Idea on Chat

[Dissident]

There is a ton a value to this site, which is why I contribute as a paying member to this site.

However, the search function is inadequate. I am not a big fan of the way others deal with repeated queries and inane questions, but  most of these would be resolved if the search function worked better.

 

[Michael OLeary]

There are other options for effective search. That's why you will note that my suggestions to search usually recommend Google, using the site-specific parameter site:army.ca to limit responses to the site database.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I have a ”modest proposal”:

Remove these two threads from Milnet.ca Admin and  move them to a new, very top level thread which MUT be read (or, at least accessed) before one can register:*

Milnet.ca Conduct Guidelines: MUST READ; and

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - A Directory

Maybe, also, expand the FAQ thread a bit with a new one on: How to Search that incorporate Michael O'Leary's recommendation.


----------
* Some software has this feature already – one cannot start downloading, for example, until one has, at least, scrolled through the Terms of Use.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I disagree about the search function, the one on the 'bar' across the top [between help and calender] works great, the one that looks like it SHOULD be the search area.......pretty much does suck.

Try the difference.......................


 

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Edward, the Conduct Guidelines are presented to every user as they register an account. Of course, that doesn't require them to actually read, but the onus is on the new user to understand the community they are registering for. If they ignore the available info and bash forward with a repeat post, odds are they will see an answer that directs them to use our existing resources: I.E. search. Cleaning up and organizing the FAQ is almost guaranteed to be a good use of time... it has more views than any other topic in the Admin board so it is where many are starting their search for answers.

Dissident, A few weeks ago I completely re-worked the search engine. As a core component of the site, I realize that it has to work and work well. If you (or others) have feedback on the search function, please let me know. There may be something I can do about it, but at the moment the feedback I have is that the new system works.

Shamrock, my advice to Staff and senior members has always been "If you have nothing positive to contribute... don't." IMO you are taking the right approach and becoming part of the solution (helpful answers) instead of adding to the chorus of "this is broken." If everyone did that, there would be no problem to solve. I also believe that recceguy suggested a subscription because he understood your comment as "Why doesn't Mike implement a 3rd party program to aid chat on Army.ca?" which of course consumes time, resources and possibly money. His comment was to suggest that it's not that easy to simply toss around our very limited resources. I read your suggestions as: Use Yahoo Messenger or something similar, which of course has no bearing on Army.ca. So to you, recceguy's comment was out of context and seemed like a 'money grab' while your curt 'No' response made you come off as 'part of the club' to recceguy.

Now that I'm done tending to everyone's feelings I'll comment on the original idea. Our chat function as it exists is limited and underutilized. If there are suggestions on how to revitalize it without turning it into extra workload for the Staff, I'm all ears. A Facebook style chat is certainly not out of the question... as with Facebook, it must be an 'opt in' type of a solution. (I for one, am permanently offline in Facebook chat.)

I'll take some time and revisit our chat options... our current tool is several years old and there are almost certainly better options out there. What I do like about it is that it includes automatic login using your forum credentials. Bolting that on to a new solution can be very time consuming and will probably exclude most solutions right off the bat.


Cheers
Mike

 

[Occam]

I have a ”modest proposal”:

Remove these two threads from Milnet.ca Admin and  move them to a new, very top level thread which MUT be read (or, at least accessed) before one can register:*

Milnet.ca Conduct Guidelines: MUST READ; and

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - A Directory

Maybe, also, expand the FAQ thread a bit with a new one on: How to Search that incorporate Michael O'Leary's recommendation.


----------
* Some software has this feature already – one cannot start downloading, for example, until one has, at least, scrolled through the Terms of Use.

I'll go one better.  The vast majority of people tend to simply dismiss the "Do you agree to abide by these terms and conditions?" question with a quick click of the mouse without actually reading the terms and conditions.  I do it every time I install software...I can't be bothered to read 23 pages of legalese every time I install a new program.  However, the forum does have the luxury of forcing people to read through the very modest amount of essential material and rules pertinent to this website, and new members could be forced to read that material by subjecting them to a short exam or quiz of sorts based on the material in the FAQs and Conduct guidelines.  It wouldn't take much to build a pool of questions and answers which could be drawn upon randomly (to circumvent people simply passing around the answers in the order the quiz presents them).  Hell, I would volunteer to write some of them, if it even helps to slightly reduce the number of times we have to address people who simply can't be bothered to read and want instant gratification.  Until such time as the exam is passed, posting privileges would be disabled.  Perhaps make people wait a couple of days before attempting a retest, to further increase the probability that new members actually read the material.

