I think it can be summarized with the following thought: While what you say is true regarding spelling, tidiness, etc, the site has a certain character. That charater is what makes the site what it is, as much as the people that use it. I can go anywhere and find a site with a 'Submit' button. How many have 'Stumbit'? Maybe two, and I haven't checked www.javajunkies.org to see if they kept it.

A long time ago there was a thread ("Sherman, set the way back machine for (jcwren) RE: Bigger Chatterboxes?". "Sure thing, Mr. Peabody!") which expressed my feelings about certain changes. You may be aware of the some of the /msh history of the chatterbox. A movement was afoot to fix /msh. I thought it was a great idea. Hell, I had some real classics. "Fix it! Fix it!", I cried with the rest. And it was fixed..

It was a bad idea. It took away some small bit of character from the chatterbox. So I reversed my stance on it. Luckily, the chatterbox code was changed back, I think mostly because the new stuff was pretty buggy (the chatterbox code is a nightmare, and the smallest change can wreak havoc. I liken it to a buttferfly flapping it's wings in Los Angeles, and having a 220km diameter comet hitting in San Francisco.)

I'm all for changes that make the monastery more accessible from the background for 3rd party code, and for maintainence tools that the majority of users never see (node editing, user management, etc). That doesn't affect the L'n'F of the monastery, unless you actually go use these 3rd party tools. I am violently against major layout changes, and things that affect the character of the site. And surprisingly, it's often not the big things, but the accumulation of little things that give sites their character.

And yes, I use the /msh example a lot when it comes to making a case against certain changes. I think it nicely summarizes what people want, think they want, what they get, and what they want after the get what they think they want. Or something like that.

--Chris