In Forum: Site Feedback and Support
By User: Battler
While I understand the reasoning behind the Contributing Posts/Advanced Membership policy, (and do not have a "better idea" at the moment, just making a point) this requirement kept me from joining the site for some time, simply because I felt that it did not encourage new members to join and was "unfriendly." It gives the impression that this site is a "private club" where you have to be in the clique.
Well allowing everyone to access the FTP, would end up badly for this forum. Most people would just register here, post nothing and spend all their time leeching the FTP. I however agree that BA focuses too much on the quantity of contributing posts and too little on the quality of said. I also think people should be allowed to get into Advanced Members by providing one or more pieces of software we're missing.
I also believe this contributes to the number of useless/offtopic topics and posts. If you're a new member, you feel like you need to be posting something or you need to find a way to get your 10 posts. But, unless a discussion that 1)you are interested in, 2)know something about, and 3)is less than three months old is going on, what do you do? In theory you could go for months without being able to get 10 (really)contributing posts. Not because you don't have knowledge or don't want to contribute, but simply because you have nothing important to add to any current discussion. Which brings me to...
What I propose here is, instead of a fixed number of contributing posts, instead the number should be based on the quality of said posts and contributions of binaries to the FTP.
The "don't bump old topics" policy is too heavy handed. Bumping old topics just to increase post count or simply to attract attention can be a problem, but it's silly to have to post a whole new topic to discuss the same issue that is already in another thread or add new information to a subject just because the original thread is dated. Relaxing this policy and encouraging people to search the forums should reduce the number of topics and the amount of repetition of the same problems & solutions.
I absolutely agree on this. In fact on the other two serious forums I'm a member of, they even merge your thread into an existing older one if it's on the same subject. That way, you have one thread per subject and don't need to search for posts scattered all around the place.
While there is an "established" set of rules, it seems that the enforcement of these rules varies in application and interpretation from moderator to moderator. I know some degree of this is inevitable, but it contributes to an air of uncertainty and a fear that someone is going to come down on your head if you say the wrong thing or disagree with the wrong person.
I agree on this point as well, what needs to be done is to educate all Staff members, old and new, to the standard way of doing this and the "official interpretations" of the rules, while of course still allow a small degree of deviation from the standard. Allowing for too much deviation, as you said, and as I know from personal experience on my forum (and other forums too), tends to lead to confusion and inappropriate handling of problems.
I see a lot of mention of encouraging "professionalism." No doubt we all have our own definitions of what exactly that means, but I didn't see a lot of "professionalism" (IMO) in the "Windows 9x discontinued" thread.
Absolutely agreed. Some of us in that thread tried to have an unbiased discussion, comparing Windows 9x with the versions of Windows NT available at the time and listing the pro's and cons of both, but other people kept going "it's 2012, Windows 9x is no longer good, end of discussion", which I agree isn't exactly the professional attitude this forum's members should have in my opinion.
I agree with the comments made earlier about splitting up the operating systems into subforums by codebase. If you like Windows 9x, then you should be able to post there without having a bunch of 9x-haters dropping by just to criticize your experiment or your project or your choice of OS. If you post a question about an OS, then any replies that do not contribute to the subject or solution, or simply criticize the original poster's preferences should be prohibited. Arguments about which OS is "better" are pointless, because if you have enough computer knowledge to get here and be interested in this site then you already have an opinion on that subject, and you're not going to change it, and you're not interested in what everyone else thinks. Opinions are like... -- well, you get the idea.
I agree on that. However, I also think that inappropriate comments should be handled more harshly. I'm all for sharing each other's opinions, as long as it's done maturely, professionally, and without bad attitudes or personal attacks. For example, posts saying "end of discussion" should be deleted, as I think noone should have the right to forcibly end a discussion, apart from Staff and higher and even then only with a valid reason.
Also, splitting up the OS'es by codebase would allow other users of the same systems to be quickly drawn to new threads/posts rather than having to wade through a bunch of topics that do not interest them. I participate in a couple of other forums, and I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've browsed sections and subsections that don't really interest me.
Yeah, I agree with this point too. I don't really like the fact I need to scroll through a large list of Windows 8-related threads, before finally coming upon one about Windows 9x, 3.x, or DOS, for example.
I also feel it would be a good idea to have different moderators for different forum sections. This way moderators can be chosen from members who are interested and active in the subject of the section they're assigned to. This helps establish more of a community feeling and helps keep a consistent interpretation and application of the rules.
That would be a good idea as well, if done right. Assign one or two section-specific moderators for each section in addition to the global moderators. That way, most issues will be handled by people really interested and knowledgeable in the subject, and global moderators will only be required to step in when it goes beyond those moderators' control.
To address the offtopic discussions issue, I see both sides of the argument. I agree that there have been a rash of "noobish" or "silly" topics, and I believe these should somehow be reduced, because it does tend to make the forum look bad or "immature." However, the problem is, where do you draw the line? Who's opinion on the usefulness of a topic prevails? The current system of interpretation by individual moderators only contributes to the "air of uncertainty" that I mentioned before. The only answer I have is to divide the forum up into more subforums, define specifically what can be discussed in each, and if a topic doesn't fit, then it MUST be posted in the Offtopic forum. Then, lay out a list of issues/topics that cannot be discussed anywhere on the forum, period. Politics and religion would be good for starters, along with other topics completely irrelevant to the computer/technical field.
An off-topic section isn't a problem. The problem is, as you said, drawing the line between what's appropriate, and what's not. Problem is, the definition of that differs from member to member, so I think members should come and give their opinions on what kind of off-topic posts are appropriate, and what kind are not, and together reach a consensus.
Obviously any and all decisions ultimately come back to the people who pay the bills. That is the way of the world and as it should be. But, in order to get people to contribute financially or otherwise to the site, they need to have a reason to belong and feel that they have some stake in it.
What has to be done, is to reach a consensus between the people running the forum and the people using it, while however not forgetting that those running it will always inevitably have higher authority and thus a louder voice in the matter. So find what most people agree on, and adapt it enough so it fits with what the ones running the forum agree with too. Then discuss it again, until the final consensus is reached. However, there still has to be a line drawn at one point, after which discussion ends, otherwise it risks going into the infinite.
For example(and just an example), I came here for Windows 9x Betas and for the other Abandonware. I personally have no interest whatsoever in any operating system newer than Windows XP, whether Beta or RTM. When I see the unfriendly treatment of Windows 9x users such as I mentioned above, or when I see people complain that BA should "get rid of old stuff" or "get rid of the abandonware," what am I supposed to think? Will these people eventually have their way? If so, why should I stay, or care what happens, or contribute financially to the forum?
I agree with you. In addition, I think research on Betas and Abandonware should be encouraged too, including speculation, on any Beta or Abandonware subject. At the moment, I don't see that much research, and more people arguing on who is better to trust/associate with which is IMHO completely irrelevant. I think there should be more of a focus on the subject and contents of each post than on who posted the post.