# Poll: What do you think of the changes?



## Mike Bobbitt (30 May 2004)

Ok, this is partly to test out the poll feature, and partly to get feedback on the new layout. Feel free to reply if you want to rant discuss any specific points.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Cpl. Williamson (30 May 2004)

I Really Love the New Layout High Speed Low Drag 

Kinda Brings a New High tech Feel A Superb facelift

CHIMO 

PS: The new Word Features are Awesome


----------



## Goober (30 May 2004)

My only gripe (a small one at that) is that I think these icons need to be contrasted more, maybe a darker green.

http://army.ca/forums/Themes/Armyca/images/english/search.gif

But great work!


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (30 May 2004)

Good point, the text is white on light green... I'll see what I can do about that, and thanks... that's exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for. There are definitely going to be some "ugly" things that will need fixing, especially initially.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## mattoigta (30 May 2004)

Using the MS Internet Explorer browser, When I hit "Submit Vote" on the poll on the main page, nothing happens, but other polls work fine. Also, when using a Mozilla broswer, the poll on the main page does not show up.

Cheers


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (30 May 2004)

Yeah, there are some issues there... It *does* register your vote, but just doesn't acknowledge it...

I'll see what I can do about the other issues...


Thanks


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (30 May 2004)

As a side note, if you voted "Hate it" please consider posting your complaints... I may be able to address them...


----------



## girlfiredup (30 May 2004)

Mike, great work!   It looks good and thank you for all your hard work.   There are some some minor things that I'm not liking though so please see this as constructive.    When I come to the site, I usually go directly to the new posts but I couldn't find them from the main page.. I was a little lost and then I eventually found them at the bottom.   I think this is a feature that should be visible upon entry.   I have a 15" monitor so that might be the case.   I also think the space used for articles on the main entry page could be smaller and that would bring up the new posts section somewhere at the top.   I liked the old style where you had a legend that showed topics with a new post rather than listing every new post and in this case several for just one topic.     I hope I'm making sense?     Anyway, just my 2 cents.   What do you think?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (30 May 2004)

Makes sense... Maybe I'll move the "Recent Posts" above the News section...

As for checking new posts when you visit the forums, just click on the "Show unread posts since last visit" link at the top... that'll show every new post since your last visit.

There are still going to be some areas for improvement, so don't worry, it's all taken as constructive. 

Cheers
Mike


----------



## girlfiredup (30 May 2004)

Thanks for the reply Mike but I just spent 5 minutes navigating through the site trying to find the button "show unread posts since last visit".   I had another member do the same thing and he wasnt able to find it either.   Grrrrrrrr...


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (30 May 2004)

It's under the "User Info" block at the top... Mine looks like this:



> Hey, Mike Bobbitt, you have 9 messages, 0 are new.
> Total time logged in: 8 hours and 56 minutes.
> Show unread posts since last visit.
> Show new replies to your posts.
> May 30, 2004, 21:05:08



If you don't see it, there's a little triangle next to the Home, Help, Search... buttons that shows/hides it, maybe yours is hidden...


----------



## girlfiredup (30 May 2004)

Aha, so that's what that little arrow thingy does.   Mine was hidden.   Perhaps you may want to add an alt tag description to the arrow icon.  But all is good.  Thanks!   I'm happy now.


----------



## D-n-A (30 May 2004)

I like the new layout, only problem I have is not being able to edit posts anymore.


----------



## MJP (30 May 2004)

Its there......On your post it should say MODIFY(upper right I believe), this is the same as edit.


----------



## mattoigta (30 May 2004)

I'm starting to really miss the "Recent Posts" on the main page.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 May 2004)

Under "User Info" at the top left of the page is a link -"Show unread posts since last visit". It works the same. ;D or pretty close to it.


----------



## D-n-A (31 May 2004)

MJP said:
			
		

> Its there......On your post it should say MODIFY(upper right I believe), this is the same as edit.



Ah, yea, I didn't notice it before  :-[

Thanks


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 May 2004)

I can't tell which posts i've read and which i have not.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (31 May 2004)

Seriously? The ones that you haven't read should have a "New" icon next to them when you're browsing that forum... Or you can just click on the Show unread posts since last visit link near the top to see them all.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 May 2004)

Now its starting to work. Yesterday for some reason no matter how many times i read a topic it still showed up as new (i figured thats what it was for int he first place). Good stuff thanks


----------



## clasper (31 May 2004)

Mike-

Thanks for all of your hard work.  The new features look great, especially the spell checker.  If only we could now force people to use it...   I don't know how much control you have over the content of the dictionary, but it would be nice if you could add some commonly-posted military related words like  Pte, MCpl, Bloggins, LMG, etc.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (31 May 2004)

Good point, I'll check that out. 


