The slow death of forums *see OP for Admin warning and update 28/02/18*

Lone Stone

I really dont use anything outside one or two forums here anymore, i use to love reading after hours then they forced a bunch of stuff to politics cafe for "casual" political talk which was moderated to the point of shilling, and then it was turned into a feckin user approved forum bleh ! remember when they said this is for casual talk bla bla..

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

Given some of the recent points and indeed my post earlier mentioning the responsive site, I'm digging out these points from my earlier post

Now I've not discussed any of the above directly with any of the development team, but my understanding is they are pretty flat out trying to get the responsive site up to a decent level, and firefighting any particular issues cropping up on the legacy site.

Bearing that in mind, do users think their time is better spent coming up with some short term fixes for this type of issue, or would you prefer them to concentrate on the responsive site, hopefully accommodating some or indeed all of these points

I know which one makes sense to me, particularly as many of us are familiar with these issues and have lived with them for some time. A while longer (and I've no idea how long) would not concern me if I thought the responsive site was going to be the "app of choice" going forward. I would prefer they concentrate on getting that right than divert too much resource to issues on the legacy site that almost certainly has a finite life anyway

So it’s still full steam ahead on the responsive site then. As it stands, it won’t be my “app of choice” and I could see myself trying to persuade the forum I frequent most to set up elsewhere.

CruelCoin

Could we get some basic fixes to long-standing problem? Buggy sites drive people away like no mans business.

My own - If you are following a forum and that gets closed, the unfollow button disappears, so this dead forum stays in the "My Forums" list forever.

Shouldn't be a particularly difficult fix.

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

Are you a lawyer? If so perhaps you could drop a line to the Office and offer them some legal advice

NB I am not a lawyer and legal advice read on boards.ie is not guaranteed

😀

Boards.ie: Mark

CruelCoin wrote: »

Could we get some basic fixes to long-standing problem? Buggy sites drive people away like no mans business.

My own - If you are following a forum and that gets closed, the unfollow button disappears, so this dead forum stays in the "My Forums" list forever.

Shouldn't be a particularly difficult fix.

There is a manual workaround for this. To unsubscribe from a closed forum, enter https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/subscription.php?do=removesubscription&f=XXX in your address bar. You can remove a sub for any forum by swapping the XXX after f= for any forum ID number. I'll make a note of this though.

Beasty

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

So it’s still full steam ahead on the responsive site then. As it stands, it won’t be my “app of choice” and I could see myself trying to persuade the forum I frequent most to set up elsewhere.

One of the first points raised in this thread was posters wanted a decent app. My understanding is that has been a focus of the development team for some time

CruelCoin wrote: »

Could we get some basic fixes to long-standing problem? Buggy sites drive people away like no mans business.

My own - If you are following a forum and that gets closed, the unfollow button disappears, so this dead forum stays in the "My Forums" list forever.

Shouldn't be a particularly difficult fix.

So you want to prioritise short term fixes to the legacy site ahead of getting a functional responsive site that hopefully accommodates some of these "fixes"?

Explain to me like I’m 5 years old....

Is the responsive site an app or will it be what is shown when I type in boards.ie via my phones browser?

Btw, I’ve switched to responsive to see what’s changed in the last 18 months

El Weirdo

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

There is a manual workaround for this. To unsubscribe from a closed forum, enter http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/subsc...cription&f=XXX in your address bar. You can remove a sub for any forum by swapping the XXX after f= for any forum ID number. I'll make a note of this though.

That link doesn't work.

Boards.ie: Mark

El Weirdo wrote: »

That link doesn't work.

Thanks, now it should work

CruelCoin

Beasty wrote: »

So you want to prioritise short term fixes to the legacy site ahead of getting a functional responsive site that hopefully accommodates some of these "fixes"?

Not everyone uses this only on their phone.....So, yes, fixes to the website would be good.

It's a thread on why people are leaving, and i'm providing some of my bugbears. I'm not sure what the problem is here.

A responsive site means nothing to me on pc

GreeBo

CruelCoin wrote: »

Not everyone uses this only on their phone.....So, yes, fixes to the website would be good.
A responsive site means nothing to me on pc

+1

Do we have stats on the usage rates across the different platforms?

90% of mine is legacy site as its open in the background of the laptop all day.

CruelCoin

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

Thanks, now it should work

That worked great, thanks

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

CruelCoin wrote: »

Not everyone uses this only on their phone.....So, yes, fixes to the website would be good.

It's a thread on why people are leaving, and i'm providing some of my bugbears. I'm not sure what the problem is here.

A responsive site means nothing to me on pc

Agreed. The Responsive Site is alien to me and I'd rather see issues with the legacy site sorted first.

How anybody can weigh the opinions on this defies me as, when all is said and done, the percentage of users posting on this thread is very limited.

Are new sign ups automatically linked to the responsive site?

If so, is it just mobile signups or pc too?

Beasty

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Explain to me like I’m 5 years old....

