Just wondering- is there any way that you might consider changing the name of the "Central South" category to something else? Maybe "Mid South" or simply "LA, MS, AL and AR"? In 50 years I have never heard our region described as the "Central South", and while I am sure that I will get used to it over time, I would bet that most people would click on the wrong category before finding us. Just a suggestion- otherwise, thanks for the reorganization, but I sure do think NC deserves their own board...
Yes, Mid South would be a recognized term. Central South is just confusing and does not describe this area.
I went with Central South, because Mid-South seems to have a well-established definition that doesn't correspond to the states covered on that board. The same was true of "South Central", which also has the added problem of making everyone else I asked think of Los Angeles and the Oliver Stone movie.
It was the best term I could come up with that didn't already mean something else.
How about pulling Tennessee and Kentucky back in and then calling it "Mid South"? I still haven't gotten used to the "Central South" thing, and keep clicking on the "Southeast" thingie- we are a part of the Southeastern Conference after all...
"South Central" would work too- if anyone thinks that south central LA would fall under the "South" category they deserve to do an extra click or two...
I just found this, but like you when I saw "Central South" I said...Do what??? If something is "central" it says to me..."in the middle of" ~~~ LA. MS. and AL. are not "central" to anything...The only thing further South is the Gulf of Mexico!!!! ~~~ Never in my life have I heard anyone refer to the geographical area, including ARK as Central South....A term that IS recognizable almost universally is "DEEP SOUTH" ~~~ When someone hears or reads "DEEP SOUTH".... IMO, instinctively they know full well what region of the country is being refereed too....
"Central South" doesn't describe the states in this group. Central does imply "middle of" and it's a misnomer when talking about Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. These states are in the Deep South. But so is Georgia. I'm confused as to how this grouping even came about. You could put Arkansas in a different group (say with Kentucky and Tennessee) and call the others Gulf South. That would make sense and is an already recognized designation.
To be clear, by Central, I was referring to East to West -- we have a Southwest board and a Southeast board. This board covers the South bits that are in between them, thus Central. I recognize that coining a new term was perhaps not the best idea, but there simply didn't seem to be an existing term described the geographic area the board covers without also conspicuously including an area that it doesn't. I'd rather have a term people have to think about for a moment, than one that they immediately understand -- but understand to mean something different than our actual board breakdown.
"there simply didn't seem to be an existing term described the geographic area the board covers "
This seems to be the crux of the problem, and inherent to to much of the ongoing debate about the new board breakdowns. CH is reinventing the wheel as far as regions go. There are reasons regions have recognized descriptions - one of them being that is how the residents view their world and what it is comprised of. A quick look at travel books (AAA, Fodor, Fromers, etc.) reflects these recognized regions.
You will never please everyone, but if CH stayed with regional boundaries that worked with peoples orientation rather than against, the majority of the protests would be gone. CH has a tremendous resource in your posters. A simple query or a reaching out to posters known to the board as knowledgeable about their region could have helped the redefining make much more sense.
"I'd rather have a term people have to think about for a moment, than one that they immediately understand -- but understand to mean something different than our actual board breakdown."
I understand the desire to have people look at things deeper and develop understanding.
In this situation where a term defines the usage and ultimately the value of the area, well, I just think this logic is going to prove to be very damaging to this area. Your dedicated user will learn to work around it. People new to the site will find it cumbersome, puzzling and an obstacle to their participation.
I know this has been a tremendous job, but I really feel reinventing the wheel is counterproductive to what we all want for CH.
Southeast and Southwest are readily recognized terms designating areas of the US. Those names have been in use for years in our culture and language. All sorts of people know what they mean. If you are going to rename our area following that suit, you would need to call us Southcentral. Not everyone associates that name with Los Angeles, btw. But I digress. It's the whole re-naming of our area to something no one knows that is the problem.
Think of it this way. How would you feel if someone came to you and told you
they were going to make up a new name to call you. Something no one is familiar with and will make it difficult for friends and family to figure out who you are. This is very similar. And it is detrimental to new Chowhound users. I think meatn3 summed it up very well:
"I understand the desire to have people look at things deeper and develop understanding. In this situation where a term defines the usage and ultimately the value of the area, well, I just think this logic is going to prove to be very damaging to this area. Your dedicated user will learn to work around it. People new to the site will find it cumbersome, puzzling and an obstacle to their participation.
I know this has been a tremendous job, but I really feel reinventing the wheel is counterproductive to what we all want for CH."