New user group for Advanced Users
04-02-2009, 12:00 PM
#81
Head Cat Herder
Thread Starter
I don't understand why you're arguing this to this level. You telling our readers to go to another forum is advertising, which is not allowed, nor has it ever been. end of story.. It's never been a problem of this level before, that's why it's never come up.
04-02-2009, 05:39 PM
#84
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like access to edit my own posts. Thanks.
Ok, so I feel the need to chime in here because this is the sort of thing I've been doing in my day job for the past 12 years...
I don't know what all gets deleted, so I can't really tell what's going on. I know another forum spun off, that it appears links to that forum get removed, and that reasoning for the removal of those links has been provided.
For example: Spamming or commercial solicitation
It's important to note that if someone asks what the link is to the other forum, and someone responds with a link, it is neither spamming nor commercial solicitation. If someone is just posting new threads that read "go here..." that would obviously violate the rule.
Not all instances of providing a link to the other forum would be in violation of the rules. Obviously the admins don't want a big chunk of the community leaving, but unrealistically broadening the definition of the rules to combat this shows bad faith - and that will drive even more users away.
On a more general note, all of the resulting conflict is par for the course. Making big changes to any UI always results in this. I am part of another community that once had 1.6M users. They made a switch, though not as drastic as the one here at AW, and they lost half their user base. They never came back. New users came though, and now I think the user base may be back up to around 1M.
Different UI's attract different types of people. I was not a fan of KWAF. I've developed community software for Fortune 500 companies, as well as have a ton of experience with the top boxed forums out there, including vB.
Going from KWAF to vB is about as drastic as it gets. vB has no true threaded mode. It, IIRC, has no option to disable float-to-top. The search is notably the worst search function of any major forum solution. But even if had those things, such a drastic change should have been anticipated. Maybe it was.
I don't know what all gets deleted, so I can't really tell what's going on. I know another forum spun off, that it appears links to that forum get removed, and that reasoning for the removal of those links has been provided.
For example: Spamming or commercial solicitation
It's important to note that if someone asks what the link is to the other forum, and someone responds with a link, it is neither spamming nor commercial solicitation. If someone is just posting new threads that read "go here..." that would obviously violate the rule.
Not all instances of providing a link to the other forum would be in violation of the rules. Obviously the admins don't want a big chunk of the community leaving, but unrealistically broadening the definition of the rules to combat this shows bad faith - and that will drive even more users away.
On a more general note, all of the resulting conflict is par for the course. Making big changes to any UI always results in this. I am part of another community that once had 1.6M users. They made a switch, though not as drastic as the one here at AW, and they lost half their user base. They never came back. New users came though, and now I think the user base may be back up to around 1M.
Different UI's attract different types of people. I was not a fan of KWAF. I've developed community software for Fortune 500 companies, as well as have a ton of experience with the top boxed forums out there, including vB.
Going from KWAF to vB is about as drastic as it gets. vB has no true threaded mode. It, IIRC, has no option to disable float-to-top. The search is notably the worst search function of any major forum solution. But even if had those things, such a drastic change should have been anticipated. Maybe it was.
04-03-2009, 01:58 AM
#88
Guest
Posts: n/a