Is the responsive site an app or will it be what is shown when I type in boards.ie via my phones browser?

Btw, I’ve switched to responsive to see what’s changed in the last 18 months

I am not in any way technical, and I'm sure someone from the office will be along to correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the whole idea behind the responsive site is it would be a single platform for use via handhelds and PCs. It may look slightly different, but all the base features will be driven by the same underlying technology

Boards.ie: Mark

On mobile, the plan is to improve the touch.boards.ie site, taking community feedback into account, rather than have a downloadable app. So you're spot on when you say that we'd have a cross-platform experience, which may look slightly different but should offer the same features.

As for the current responsive site, people who are outside the Republic of Ireland access it by default but can switch over to the Legacy Site via the header or footer. On mobile, you get the Touch site by default, but can switch to the Legacy Site by selecting Full Site in the footer.

Boards.ie: Mark

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

On mobile, the plan is to improve the touch.boards.ie site.......

Thank god! I dunno what I’d do if I couldn’t kill fellow boardsies once a month

trellheim

There seems to be a repetitive drumbeat here from the office "oh the responsive site will fix it all " ... Actually its been there years and most of the core base I think uses the main site not the responsive one . I use the main site on PC Iphone and IPad , its fine. Can we sort of fix the actual problems please or is the backoffice convinced they know better here ?

Tell me how

Boards.ie: Mark wrote:

On mobile, the plan is to improve the touch.boards.ie site, taking community feedback into account, rather than have a downloadable app. So you're spot on when you say that we'd have a cross-platform experience, which may look slightly different but should offer the same features.

I'm interested in this when virtually every other platform favours the app route rather than browser platform for mobile access.

I'm sure there's a reason but it's not jumping out at me.

by8auj6csd3ioq

Even at a less sinister level, the amount of misinformed **** I see posted and re-enforced by others on places like Facebook scares me. It just becomes an echo chamber and you end up getting whatever news suits your world view. It's extremely dangerous in my opinion.

modern day version of buck she advice and pub talk. There is one guy on certain forum who believes all the rumours he hears in a pub . His source for anything he 'knows' is a rumour

blackwhite

trellheim wrote: »

Everyone has an agenda where certain things are concerned though. With a repeal the 8th campaigning about to get going its reasonable to assume sone people are going to wallpaper every forum they can - but isnt that democracy ? You're going to see it on every lamp-post soon. Its OK in my view that Boards is reasonably representative

Boards is a discussion site, not a billboard (unless you're a paying customer of course). Soapboxing has always been something that's against the rules here.

Outside of the clearly defined ads, and the talk to forums, there shouldn't be any "wallpapering" of what is effectively political advertising going on.

Discussion on the topics is fine, soapboxing purely to promote a vote one way or the other (for me at least) crosses the line away from discussion.

Just to be clear, I don't think boards should be trying to stop discussions from leaning towards one view-point or another (given the demographics of the userbase it's only natural that this will happen on most issues).
Discussions with a heavy bias one way aren't soapboxing - refusing to actually engage with other posters' points, and simply repeating whatever mantra you wish to peddle ad nauseum is (and IMO is rightly so) against the rules.

.......

This post has been deleted.

trellheim

Boards is a discussion site, not a billboard (unless you're a paying customer of course). Soapboxing has always been something that's against the rules here.

Outside of the clearly defined ads, and the talk to forums, there shouldn't be any "wallpapering" of what is effectively political advertising going on.

Discussion on the topics is fine, soapboxing purely to promote a vote one way or the other (for me at least) crosses the line away from discussion.

Just to be clear, I don't think boards should be trying to stop discussions from leaning towards one view-point or another (given the demographics of the userbase it's only natural that this will happen on most issues).
Discussions with a heavy bias one way aren't soapboxing - refusing to actually engage with other posters' points, and simply repeating whatever mantra you wish to peddle ad nauseum is (and IMO is rightly so) against the rules.

As many in the Aviation Forum know and metaphorically roll their eyes when they see a post of mine in certain threads, I have an agenda but its only for certain things . Thats normal - we all feel strongly about *some* things. Isn't that what makes us who we are, different from the next ? Otherwise every post here would be the same.

My point there was that we are going to see wall-to-wall emotive Repeal debate on the lampposts and many a march to and from the GPO , its going to suck up most of the debate for the next couple of months at least.

If Boards reflect that ( and the strong views that go along with it ) is it right, or wrong ? I think its right - you don't have to engage in many a thread here and I think Boards should reflect Ireland - else whats it for ?

Beasty

Thanks for all your contributions. As mentioned a few times I'm closing up now. We'll aim to provide at least an update by the end of February, and in the meantime will be starting an Open Discussion on the Feedback forum itsel

Beasty

As promised I'm now providing an update of developments since this thread was closed. Unfortunately there have been a couple of other things we've been dealing with, but I still think we have managed to make good progress

I initially summarised the points raised in this post, which was then updated here

Going through the specific points:

Feedback - as promised there is an ongoing Open Discussion on the format of Feedback here

Moderation - we have an ongoing discussion in the mods forum covering in particular areas we feel there is scope for more consistency across the site.