It would also serve the purpose of deterring spammers from the site.

 

[Alea]

I'll go one better.  The vast majority of people tend to simply dismiss the "Do you agree to abide by these terms and conditions?" question with a quick click of the mouse without actually reading the terms and conditions.  I do it every time I install software...I can't be bothered to read 23 pages of legalese every time I install a new program.  However, the forum does have the luxury of forcing people to read through the very modest amount of essential material and rules pertinent to this website, and new members could be forced to read that material by subjecting them to a short exam or quiz of sorts based on the material in the FAQs and Conduct guidelines.  It wouldn't take much to build a pool of questions and answers which could be drawn upon randomly (to circumvent people simply passing around the answers in the order the quiz presents them).  Hell, I would volunteer to write some of them, if it even helps to slightly reduce the number of times we have to address people who simply can't be bothered to read and want instant gratification.  Until such time as the exam is passed, posting privileges would be disabled.  Perhaps make people wait a couple of days before attempting a retest, to further increase the probability that new members actually read the material.

It would also serve the purpose of deterring spammers from the site.

I think this is a great idea in itself... only, if you were to under go such exam when you wish to install one of your numerous softwares and were denied access to a public site because you failed said exam, maybe you'd just turn around and get to another site? This is what, most probably, a lot of new users might do with army.ca and the site might loose quite a few "eventual" users because of that.

But, here are some ideas of a few questions that could be part of the exam

1 - Where is the search function of army.ca located?
2 - Is msn speak permitted on army.ca?
3 - Do you know how to use the "Spell Check" function? (hope you're better than me at it )

Maybe the exam could become part of the warning process?
i.e. if one user uses too much of msn speak, the exam could be given to him and he would be able to use the site again if he is successfull at it?

Alea

 

[GAP]

I don't know about testing, but rather than be able to click on a box agreeing to the terms in total, there be tick boxes for each major point that must be check marked....

 

[Michael OLeary]

While we've probably all seen examples of new members that we might wish to put through a learning maze before they can participate, it may not be the best option for most new members. Not all are too impatient or immature to exercise acceptable posting etiquette. Many potentially worthy members, seeking a casual interaction, may be turned away by the trials of electronic bridge trolls.  While such a system may help to weed out or sort out a few, I believe it would cost as more in potentially useful participants than it would be of a benefit to the site.

I would suggest an alternative to your suggestion. Perhaps posters on the warning system should be required to correctly answer Conduct Guidelines multiple choice questions in order to get an active "Post" button when they want to post responses.

 

[Occam]

I think this is a great idea in itself... only, if you were to under go such exam when you wish to install one of your numerous softwares and were denied access to a public site because you failed said exam, maybe you'd just turn around and get to another site? This is what, most probably, a lot of new users might do with army.ca and the site might loose quite a few "eventual" users because of that.

There really isn't another site that they have to go to, save for the Forces.ca website, and going there and asking an online recruiter is what they should be doing most of the time anyways. 

Alea and Michael, I agree 100%...perhaps it would be more appropriate as part of the warning ladder.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

I think it's an idea that bears some thought. I too feel that punishing the group for the sins of the few is a bad approach, but I like the warning proposal. I'm certain the software won't support anything like that 'out of the box' so some custom development work would be required... but I can spend a bit of time to scope it out and see if it's feasible.

 

[Alea]

I think it's an idea that bears some thought. I too feel that punishing the group for the sins of the few is a bad approach, but I like the warning proposal. I'm certain the software won't support anything like that 'out of the box' so some custom development work would be required... but I can spend a bit of time to scope it out and see if it's feasible.

Oh Boy!
Now I have to get my books out an work on my "doesn't" and "don't" and all the little secrets of the English language

Alea