Are you overweight? Check the facts and you could win €100

nesf

That's bull**** Dav. Seriously.

g'em

Well I dunno about the other Mods but I certainly wasn't consulted on this decision despite:

Darragh wrote:

All comments will be read and judged by myself, by safefood and with the help of the forum moderators and judged on insight, originality and really just how good a comment it is.

gavtron

shambles dav.

Hanley

Wow... I'm truly shocked that this went exactly as predicted and the people who sucked up to safefoods won. Truly shocked. Really. And I swear I'm not being sarcastic or anything at all.

Once again, shocked. Honestly.

Dav

Sorry folks, I was completely unaware mods were meant to be consulted on this (I didn't spot that in the initial post). Darragh's unexpectedly out of the office and this was just dropped in my lap to sort out.

But you know what, let me see what I can do about this.

Hanley

Fair play, Dav.

And it will be a crying shame if El_dangerso isn't one of the winners. Not that I'd be surprised, or shocked. Or anything like that.

nesf

Dav wrote: »

Sorry folks, I was completely unaware mods were meant to be consulted on this (I didn't spot that in the initial post). Darragh's unexpectedly out of the office and this was just dropped in my lap to sort out.

But you know what, let me see what I can do about this.

Dav, honestly it's a joke that not a single post critical of safefood's approach won. There were some excellent and well thought out posts among them. Far better than some of the ones you picked there.

Dav

Right, quick solution. The mistake here was mine and I should've been fully aware as to what the exact terms of the competition were. As a rule, we *never* involve any of the members of the site in the judging of the competitions because it means that we have to exclude them from entering (and that's a really crappy thank you to forum mods I think) and I'm not entirely sure why this competition was set up in this way (I'll have to talk to Darragh about this and as I said, he's out of the office).

So, what I'm going to do is, with the assistance of the mods, pick 1 more "Mods Choice" winner which Boards will supply. Mods - I'll be PMing you now.

LizT

Surprised and upset to see only supportive comments win considering the majority of comments were negative. At least there will be a mods choice.

Drumpot

Hanley wrote: »

Wow... I'm truly shocked that this went exactly as predicted and the people who sucked up to safefoods won. Truly shocked. Really. And I swear I'm not being sarcastic or anything at all.

Once again, shocked. Honestly.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72895454&postcount=129

How is that post "sucking up to Safefood" exactly ?

Their campaign slogan is "stop the spread" which I didnt agree with!

Hanley

Drumpot wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72895454&postcount=129

How is that post "sucking up to Safefood" exactly ?

Their campaign slogan is "stop the spread" which I didnt agree with!

Ok, well then lets replace it with "I'm not surprised a post on how they communicated their message won, while all the messages offering constructive criticism as to how FUBAR'd, wrong, dangerous and unhealthy the information on which their message was based were ignored even tho they are the ones which added the most value to the thread".

Happy?

g'em

Drumpot Hanley isn't having a go at you personally

I'm kind of reeling from this thread tbh - I was away while most of it was being carried out and missed almost all of it.

Hanley wrote: »

Ok, well then lets replace it with "I'm not surprised a post on how they communicated their message won, while all the messages offering constructive criticism as to how FUBAR'd, wrong, dangerous and unhealthy the information on which their message was based were ignored even tho they are the ones which added the most value to the thread".

The problem is that now most of those posts have been moved to another thread by Darragh. Darragh I can understand why you did this but it wasn't the right thing to do, sorry. In order to give feedback about the campaign people need to be able to freely discuss the underlying information that Safefood is offering. This information is - frankly - bogus and as a result of the thread splitting many of the posts remaining here are a totally innacurate reflection of how the campaign has been received by the forum.

While I thank Dav immensely for giving us the opportunity to award a 'Mod prize' I have to admit to finding myself struggling to find a winner. Let me stress that this is in no way a reflection of the quality of posts on offer, more that I cannot justify awarding posts which are not addressing the real reasons why this campaign is fundamentally flawed.

I'm reading and re-reading thread but I would like to publically state that from a personal point of view I'm immensely dismayed at the Safefood representation on this thread (Dermot aside, God love him at least he was honest and open about his lack of nutritional qualification).

Roger Marbles

Absolute disgrace from start to finish.

From the splitting of the original thread despite our posts being relevant and researched, to the lack of response from safefood to our questions and now both the results and how they were decided. Not one post considered from the other thread despite the effort a lot of people went to.

Sure, the ones above reflected personal accounts but tell me what's going to make people healthier...giving them some new PR slogan or actual sensible nutritional advice as suggested in the other thread?

Serious lack of leadership here throughout and pretty much sends out the message that informed debate is not welcome.

gavtron

g'em wrote: »

Drumpot Hanley isn't having a go at you personally

I'm kind of reeling from this thread tbh - I was away while most of it was being carried out and missed almost all of it.