This is an extract from a post I made there the other day:

1. General - consistency
We're going to pull together an updated guide to modding that will hopefully result in more consistency, where appropriate. I say where appropriate because we recognise that with such a wide variety of forums and underlying topics there can never be a one size fits all solution. However there were some specific areas identified in the thread where we feel there is scope for improvement:

2. Thread locking/deleting
We agree that whenever a thread is locked there should be an explanation why. In the case of deleted threads if anyone wants an explanation please PM mods. In the case of threads started by re-reg trolls we will usually do a "delete all" resulting in threads disappearing, but if a thread has gained traction we are certainly open to them being re-opened subject to the agreement of local mods. Equally if someone believes it was a valid topic, there is no reason they could not start a new thread on the same topic

3. Feedback stickies
Some forums have already implemented these, but we recognise this does not suit every forum. Indeed some of the more popular forums would probably experience continual comments about modding decisions, distracting the mods and indeed turning discussion away from the underlying topic. We would expect feedback threads in these cases to be run every couple of years or so, and if posters feel one is overdue they can always PM the mods to request one. Equally in some cases forums are quite quiet with few issues and it may be inappropriate to seek feedback that often. Posters should not start feedback threads themselves as it's important that local mods set some ground rules when opening up such threads.

If posters feel a feedback thread is overdue but local mods disagree, please contact CMods and after that feel free to start a thread in Help Desk to discuss the issue

4. Zombie threads
I think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding here as there's certainly no sitewide rule that they cannot be resurrected. It needs to be looked at on a forum by forum or thread by thread basis, and there is certainly no expectation that mods should automatically close old threads. They need to exercise their discretion bearing in mind some issues/topics can change quite quickly whilst in other areas information posted may remain valid for many years. Again if someone feels a thread has been closed unnecessarily, please discuss the situation with local mods

I would add that I think another area where we lack consistency is in mod warnings which I think, unless directed at specific posters, should be at least linked from the OP and mention in an updated thread title (together with the date of the update) so users can easily navigate to such warnings

On forum structure I think there is some streamlining that can be done, perhaps merging some topics or closing inactive forums. Similarly we are overdue a review of inactive mods and I think we should be looking to demod people who have not been online for an extended period (without explanation) or who don't actively mod. This is something that we may take a little time to get to given the other areas we are currently looking to prioritise

On the site development issues raised, this remains in the hands of the Site Development team, and I do understand they are trying to prioritise getting the responsive site to a decent level, and hopefully can introduce some of the suggestions there. On the search function, Mark from the Office started an Open Discussion

On the topic of "rejuvenating" forums, I am sure there are some that could get a bit more active. However they tend to be quiet for a reason, and things may have moved on from when they were first proposed. It's really not something for us or moderators to take in hand - it's more for users to start showing an interest in these topics, which hopefully can encourage others to do the same.

We have not yet had a chance to look at the Politic Café. On forum creation we have pushed through a couple of requests that had been hanging around for a while.

I think we have taken onboard some of the comments about new users and I for one have started PM'ing some new posters to advise them of some of the rules they may be in breach of rather than sanctioning them in a way we may do to someone who does/should already know the ropes.

A sitewide survey was also mentioned, and that's one the office were considering

I'm proposing leaving this thread open for a week to allow posters to further comment on the progress we've made to date, and any other areas they think we should prioritise

Rules/warnings in OP remain in place, and anyone thread-banned remains so

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Boom_Bap

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

4 of them were opened by a rereg troll who has since been banned.
You're right though, there should be an explanation added.

Boom_Bap

Boom_Bap wrote: »

4 of them were opened by a rereg troll who has since been banned.
You're right though, there should be an explanation added.

2 of those threads were closed by Conspectus. That same mod also thanked a few posts which went against the OP. I think that's a bit of a conflict of interest to be honest. Shows a lack of impartiality.

As far as the threads themselves go, I was only posting in one of them and it was a decent enough conversation. If a re-reg started it, couldn't that be excused as long as intelligent and interesting commentary is ongoing? Questioning the legitimacy of identifying as a dragon/little girl/another race isn't the same as having a pop at trans people, it's a discussion on those individual cases. Why should it be automatically shelved?

GreeBo

Omackeral wrote: »

2 of those threads were closed by Conspectus. That same mod also thanked a few posts which went against the OP. I think that's a bit of a conflict of interest to be honest. Shows a lack of impartiality.

A mod doesnt have to be impartial towards the topic under discussion.
They do need to be impartial towards moderating posters.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

A mod doesnt have to be impartial towards the topic under discussion.
They do need to be impartial towards moderating posters.

I full agree that mods can and should post as normal posters in threads. I think it's a conflict of interest, though when a mod who has taken a side in a debate is the same one that locks a thread. They can't be impartial if they've a dog in the fight, so to speak.