from Defnese Industries and the Forces themselves making sure you will be drowned out.

But.

As has been mentioned, there seems to be a dearth of “grand strategy” – so maybe coalescing some sort of Think Defence(tm) brand together could form the basis of a campaign that would be heard and noted amongst fewer voices? Assuming you actually *want* to run a campaign!

Anyway, posting now. I’m sure I’ll be trying the edit button in due course!

To quote Young Mr Grace: “Carry on. You are all doing very well”.

To quote me: “Top job. Thank you.”

If only Dr Fox had it bookmarked…

@Chris, there is quite a bit of history on the site but its poorly organised, am working on it and will add more. You make a good point though about linking events or equipment of many years ago to today

Sorry that’s poorly thought out advice, but please consider it anyway.

oh, and you should have a proper review panel popup, to review what one has typed, before hitting submit (add comment)

Never mind, I must not have been paying attention to latest developments…

I am sure some of you fellows can do posts on certain battles, or campaigns in British history; and it could lead to good discussions as well..

You know everyone that reads this site loves history….

Sorry I didn’t mean any antagonism there, and I hope you didn’t express subtle negativity towards me. Probably my paranoia, lol (sorry).

Can you please just give me a little more feedback to my comment?

Do you understand my rationale about improved discussion, where it’s not just the situation we have now, which I concede does have discussion? Do you appreciate my logic with the big benefits that could result?

All the points that you write don’t seem to be acknowledged and discussed enough for my liking in the comments. There never seems to be a tangible enough result from your efforts.

It’s very clear that your articles are credible, well thought and intelligent, so if I were you, with what is going on the site, I would want people to really consider what I’m writing if it’s clearly of great almost progressive (sorry that’s a subjective opinion) quality (relative to many things in mind).

Thank you TD, the site ain’t necessarily broken whatsoever, so……

A good topic!

“Finland reckons it can put 350,000 well armed men into the field”… but the defence budget is going up (from 1.4% to 1.6% even when 150,000 have been shaved off the reserves)

“Switzerland has an even smaller budget, but” everyone is sleeping with a rifle under the bed and lots of high-energy biscuits in the wardrobe cupboard

I think your blogs are highly synergistic:
- 5% more geopolitics (that would mainly reflect on the Defence Business side of things which is underdeveloped, anyway) on TD
- and some measure of more defence (I recognise it is a multi-topic site) on Jedi’s

The edit thing is great (just DO NOT use arrow back, but need to go to the page and refresh it; wasn’t clear to me at first).

Happy to work on the tags and categories, even off line.

* particularly so if this remains an interest that is accepted by the public, and as sven has made clear there is a very definable difference when the german acceptance of limited national defence, and british willingness to flout the spirit of the kellog briand pact.

It would give a budget of around $22bn, Norway and Sweden spend around $6bn each, so, depending on how its spent, a respectable force for local duties.
Finland spends even less, roughly $2bn.

All operate fairly respectable airforces, and massive reserve armies, Finland reckons it can put 350,000 well armed men into the field.

Switzerland has an even smaller budget, but anyone invading is likely to wishing for Afghan murder holes.

Might have a think about some specifics, but its very doable, if we give up any pretense of operating on our own.

@RW, what has been covered and what is about to be covered is in the new update. Will have a think about how I can collate the links by subject area, not sure this will be an easy one though as the the methods I tried were a bit rubbish

@Junior, a forum would really be a lot of work in moderation and you tend to atract the nutters and spam merchants as well so I am not going to implement one

@Dom, that sounds like an interesting post, what would the UK defence landscape look like at 1% of GDP

@andy, containers a bore, how bloody dare you, burn the witch

@ACC, the archive, tag navigation and improved categories should help. Comments are now editable but haven’t been able to create a scrollable recent comments list

@Mark, the site should work on iPhones and Android etc as an app style, rather than just a web page on a small screen. It auto detects the device and formats appropriately

@C, might be interesting to have a voting feature on an issue, will investigate for the next time I start slagging off carrriers!

@Waldo, please do not hesitate to chip in with a comment, no one here bites

@Chris.B, I agree, the comments are priceless and as I said, 20,000 of them means I want to use them better. Will try and use the ?

@Joe, long comments streams are difficult to wade through, might have a look at a comment rating system

@Jedi, appreciate what you are saying about reality but I think what I have always tried to do is match ideas with resources rather than ideas with fantasies, which is what the politicians whoe frame that reality with, you know, the whole punching about our weight nonsense.

@All, will try and put a few more global but linked to the UK articles in

I think when I organise the categories differently, things should improve

all good.
differences in opinion do not obviate the real sense of depth and insight that TD articles provide.
keep it.

re campaigning or reflecting reality

the latter.
where i think TD has missed this mark is in realising that this does not just mean budgets, equipment and structures.
it means politcs, and that means reflecting the political objectives defence will be bent to meet.
both of britains major parties remain 100 percent committed to using the forces for political effect, and doing so at a level compatible with our ‘great’ power status.
this isn’t just showboating, or dreaming of post-imperial granduer, this is what politicans see as the raison-d-etre of the HM forces.
this is why i question soveriegn ops at small scale, a supposedly accepted policy that i have seen no real evidence of, and completely at odds with stated FP.
it is also why i have some doubts about capability plus, for while it might deliver a flexible and well rounded capability in a scientific manner, will it be able to achieve those political objectives at a scale and effectivness required by our politicians?
most importantly, and a point you touched on in a recent army article, td must reflect the dcdc requirment for a posture that maintains enduring presence alongside rapid and temporary intervention. having all expeditionary capability tied up year on year in a desert 10000 miles away is worse than useful for our politicians.
events dear boy, events!

keep up the good work.

also noticed that some sites use a cloud tag box to give a general trend of comments – don’t know how easy this is to implement

You are indeed to a good professional standard with all the elements of your activity with this site. I often get the impression the commenters are not on the same wavelength with you, they don’t seem to try enough to attempt to match and compliment your very well thought efforts on this site. Sorry everyone!

