Improving SecretLeeds

[chameleon]

Phill_dvsn wrote: jim wrote: Thanks for the clarification Phill. Good to find we are singing from the same hymn sheet. Just to illustrate Jim, we have posts like thishttp://www.secretleeds.com/forum/Messages.aspx ... =4593Which ok it might offend the original poster if it was removed. but it doesn't belong on Secret Leeds. It wasn't made clear to the original poster when he joined, and there are no Secret Leeds guidelines stating that effect either. That thread doesn't belong on the site, it's a closed dead thread, and in my opinion can only improve the site if it was removed. It's not adding anything of benefit to the site, it's only making it cluttered?If it were made clear what subjects are allowed, and that duplicate threads would be merged, then no one at all can feel any grievance can they? It's just basic guidelines and formats all forums use except S.L. It's this kind of housekeeping I think we need to sort out really.          And indeed as you note this thread was closed but left (in the short term anyway) to enable those returning to it to cross reference - and hopefully not start another repeat thread asking where it has gone - yes, this does happen.

[liits]

I too have mixed feelings about personal messages. While there are occasions that they would be quite handy, I have a feeling that the facility to post info “off site” will lead to many threads ending up as follows....<user1>“Hi <user2> PM me”<user2> “PM’d you”<user1> “Got it”<user2> “Thanks”<user1>”User2, I’ve sent you a reply”... chances are the conversation could be of no consequence, but, on the other hand, the forum could be being deprived of something to which others could contribute and add to the knowledge.    

[Phill_dvsn]

And yes I acknowledge you do a good deal of keeping the site in order Chameleon, in fact it is you who springs to mind if anyone needed a good example of how moderating a forum should be. It would be nice to see it set a standard for the new look site     

[chameleon]

jim wrote: Having rechecked the specified aims of the site on the "About Secret Leeds" link in the bar at the top of these pages I am content to believe that the name Secret Leeds is intended to cover "unknown" "little known" "forgotten" and much more besides. As such it is still fully relevant, and I for one would hate to lose it. It is also publicity wise, eye-catching, exciting, established, and fun! Sorry to disagree Leodian, but those are my feelings on the subject.     I think people generally accept it as a title and the general aims in the introduction though at the same time the sight has evevolved to be rather more encompassing of more recent happenings and developments in the City and it seems accepted that this devolution is a natural progression or, as Phill states, we would have run dry long before now.

[jim]

Surely the PM situation is dealt with by the ability we have to place an email address on our site profiles? We can always invite those who do not wish to place their email addresses on the site to contact us by using ours, and accept that they may not wish to do so. In my own case, my regular email address contains my personal name, so I set up another one which maintains my anonymity to allow me to use my discretion as to who I respond to - it hasn't happened yet! I can understand and appreciate anyone's reluctance to publish an email address or a allow a contact method on such a public forum, and feel that personal decisions on this matter should be respected.    

[String o' beads]

A simple captcha device would prevent spammers sending pms.I don't display an email address simply because spammers could email me. I take lüts' point about the potential for 'I've pm'd you hun' 'Okay thanks got it' but in practice if people are made aware that it's frowned upon it should be kept to a minimum.

[Croggy1]

In my experience using and moderating forums (fora?) I find personal messaging a very useful tool to correspond with users. For example, a pm can be sent letting them know why a post has been deleted, without having to have a big 'on site' discussion/argument about it.As for "pm'd you" "ok, thanks" type posts, I wouldn't think you would get many on this type of forum, and if they are deleted by the mods, people should soon get the hint not to do it.

[dsco]

Great discussion folks, just wanted to chip in and say 'keep the ideas coming '- I'm listening and (metaphorically at least) taking notes!

[cnosni]

Phill_dvsn wrote: jim wrote: but cannot agree that an increased number of moderators with responsibility for specific subjects is the way to go - with the best will in the world this would result in differing ideas on interpretation of the site's aims and regulation, and a possible increase in the fallings-out. . I didn't really mean to appoint more moderators Jim, just have the ones we have a little better organised. I just feel that if we already have a topic like 'The Meanwood beck' Mitre pub, or dark arches featured on the site, it is very easy for a mod to add on the new duplicate thread 'This subject is already covered here (and add the relevant link to it)Let the old thread carry on, and delete the new duplicate thread. Surely that can't upset anyone? That's what moderators are supposed to do on a forum. Look after and keep things in order. If the moderator has a specific interest in a subject like 'pubs' then who better to know where that topic has already been covered?          Easier said than done though,for instance there are 198 threads on the"Buildings" topic. alone and we cant be expected ,as Mods,to remember if a topic has been already covered or not,it would be asking a lot for Mod's (and Rockers) to have to check every time a new thread is started to see if it is already covered.On the whole this (duplication of a subject) is pointed out by other forum users who have a recollection of a topic previously being brought up,and then it can be dealt with.We are also currently limited by what we can do on a technical side of things,i.e moving or combining a thread,controls for which are currently non existant.There is plenty of tidying up done by the Mod's as it is,its probably that its not that well noticed and not its not 100%The P M question,with regards to Liits poit,is a valid point,but i think that the vast majority of users on here wont go down the "ive Pm'd you hun" afair that you see on other forums,i'd say we have a better standard of forum member on here (excluding myself natch) Jims/Mrs Jims point about "quote",where long stanzas and photos are duplicated is a valid one,it takes up loads of space.On the other hand its useful for when a poster,using the "quote" as a reply can show how their reply is relevant,in that respect its useful.Perhaps some guidance as to discretion of use of content when quoting would be in order. EDIT - Butting in if I may, the image tag is easily deleted when going into quote and is somthing I regularly promoted and when seen, edit reposts with them left in for the reasons you give cnosniTa chameleon

[dsco]

I'd also like to chip in and say that the mods do a great job within the site's limited technical capabilities. Obviously there's always room for improvement and hopefully we'll be able to combine duplicate threads effectively one of these days