Thanks


----------



## para paramedic (31 May 2004)

Mike,

Great job on the new software update and on keeping the site up and running! The only thing that I miss so far is a section for personal interests in the member profile section. It can be especially useful for civvies like me who don't have any military experience (yet).


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (31 May 2004)

Yeah, unfortunately that field was one of the only ones not converted.


----------



## para paramedic (31 May 2004)

Mike,

I wouldn't mind filling out the personal interests info again if we could have that field back. Would it be much work to add it back into the member profile?

Thanks!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jun 2004)

Mike, On about 1/10 of the posts I dont get that little dohickey on the right side to scroll so I don't get the complete message. I'm on my home comp., not the normal one I use. ;D I'm just curious if its my comp. or a bug.
Thank's Bruce


----------



## Yard Ape (2 Jun 2004)

Very nice work Mike.

 It is nice to see the custom faces still around :fifty: :soldier: :dontpanic:

but, I like the old generic ones better than the new generic       :-\

and, why is this guy here twice   :sniper: :akimbo:  (ah! One is supposed to be the sniper.  and I thought he was just too well cam'ed)


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (3 Jun 2004)

Aha, good catch... I've fixed the "sniper" icon, thanks. I'll keep updating things as we go, so every bit of feedback helps. 

Bruce: are you still having a problem with the scrollbars?


----------



## Spartan (4 Jun 2004)

Just a quick question:
when you're looking at the thread lists and it says last post by (whomever) is there a way to set it up so that when you click on the last post (whomevers) name that it brings you to the last post in the thread as compared to bringing up their profile?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (4 Jun 2004)

If you click on the topic name, that'll take you to the new posts... Clicking on a username always takes you to that user's profile, there's not much I can do to change that unfortunately...

Cheers


----------



## Yard Ape (6 Jun 2004)

I cannot do searches by post title only, and the search engine will also identify my word if it is part of the spelling of a larger word.  :crybaby:


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (6 Jun 2004)

Good point... I'll put in a feature request to see if we can get that option...


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (6 Jun 2004)

Good news: that'll be in the next release of the software (not due out for a month or two).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Jun 2004)

Mike,
The problem I talked to you about is only on my home computer so I think its because my browser is outdated. Will fix :blotto:
Bruce


----------



## combat_medic (8 Jun 2004)

Hey Mike, here's an interesting bug:

When I view the site on my home computer using a newer version of internet explorer, everything is fine, but at work where I'm using Mozilla, the formatting is screwy. For posts of 1-3 lines, only the first line is showing up. For longer posts, the first 2 lines are showing up with a scroll bar on the right, so I'm having to read everything 2 lines at a time. Probably just a browser-specific bug, but an interesting one nonetheless.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (8 Jun 2004)

Hmmm. That's what Bruce was reporting too. I just tested it on Mozilla 1.6, and it worked OK. What version are you using?


----------



## combat_medic (8 Jun 2004)

I'm using 1.0. I'll try the upgrade and see if that doesn't fix it.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (8 Jun 2004)

Sounds good, let me know how it goes...


Thanks


----------



## combat_medic (8 Jun 2004)

Yeah, that fixed it, cheers.


----------



## willy (9 Jun 2004)

Mike, it's your site, and I can only assume that you've made it the way you want it.   So I hope that I'm not out of line by making this suggestion, but I think that the user rating (promote/demote) function should be scrapped.   Frankly, I think it's juvenile.   Really, it's just a slightly more polite form of name calling.   If people were using it to "promote" members who made intelligent arguments or who brought newsworthy info to everyone's attention, and to "demote" those who were actually trolling, or otherwise making non-worthwhile contributions, then maybe it would be ok.   I don't think that's the way it's being used however: I'll admit that I have "demoted" those whose posts I have simply disagreed with, and I think others are doing the same thing.   Looking back on it, I probably shouldn't have done that, as it was, as I said, childish of me to do so.   People are going to disagree, and a member who holds strong opinions, even on controversial subjects, does not necessarily make a bad member of the site. 

Recently, there have been a couple of passionate arguments on this board.   That's fair enough-- I tend to hold a lot of strong opinions myself, and I do like to argue them with others.   The thing is, that the threads I am referring to have quickly degenerated into name calling on the part of both sides involved, and such behaviour does not tend to encourage meaningful debate.   If the general opinion of the membership of this board is that it disagrees with a particular post, then there will probably be enough rebuttals made to make that fact well known, and that will be the case regardless of whether or not we can "demote" our "enemies".   At least in an honest rebuttal there is (ideally) going to be some legitimate argument made.   On the other hand, given the presence of the user rating function, I think that the temptation is to read a post, disagree with it, and then just "demote" the party responsible.   In other words, I think that the way this function is currently being applied is along the lines of "I agree with the gist of what this guy has said, though he might have acted like a retard when saying it: I should promote him" and/or "I disagree with what this member has posted, and though the poster may have written it in a professional manner, I'm going to demote him".   As I said, I just don't think that such behaviour is really very far elevated above childish name calling, and I'm not proud of having engaged in it myself in the past.

