Thread feedback

[john1989]

Wow, these forums go from bad to worse.

I remember reading a few years ago a post from a fellow moderator (when I was in that elite squad too), observing how the forums were going downhill because people who have no idea what they're talking about were managing the forums (a certain Henry springs to mind).

This thread just sums it up!


I had an idea some years ago. Absolutely nothing unique about it, but I intended to do it better than any competitors I'd be up against. I didn't spend a lot of time thinking how I can protect this idea of how I'll do things better: I wanted to get it out there, tell potential clients why they should use my business!

With experience, I could have invested my capital a lot better, but the idea, the selling points, I wanted to shout as loud as possible, not hide or protect; the capital I did want to protect, and started off badly as a consequence - giving me experience.

The premise of this thread, let alone the suggestion that it is not open to debate, just sums up what is so wrong with these forums these days. That, and the fact most of screen is flashing at me, distracting me from the main content in the corner. (What the bloody hell is that strange square whirling around on the left?)


Sorry Charly, but as others have subtly said, you're talking shite in this thread.



Karl Limpert

If you think this forum is bad, you should see what Sift have done to Accounting Web.

Despite many members protestations for it not to be similar to their American counterpart, Sift ignored the members and built a replica of the American site.

Now there aren't as many regular contributors and the technical content may or may not be there ... it's difficult to tell when the website is so difficult to navigate.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

If you think this forum is bad, you should see what Sift have done to Accounting Web.

Now there aren't as many regular contributors and the technical content may or may not be there ... it's difficult to tell when the website is so difficult to navigate.

Sounds about right, John. Last time I checked (and I have to admit, it has been a while - I used to check regularly, but no change), HRZone was either down entirely, or all the useful content was no longer available.

I guess Sift clearly have an "idea" and they're just protecting it from everyone else (apart from the bit about having a whirly square for a distraction; I really need one of those too...).


Karl Limpert

 

[john1989]

Sounds about right, John. Last time I checked (and I have to admit, it has been a while - I used to check regularly, but no change), HRZone was either down entirely, or all the useful content was no longer available.

I guess Sift clearly have an "idea" and they're just protecting it from everyone else (apart from the bit about having a whirly square for a distraction; I really need one of those too...).


Karl Limpert

If only they read their own forums they'd realise not all ideas are good ones, and not many members are liking any of their ideas!

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

If only they read their own forums they'd realise not all ideas are good ones, and not many members are liking any of their ideas!

I suspect they don't read the forums as there are too many adverts, and other nonsense articles written by people that don't have a clue what they're talking about (like Charly on this thread) to be able to actually read the forums - this content is shunted off to the side, as it's not important, or valued.


Karl Limpert

 

[Mark T Jones]

Attack the post, not the poster?

In fairness, Charly made it clear she was posting on behalf of a sponsor, and without sponsors we wouldn't have free use of the site

That said, I'm not sure who though it was wise to present the question in a loaded and ambiguous way as it really doesn't show the sponsor in a good light

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Attack the post, not the poster?


In fairness, Charly made it clear she was posting on behalf of a sponsor, and without sponsors we wouldn't have free use of the site


That said, I'm not sure who though it was wise to present the question in a loaded and ambiguous way as it really doesn't show the sponsor in a good light

Your point is valid Mark, but I think the post rather than the poster has been attacked, with the caveat that Sift staff have been criticised too, because they have no idea what they’re talking about, and therefore bring the quality of authoritative posts on the forum down.


I have no problem with sponsors, but perhaps the forum – like Google, FB, and others – should clearly highlight & make distinct, threads that are intended solely to be promotional in nature, rather than serve any other purpose – and clearly this thread can’t serve a wider debate, as the opening post isn’t even open to discussion! (And I do attack the post that suggests members of a business forum are not expected to question the assertions in the OP, and be told that the thread is not about that at all. And I would attack too any person that suggested this.)


Karl Limpert

 

[Clinton]

Maybe we're being a bit hard on Charly. But she's shown a lot of savvy in her second post - in what she addressed, what she didn't reply to and how she tried to steer the discussion. She's no novice. That was shrewd and savvy management of a thread that wasn't going her way (and I speak as someone who has managed large Linux and other forums for many years).

Which leaves me thinking that the original line could have come from the sponsor. Sometimes companies want to mislead, misinform or otherwise trick people into becoming clients but realise that they can't pump this information out in their own name, so they use a stooge. Not saying that has happened here but I was hoping Charly would confirm whether she made an honest mistake or was guided to that wording by the sponsor. Charly, I know you're watching. This would be a good time to jump in and clear it up.

 

[fisicx]

But she's shown a lot of savvy in her second post - in what she addressed, what she didn't reply to and how she tried to steer the discussion.

It didn't work though. UKBF members don't like being told what to post. Especially in a thread so blatantly sponsored. I don't have an issue with sponsored threads but Charly shouldn't have tried to make it look like this was something she was interested in researching. If she was an interested party she would have posted her experiences and thoughts not just the LHS line, which many here agree is based on a false assumption.

 

[domainguy]

Thanks for pointing out the flashing ad. I was managing to ignore it before but now it's getting on my nerves.