I strongly think for you TD and everyone that the discussion element needs to be really improved. So I think that the comments section needs to be completely reviewed with a goal of enhancing debate, discussion, knowledge sharing, annecdotes. Structure, so that there isn’t any enormous divergence from the clear points that you and others are making. More ways to rate each others opinions. I could go on…

Clearly the main points about your site are: your excellent, almost progressive and innovative articles/posts (sorry I can’t find the words to explain the unique quality of your work), the small community who diligently read your articles and put a lot of effort into engaging with “thinking about defence”. And I think the few people who come across the site who aren’t part of the relatively small group of regulars and now and then’ners, who are impressed and become very interested, and interested in engaging as you strongly encourage visitors to do.

So I think from what you say TD on the site that for your own very part time work with the sight, that to increase your satisfaction with your goal of getting people to think and engage with a diverse group of subjects you post about, that you should improve the discussion, debate and hence learning about the subjects.

You could halfway between a debate/discussion give a big comment post with your article level input.

I understand that a structured debate discussion section would deter some from asking questions, posting wonderings, giving bits of their knowledge. But this can be avoided.

TD do you enjoy the occasional small post with great pix and videos that you do? These are good and do not detract from your other efforts and probably compliment them by giving visitors something less serious to compliment their focused interest.

TD you should consider and probably do how much extra effort expansion and change of the status quo of the site, will cause you in maintaining the standards you do.

Sorry I hope I haven’t been incomprehendible with my long windedness.

“Are our neutral stance and loose objectives still valid? All I wanted when setting up Think Defence was to counter some of the ill informed nonsense that seemed to characterise the defence debate in the UK and get people engaged.”

- I think TD does this admirably. The key is in the comments section. Leaving that unrestricted allows people from all parts to voice their opinions. Pro and con sides of the carrier/RAF/small arms debate can both put across their sides.

At the risk of sounding like I’m detracting from your articles, the comments section is one of the most vital aspects of TD. The article provides the fuel, the commentors bring the fire.

“Being neutral is hard because you are always fighting human nature and ingrained bias, does having a different viewpoint make you blind to logic so I could do with a reality check from readers.”

- You’re right, being neutral is difficult, but again, comments can help to balance this kind of thing out.

“Is Think Defence biased, blinkered or just different?”

- I think the trouble is that there is a strong Anti-RAF sentement that has been brewing on the interwebs, and anytime that you defend them it looks biased in the RAF’s favour, when in fact you’re just sticking up for one side and putting their point across. It is what it is.

“Should we be campaigning for more or reflecting realities”

- I think you should reflect realities, while perhaps suggesting tentatively that more should be given. Yes it is depressing, but that’s life, and it’s the viewpoint based on reality that gives TD much of its credibility. Then in the comments we can all talk about our grand schemes for collapsing DfID.

“Is the sites organisation and navigation making good use of the wealth of knowledge in comments? When I look at other similar blogs I see comments in the tens but on Think Defence, some articles reach into the hundreds, that tells me there is a massive well spring of knowledge and opinion out there who are interested enough to contribute, I get the feeling I am not harnessing this properly or using it to best effect. Some of the comments are better than the posts!”

- I think the system works ok ‘as Is’.

“I have been thinking about creating a richer category and menu system with posts grouped into subject areas, would this make accessing the content easier for new and existing readers?”

- Don’t you already have posts grouped by category? Perhaps expand the number and scope of categories?

“Do you all follow the Think Defence twitter feed by the way, I do a daily roundup of online stories of interest, could this be expanded or used differently?”

- Don’t use Twitter.

“Is the mix of trivia, news, comment, history and suggestions for the future right. I tend to avoid doing too much on detailed operational news because I am far too removed to have a decent opinion”

- I think the mix is good. I like how we can flick between articles on future equipment to stories written by some young, dashing, talented writer about the TSR2.

“… and despite requests from a number of news organisations have always declined invitations to appear or comment.”

- Tit! Talk about turning down free advertising. Maybe one day you might even make a penny or two out of the advertising. Then you can start paying contributors….

“Would you prefer fewer news related pieces and more of the longer posts on a less frequent schedule, more pictures and videos or fewer pieces on suggestions for the future?”

- Just stick with the current ad hoc nature. It has a kind of charm to it, like a mumbling grandad.

“Is the mix of content right, I would like to do more history for example.”

- History is always good.

“UK Centric or Global?”

- I think Global is handy when it relates back to us, either because of events that effect us or because of equipment we might consider buying, but predominantly I think it should stay UK focused.

“Would you like Think Defence to have a wider outlook or would we be just duplicating already great sites?”

- Duplication.

“Are there enough posts on containers and mexeflotes?”

- Just about.

“No need to answer that one”

- Now you tell me.

“Should Cease Resistance and Join the CVF Supporters Club”

- No. You can’t have a proper dialectical discussion if everyone is on the same page.

Suggestions;

- Stop tinkering,
- Learn to use the question mark key when you ask questions,
- Shoot Germane Greer,
- Shoot that guy from the Mail on Sunday who was on Question Time,