So there you go.   Submitted for your consideration.   And by the way, I'm aware that my user rating is not 100% favourable at the moment, and I hope you can believe me when I say that the votes against me really aren't the reason I have made this proposal.

A reformed name caller,

Willy


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (9 Jun 2004)

Hi Willy,

Thanks for the feedback. (And you're not out of line...all feedback is good, it helps form a more complete picture.) It was certainly not a "clear cut" decision to enable ratings. There are really two questions to look at with regards to the rating system:

1. Will people use the system to effectively rate the contributions (or detractions) of other users here?

While my hope is that it will be strictly used to encourage contribution and discourage trolling, I have no illusions that it will also be used as a personal vendetta device. That's unfortunate, but there's little we can do about it short of disabling ratings all together. (As a matter of principle, I hate to let the "few abusers" force the rest of us to get along with one less feature...)

In the old system, you could rate a user from 1-5 only once, and had to live with that. The new system allows you to rate a user multiple times  (with a one hour mandatory "cooling off" period in between). There are pros and cons to that: if someone is able to change their ways (for better or worse) you're no longer forced to live with your initial assessment of the user.

My rule of thumb: Whenever I see a post that's informative, useful, entertaining, etc I give the poster a positive rating. When I see someone dishing out personal attacks or taking a thread off topic, they get a negative. I don't (consciously) let personal opinions come into play.

As a mitigating factor, you must have at least 25 posts here before you can rate someone else. That won't prevent abuse, but it'll require that you've been here for a while before you can start throwing punches.  I give out 3-4 positive ratings for every negative, though I'm not sure if that's a function of the posts I read or a subconscious decision to stay positive.

2. What is the impact of a user's rating?

This is key. Ratings are used by the staff here to judge a user's standing, but only in part. That is, nobody's going to stay or inflict punitive action based on ratings. It's always based on a user's specific actions. Having said that, a strong trend in one direction or the other can help us form a clearer picture of a user's general standing. We're aware that ratings may be skewed by mudslinging and that it may turn into a popularity contest, and so we weigh it accordingly.

How others interpret a user's ratings is up for debate, but you can assume they put a bit more stock into the facts posted by someone with a positive trend, and look with a bit more skepticism on those from someone with a negative trend.

The danger in dropping the rating system is that there's no way for the general population to reward good behaviour and punish bad. I'm hoping that it will act as an incentive (no matter how small) and nudge people in the "right" direction in terms of forum behaviour.

Feel free to demote me if you disagree. 

And to your point about recent posts: You're absolutely right. There have been too many threads degrade into a name calling match. Everone needs to be aware that personal attacks are against forum policy and will not be tolerated. Action *will* be taken against users who breach the conduct guidelines.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## jrhume (9 Jun 2004)

Mike,

I have to agree with Willy about the ratings.  I've engaged in no name-calling and attempted to provide intelligent comment in all my posts and yet have managed to collect three 'demote' votes.  I'm not concerned about that, but it does show that some folks are using the demote button to express displeasure with an opinion.

The idea of such a rating system is intriguing, but I don't think it will work for the general group.  Why not limit it to the moderators?  Or some other identifiable group who have demonstrated restraint and fairness in their own posts.  

Just a thought.  You know what those are worth.


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Jun 2004)

I think the upgrades here on the site are great. It just takes a bit of time to get familiar to navigating, but its evolving, and making it better for us all. Thanks to Mike for his continuing support.

As for the promote/demote. I too am comfortable with that also, but less than a few days ago, I had no demotes, but if someone wants to punish me over my opinion, I am cool with that too. 

I enjoy this site very much, and everyone on here, no matter what, overall, contributes manily positive and informative posts, some which generate much passion and heat. 

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Goober (13 Jun 2004)

I've been 'demoted' because of my objective opionions alot, but personally, I don't bother with the rating system because I know it turns out to be a vendetta device like Mike stated.

A suggestion though, if you are keeping it, is it possible to only be able to promote/demote a single post only once? Right now you can promote/demote any single post as many times as you like, as long as you wait an hour.

My company I work for right now has a message board with a few million users, the way they work the rating system is, that in the persons profile you see the sum of all promotes/demotes, but each post has its own sum of promotes/demotes displayed to the left of the post, and readers rate the specific post, instead of the user. The users rating is a sum of all of his/her ratings for posts.

