Your thoughts on the future of the forum

[Lamont D]

I have noticed, myself and others that have other titles under their username, I have, ' don't have diabetes!' Surely because we have our own forum, we should have RH, instead of the labels we have!

Personally I liked the old titles, and if you a certain type as well, you could see that the poster was new or experienced!
Surely, there must be an moderation of how we are seen by other posters.

Too many buttons will just complicate and confuse newbies! (And me!)

 

[Administrator]

@Administrator

I notice that the moderators also have the Type under their user name, but this has replaced the word Moderator! How are folk supposed to know who the mods are, especially if they have to step in and moderate on a thread?

We're going to roll out the user's role underneath the type (for the time being at least - this will be implemented by Thursday)

 

[Administrator]

I have noticed, myself and others that have other titles under their username, I have, ' don't have diabetes!' Surely because we have our own forum, we should have RH, instead of the labels we have!

Personally I liked the old titles, and if you a certain type as well, you could see that the poster was new or experienced!
Surely, there must be an moderation of how we are seen by other posters.

Too many buttons will just complicate and confuse newbies! (And me!)

RH is in the list, by the way...

 

[Brunneria]

RH is in the list, by the way...

Hmmm, maybe I can switch backwards and forwards. RH/T2

I like to mix it up a bit.

 

[Lamont D]

RH is in the list, by the way...

Like your thinking! @Administrator.

 

[Administrator]

Hmmm, maybe I can switch backwards and forwards. RH/T2

I like to mix it up a bit.

This concept is very much in its infancy, so it will get better/easier (as it makes sense you may want to show both, for example!)

 

[AndBreathe]

This concept is very much in its infancy, so it will get better/easier (as it makes sense you may want to show both, for example!)

There comes a point when the list has to be the list, with folks picking best match, otherwise, people, like me, might want "Was T2, now considered reversed, still being mindful, have it in the family, and cantankerous old bird" all on that descriptor line. I'm guessing somewhere there is a "pleasing most of the people all of the time" because "pleasing all of the people all of the time isn't really achievable".

Obviously, nothing personal there @Brunneria .

@nosher8355 - I think the number of people's posts drives the former titles, and just by looking in the same box we can still see that. It is my belief that someone may have been diagnosed 40 years would still be classified as a newbie on joining currently. And just because someone in an "experienced" diabetic, it doesn't mean they know a lot about any given subject.

 

[Administrator]

And just because someone in an "experienced" diabetic, it doesn't mean they know a lot about any given subject.

+1/totally agree

 

[AndBreathe]

+1/totally agree

Is there a button for that?









Just asking. I'll get my coat, as the door slams behind me.

 

[zand]

+1/totally agree

lol didn't someone once get a warning for putting +1 ?

 

[satindoll]

lol didn't someone once get a warning for putting +1 ?

Yep, but then they weren't the @Administrator ................

 

[SunnyExpat]

Now now, no going off topic.

+1 me if you agree.

 

[poohtiggy]

I think the ppl with visual impairments would really struggle with anything that affects the page colour.

Maybe use it for titles, or have a coloured symbol or something, instead?

That's a very good point, people with colour blindness could really struggle

 

[Administrator]

Is there a button for that?

Just asking. I'll get my coat, as the door slams behind me.

Ha ha - well, I think a +1 is different from a like, it's an 'I agree' - which is one of the icons/buttons

 

[Administrator]

lol didn't someone once get a warning for putting +1 ?

Oops, sorry. Didn't realise - although it goes to show how a different type of person uses forums in different ways - it's almost something exclusively online.

The +1 is to show that you 'agree' - so the new forum feelings/buttons could actually prevent that, perhaps?Is it derailing? Well, not really. That's where rules and typical day-to-day overlaps and it's a tricky line keeping it in the middle so to be useful and appropriate. There's quite a good discussion going on over here that will undoubtedly influence forum moderation and understanding.

 

[SunnyExpat]

it's a fine line to travel.
Good natured chat does move back and forth, and a forum is a place for good natured chat.
But, the op may feel their question has been trivialised, and made to feel insignificant, with what was a very significant question,
So some digression should be allowed, but a skilled hand is needed to get the thread back on track.

But, at the end of the day, the op's question is the most important thing, and I'm not precious if a mod tells me to wind my neck in, and just answer the question. But, sometimes I do need that first warning, then if I ignore it, that's when I should be properly reined in.

 

[RuthW]

It all sounds great to me. Just a small suggestion: individual users should be able to 'disable' their own view of 'dislikes' on their posts. There are two reasons for this. Some people are simply unable to tolerate 'anonymous' 'dislikes' or 'disagrees.'
They just flip out and go away. Secondly, sometimes one member harasses another by clicking on 'disagree' for everything that person posts for months.
On another website I am on, the choice to turn off your own view of the disagrees on your own posts has, I hear, saved many a member's sanity.
Note that other members can see the disagrees on your post, even if you can't.
If you are dealing with something involving skills, management or techniques (the other website - crafting - and this one -managing diabetes), a significant number of disagrees can be useful info.

 

[AndBreathe]

It all sounds great to me. Just a small suggestion: individual users should be able to 'disable' their own view of 'dislikes' on their posts. There are two reasons for this. Some people are simply unable to tolerate 'anonymous' 'dislikes' or 'disagrees.'
They just flip out and go away. Secondly, sometimes one member harasses another by clicking on 'disagree' for everything that person posts for months.
On another website I am on, the choice to turn off your own view of the disagrees on your own posts has, I hear, saved many a member's sanity.
Note that other members can see the disagrees on your post, even if you can't.
If you are dealing with something involving skills, management or techniques (the other website - crafting - and this one -managing diabetes), a significant number of disagrees can be useful info.

It can be useful, or manipulative.

There are a few on here, in my observation, where they have a real reaction to anything certain others write. In other words, if X writes the grass is green, Y would feel compelled to disagree, stating the grass is in fact another colour. Using dislikes (or likes for that matter), as a metric to valuing a member could be extremely flawed. As you may have observed, some posters use the like button, it seems, to acknowledge every post they read, irrespective of their feelings about it. On that basis, a poster could make 100 benign, newsy or game based posts, but get 500 likes. With respect, promoting such a person to a higher status on that basis may not be best value (in terms of diabetes management, which is at the heart of the forum, surely). Similarly, that someone is a "good egg" doesn't mean they are knowledgeable or,credible in their advice.

The idea of "dislike", I am ambivalent about, but if we are to have positive affirmations, it makes sense we could get some value to a not in agreement status. Whilst others might think this would bring additional discord, I could counter argue, it could be more benign (in terms of poster reaction) that the disagreeing poster appearing (to the original poster) to be calling them (the original poster n idiot, or ill-informed.

 

[Indy51]

I'm very anti the "dislike"/"disagree" button. At least have the intestinal fortitude to post why you dislike/disagree. I could easily live without the "like" button as well, for reasons mentioned by other posters. Not keen on "karma" type schemes either. A simple "thank you" button would suffice, IMO.

 

[Brunneria]

I think, on consideration, I would happily not have ANY like, dislike, thumbup, disagree, buttons.