The problem is that now most of those posts have been moved to another thread by Darragh. Darragh I can understand why you did this but it wasn't the right thing to do, sorry. In order to give feedback about the campaign people need to be able to freely discuss the underlying information that Safefood is offering. This information is - frankly - bogus and as a result of the thread splitting many of the posts remaining here are a totally innacurate reflection of how the campaign has been received by the forum.

While I thank Dav immensely for giving us the opportunity to award a 'Mod prize' I have to admit to finding myself struggling to find a winner. Let me stress that this is in no way a reflection of the quality of posts on offer, more that I cannot justify awarding posts which are not addressing the real reasons why this campaign is fundamentally flawed.

I'm reading and re-reading thread but I would like to publically state that from a personal point of view I'm immensely dismayed at the Safefood representation on this thread (Dermot aside, God love him at least he was honest and open about his lack of nutritional qualification).

Hear, Hear!! Well put g'em, there's a heap of good posts in the other thread.
This one in particular from Gauge is very good and gets my vote.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72949495&postcount=95

Also, you shouldn't apologise to Darragh, you're right.

Newaglish

What was the prize? A 10kg bag of pasta and a year's supply of bread and muffins?

Mellor

g'em wrote: »

The problem is that now most of those posts have been moved to another thread by Darragh. Darragh I can understand why you did this but it wasn't the right thing to do, sorry. In order to give feedback about the campaign people need to be able to freely discuss the underlying information that Safefood is offering. This information is - frankly - bogus and as a result of the thread splitting many of the posts remaining here are a totally innacurate reflection of how the campaign has been received by the forum.

While I thank Dav immensely for giving us the opportunity to award a 'Mod prize' I have to admit to finding myself struggling to find a winner. Let me stress that this is in no way a reflection of the quality of posts on offer, more that I cannot justify awarding posts which are not addressing the real reasons why this campaign is fundamentally flawed.

I'm reading and re-reading thread but I would like to publically state that from a personal point of view I'm immensely dismayed at the Safefood representation on this thread (Dermot aside, God love him at least he was honest and open about his lack of nutritional qualification).

Just want to draw your attention to this post from Darragh here. The thread containing the criticism was supposedly part of the competition too (dispite its title).

Darragh wrote: »

This is still linked to the competition, don't worry. I will also include these comments in my deliberation for the prize. The debate isn't silenced - I;m going to make sure Dermot and Aileen engage in this thread too.

As for being dismayed as Safefoods representation here. I'm the same. I actually though that we might get somewhere if we have a medium to discuss this issue. Instead is was like a monty python sketch. Some comments I found baffling. In paticular the protein requirements nonsense.

g'em

Cheers Mellor, I'll need to get confirmation as to whether we can include them so I'll look into this further.

g'em

I'm kind of thinking out loud as I read through both this and the Food Pyramid Thread.

I don't know if the folks at Safefood site are still reading this but if they are I'm going to offer some constructive advise.

Welcome to the Internet. This is not a Government controlled site. We are not obliged to agree with you or pander to you or pat you on the back or tell you what a good job you are doing. What we are obliged to do is treat you with the same civility and respect that we would do if you were standing right in front of us speaking to us in Real Life ™ I think our users have not only held themselves to this but they have excelled in the restraint they've shown when faced with the finger in ear stance of some of the Safefood Reps (not to mention patronising - defining the word "plenty" from a dictionary when it was quite clear what was being asked, really??). Was there some tough talking from a few people? Absolutely there was, but let's be honest here Safefood, you came onto our turf to discuss something that we've been discussing at length for years. The onus here was for you to prove yourselves, not the other way around.

Boards.ie - going on the most recent statistics that I can remember - is the third most popular website in Ireland. This forum alone got 14 million views in a six month period last year. How does that measure up to your own websites views? I'm guessing there was a gross underestimation as to just how big an audience you would reach here, and the quality of audience to boot. The one thing that I find highly amusing in all this is that your attitude towards Internet users is remarkably similar to that of Nutritional Advice. You're basing your opinions on largely outdated stereotypes and misinformation. In one breath you tell us that bread is good for us and grains should be a stalwart of our diet in the same dismissive tone that suggests you see us as internet nerds and people who do not know what they're talking about.

Frankly Safefood, I'd lay a years' worth of my comfortable semi-state wage (I'm one of you too y'know) that the collective knowledge of a handful of the posters on these threads would put some of the "experts" who seem to be providing you with your information to shame.

You had a unique opportunity here - access to people who are passionate about nutrition and health, people who track scientific research and debate on the topic, who can more than adequately present their findings and discuss the minutiae of how to take raw data and translate it into understandable English. And all for free, not one consultancy fee or invoice. But instead you opted for the "we know better" approach.