If you'd like to see what I mean, I can direct you to that message board.

Anywho, just a suggestion about the ratings.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (13 Jun 2004)

I like the idea of rating threads as well as individuals... Unfortunately, it's not an option at the moment, but it may be added some point down the road...


----------



## ZipperHead (13 Jun 2004)

I am in agreement with the others on the promote/demote issue: it's used indiscriminately to "punish" those that have strong opinions. I have noticed that Wesley Allen has gotten many "demotions" and some form of a warning as well, and even though he and I have had disagreements over issues and opinions in the past, I can't see any of his posts that would merit him being put on warning. Having said that, if you click on the part where it says that they are on "warning", it should link to the post(s) that meritted the warning. As well, when someone promotes/demotes someone, it should be like the eBay feedback function, and you have to justify why you promoted/demoted someone, and a chance for the person to defend themselves. I think there would be a lot less cowardly snipes at people that way.

Just some thoughts that may help improve an otherwise excellent forum (you can't control the yahoo's who come in until it's too late sometimes......)

Al


----------



## Scratch_043 (13 Jun 2004)

Goober said:
			
		

> I've been 'demoted' because of my objective *opionions alot, but personally, I don't bother with the rating system because I know it turns out to be a vendetta device like Mike stated.


You have been demoted in the past mostly for personal attacks and insults directed at other board members, primarily during your first 20 or so posts, Feel Free to PM me if you want to find out exactly where you got the most, I can give you examples. It should be pretty obvious to anyone what kind of posts cause demotions, or promotions for that matter. (this goes for anyone)

In fact, this post will probably give me one from Goober

I believe the rating system is a great idea, as it serves to let you know when your opinions are not agreed with, or you are being inappropriate on the forums. It is also a feature that serves to limit the stupidity factor on the site, because users know that their controversial posts will merit demotion, and therefore change the content to a more appropriate level.

* Please spell check before posting (Pet Peeve)


----------



## Goober (13 Jun 2004)

I'll PM you and show you only 1 of my 66 posts so far can be seen as a personal attack, which I let anger get the best of me. Anyway lets not hiack this thread.


----------



## ZipperHead (17 Jun 2004)

I have a suggestion: Even though my last major suggestion went over like a fart in church (people using their real names vs the ever "kewl" and anonymous nickname), some people dared to be different and now use their real name (yay for me!!!). After reading some of the suggestions in the Recruiting forum, it is painfully obvious to me (and others) that some of those that reply to those not in the know (ie. prospective CF recruits) don't know squat about the military. But, those people (civilians) that don't know a Master Corporal from a Master Gunner can't decipher all the TLA's (three letter acronyms) and other cryptic initials that we use to identify our units. 

So my proposal is this: in the profile (which should be displayed below the persons name or "handle"), it should be mandatory to put your relation to the military: Regular Force, Reserves, Cadet, Civilian, Retired Military, Foreign (ie. not Canadian) military, Coast Guard, etc. This may (or may not) help those people who are trying to find out (good) answers determine if they should be listening to the person replying. Yes, before everybody gets their boxer-briefs in a knot, I realize there are stunned-ass Reg Force guys who don't know squat, and super switched on Reservists that know the secrets of the universe, but I think it could help. 

Again, there will be dissenters, and watch my "demotion" score plummet, but I feel I must carry on in the tradition of Don Quixote, and keep tilting against windmills.....

Al


----------



## Lance Wiebe (17 Jun 2004)

I'm too new hear to comment on any changes.  But I do have a request.  When you modify your profile, there is a place to put a rank, unit, brigade and so on.  However, could there be something for old retired fogies like me?  

Although I am a pussy eyed flat faced civilian,  I did wear a uniform for 27 years.  And I still work in the defense industry.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (18 Jun 2004)

Hi Lance,

Feel free to put "Ret'd" after your rank, or provide details in the Military Experience field... It's all free form, so you can provide as much (or as little) info as you desire.

Which ties in nicely with Allan's comments... The fields mentioned above are useful here. That is, when trying to judge a person's relative credibility, these fields are key. If they're blank or sketchy, it's safe to give them a little less credibility than if they're completed and thorough. Likewise, ratings may be another (albeit controversial) indicator. Put all this together, and you start to get a picture of a person's overall credibility here.

I know it's not perfect, but it's information that can help...


----------



## Lance Wiebe (18 Jun 2004)

Thanks, Mike

I wasn't sure how much information could be put in, and I thought that we were stuck with the choices there.

Silly of me.

But I'm happier now, I have more information beside my name, anyway!


----------

