Faos Etc

[EcclesCake]

I've lost track of where this discussion has got to but is there any kind of plan to have a category for FAOs. It will almost certainly be abused but it is becoming a little tedious.

There are frequently threads directed to 'the experts' which don't take account of the expertise of others and are therefore self limiting. Particularly when there is a poster with more recent and pertinent experience.

And then there are the FAOs along the lines of 'Thanks Chumbawamba I've fixed it'

Not to mention the 'FAO Eric, are you about?'

Yes, you can avoid them but sometimes it is difficult to especially when they are in a specialist category rather than Chatterbank!

Please either a tightening/reminder of the rules or a 'Calling your Name' category.

[Sipowicz]

Does a "Hitlercat" have nein lives?

[ummmm]

A thread is being derailed...

[DTCwordfan]

"Oh, quel dommage...."

[ummmm]

Isn't it....

[carrust]

Sea going mammal...5/3?

Ships cat :-)

[lady-janine]

DTC i thouight they were armed with brooms and pitchforks.

poor dolly carrying that around.

[EcclesCake]

The point about new users being put off posting further was well illustrated a week or two ago.

A new user actually commented on the puerile nature of some posts and the tit for tat comments. That post was more about a post that had gone off the rails than a FAO post but it should still be taken into account.

If AB wants to acquire and keep new members then inclusivity rather than exclusivity is surely the name of the game?

I wonder what the retention is for those who post 5-10 questions. I'm deliberately not including less than five as there are too many early morning posters wanting to know where is best to buy a wedding dress on line or which hotel to stay in somewhere far from these shores.

[DTCwordfan]

and risk making the site totally sterile and kill a lot of existing users, Eccles - that is the other extreme. There has to be a balance; sometimes I wonder if we, as a community, get too hung up about the acquisition of new members. Those who find the site informative and fun still will make their way in.....

[giveup]

Love the outfit DTC

[EcclesCake]

Given the drop if in regular and well established contributors I would say that acquiring and keeping new members is pretty damn important.

My example wasn't a perfect one but I did feel for the newbies frustration. It was the usual tit for tat, petty point scoring in news which some choose to call debate that was being objected to.

I observed the newbie attempt to enter the debate and was completely ignored by the establishment.

[ummmm]

New users are viewed with suspicion. When a question is posted in B&S then some people click on the profile and if its their first question they are dismissed as a troll.

Making the site sterile? Are you kidding?

You can't see how tedious some threads are, DT, because you are involved in them...

When you have a thread going with in jokes and conversations that no one knows anything about then it's exclusive. It also puts people off posting their own threads because everyone is busy posting on their exclusive thread.

[DTCwordfan]

well that and R&S ought to come with a user warning......maybe Ed wants to comment about AB numbers and if they are dropping - or usage is falling (another way of measuring the state of the nation). I certainly do not spend the time on here that I did, a function of my work......

[cazzz1975]

A good post eccles with some much needed points made

[Maydup]

Life is too short to worry about any of this. People will either ask their questions, or join in and chat or not. i see no harm in calling for the attention of another user when you want to ask their opinion, as long as we do our best not to be rude to anyone else who replies.

[B00]

I highly doubt the number of users are dropping. If established users are dropping (and I don't think they are), but the site still ticks over the same or thereabouts with 1st time posters, I very much down the establishment cares one iota.

[AB Editor]

"If AB wants to acquire and keep new members then inclusivity rather than exclusivity is surely the name of the game?"

Yes - it is.

The is a problem that a few regulars believe they are the ENTIRE community - rather than a small element of it.

I am unsure whether there is a better way of dealing with FAOs - private messaging is a minefield and a section for it specifically will either be ignored or used to such an extent it becomes annoying to everyone.

We used to ban FAO posts - we could go back to that. A bit hard-line, but it did stop it for a while - and members were forced to phrase their question as (shock!) a question!

[DTCwordfan]

Sterility is the risk or manifestation of too much straight-jacketing......I did not say that we had reached that state, let's be clear.

Wit the threads that you refer to, ummmm, the evidence is there in black and white that an awful lot of folk like the zaniness of the site. I am in that camp and your views for 'tight control' do not gel with me - pure and simple. If that's the way Ed wants to take it, so be it. However, I think that his readership and usage would take a major ding, if not crash.

[ummmm]

If the Ed hasn't noticed that a lot of regular posters are not so regular anymore...then other posters certainly have.

Is there a reason for it? Yes, I believe there is.

[B00]

Actually, i bet the powers that be would prefer it was kept ticking over with new users- they tend to get less arsy than us grumpy old has beens ;-)

[DTCwordfan]

I must add that I agree with Boo's perception on this as to readers.....