I can't help but reminded of Pretty Woman and the shop assistants. Big mistake. Big. Huge.

fatmammycat

* applaudes*

Zamboni

g'em wrote: »

You had a unique opportunity here - access to people who are passionate Welcome to the Internet. This is not a Government controlled site. We are not obliged to agree with you or pander to you or pat you on the back or tell you what a good job you are doing. What we are obliged to do is treat you with the same civility and respect that we would do if you were standing right in front of us speaking to us in Real Life ™ I think our users have not only held themselves to this but they have excelled in the restraint they've shown when faced with the finger in ear stance of some of the Safefood Reps

This.
I don't know if anyone else has googled the rep from Safefood but it is clear from the CV (highly academic/PR) that the audience she would be used to would be students and public service committees
i.e. predominantly a one way communication with little challenge.
Without being personal (because I don't believe this should be), this may have been the reason why this has not worked out as envisaged in the Safefood PR dept.
There was probaby an expectation of a bunch of 'I used to be fat' stories but instead there were challenges on various fronts from people far more articulate than I.
Due to the lack of foresight, this has become, what should have been an easy PR campaign, a PR mess.

Tigger

A state body copying the us and feeding (sic) us crap about diet and nutrition and the. Ticking to it I can handle .

Boards changing the rules to suit a commercial proposition with darragh cutting and pasting a thread to get rid of the truth that opposes his paymasters and then the rules changing at the end. Mark my words this is the beginning if the end of boards where speech was free as long as you were being constructive

Shame on it all

nesf

Tigger wrote: »

A state body copying the us and feeding (sic) us crap about diet and nutrition and the. Ticking to it I can handle .

Boards changing the rules to suit a commercial proposition with darragh cutting and pasting a thread to get rid of the truth that opposes his paymasters and then the rules changing at the end. Mark my words this is the beginning if the end of boards where speech was free as long as you were being constructive

Shame on it all

I'd agree with many of your points but speech has never been free on boards.ie.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

I'd agree with many of your points but speech has never been free on boards.ie.

In fairness he has a point, opposing constructive opinions were basically ignored and the 3 winners were positive comments, hard enough as they were to find! The message is that negative comments, even constructive criticism, will not be considered for the prize.

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness he has a point, opposing constructive opinions were basically ignored and the 3 winners were positive comments, hard enough as they were to find! The message is that negative comments, even constructive criticism, will not be considered for the prize.

Well that seems to be a misunderstanding with Dav not knowing that the thread with all the negative comments was also eligible for the prize. Not that the thread should have been split in the first place, that was a really bad move.

Roger Marbles

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness he has a point, opposing constructive opinions were basically ignored and the 3 winners were positive comments, hard enough as they were to find! The message is that negative comments, even constructive criticism, will not be considered for the prize.

Precisely this.

Furthermore, all the questions in the split thread were supposed to be compiled by a moderator on the evening of the split. This didn't happen for 5 days. Not even remotely on the agenda obviously.

The split thread wasn't stickied either unlike the 'competition thread' and the fact that it got a sticky instead is risible.

We were told by Darragh to stop making accusations that Safefood didn't care when clearly all evidence suggests they don't. Not only did any senior people hold their tawdry behaviour to account, but were actually more than happy to accomodate it and support it by side-lining a lot of people by the very existence of the 'non-competition' thread.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

Well that seems to be a misunderstanding with Dav not knowing that the thread with all the negative comments was also eligible for the prize. Not that the thread should have been split in the first place, that was a really bad move.

Thing is they said they spent time on it, I normally give the benefit of the doubt but I find it hard that the post showing that the thread was split was missed and the posts that won were all pretty complimentary.

g'em

Before things take an ugly twist I'm going to stem this right here.

Darragh did a great thing getting Safefood on board but there were a number of miscommunications along the way and a potentially fantastic opportunity has been wasted. It was a PR exercise that's gone quite wrong, but I'd like this forum to retain its dignity on the matter. You guys have responded brilliantly thus far but there's more than enough here for Safefood to chew over (with a side of garlic bread, wholegrain naturally and polyunsaturated margarine) but the facts are getting muddled and it's taking a turn downhill. This is definitely going to require further discussion but, for now, I'm going to take it off the forum.

The other Mods and I have been given the go ahead to choose a winner from the other thred so we'll have a name by Monday.

g'em

Right so folks. For the Mod's Choice we'd like to award Gauge with the €100 voucher for this post

Gauge has told a compelling personal account of her own issues with healthy eating, and has clearly and concisely pointed out how easy it is to confuse some of the information that's given in the campaign - while this may not be the feedback that Safefood were hoping for I think it highlights perfectly how it's not just those in the "know" who have difficulty with the message being driven home, it's exactly those people that the campaign is targetting.