quote:

Originally posted by Craig_Kling:

Did you get PR training from M$ regarding what you call a feature?
From what I see there will be no more notification of new posts to a thread one finds interesting to follow.
I suppose there will not be danger of threads running on for multiple pages since people are sure to lose interest for sake of the new format.
I suppose everyone will have incentive to get their post right the first time since there is not means to make corrections.
The new feature of not including quotes ought to save much bandwidth since it will quickly become lost who someone responds to. But I suppose the confusion should be minimized by fact there will be fewer readers and posters.
I bet there are a number of people who will be offended to read how stupid you think they are that you really believe they will believe your BS about anything of the change to be wonderful new features.
I think you are going to find there be a lot of Judge Judy fans that whatever else they migbht disagree they will come together on the idea, "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining."

quote:

Originally posted by RobRodriguez:

The link to the old ITN forum will eventually go away (I'm sorry to say). But it is up there for now so that everyone has a chance to look around. So eventually, duplicates will be a thing of the past.

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:

I don't think I've posted any "trash" so assume your earlier comment was directed generally.

Having said that, the above disturbs me though I am glad that your are sorry that ITN will fall by the wayside. That gives me hope. My problems with the above are two-fold:

1. It eliminates the ability of members to post discussion threads and, conversely, limits discussion threads to what military.com considers "newsworthy" on any given day.

2. Military.com is frequently behind the power curve on posting breaking news stories (one of the reasons for duplicate threads) and the option this change is leaving us is to either wait (and hope) for a military.com posting ... or go elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
Rob -

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. I've said most of what I have to say in my comments above so will let it go at that with the following final comment.

There is a substantive difference between dropping a comment on an article (as the new format facilitates and the old format allowed) and engaging in a multi-person discussion on an issue that an article addresses (as ITN facilitates and the new format discourages). My husband and I come to military.com, above all else, to watch (and selectively participate) in "discussion" ... not just to drop a comment. I believe that is true of a goodly number of others ... We abandoned a number of other boards in favor of the capabilities offered here. I hope military.com doesn't throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

quote:

Originally posted by RobRodriguez:

quote:

Originally posted by Craig_Kling:

Did you get PR training from M$ regarding what you call a feature?
From what I see there will be no more notification of new posts to a thread one finds interesting to follow.
I suppose there will not be danger of threads running on for multiple pages since people are sure to lose interest for sake of the new format.
I suppose everyone will have incentive to get their post right the first time since there is not means to make corrections.
The new feature of not including quotes ought to save much bandwidth since it will quickly become lost who someone responds to. But I suppose the confusion should be minimized by fact there will be fewer readers and posters.
I bet there are a number of people who will be offended to read how stupid you think they are that you really believe they will believe your BS about anything of the change to be wonderful new features.
I think you are going to find there be a lot of Judge Judy fans that whatever else they migbht disagree they will come together on the idea, "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining."

Craig,

If you have something productive to offer, you're in the right place. But if all you want to do is whine and cry, take it elsewhere. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

By the way... this is not Judge Judy's show.

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

With respect, Craig_Kling raised good points.

To phrase them as questions, let's imagine a world where military.com found that advertising revenue was maximized by deleting links to the forums, and including instead a (non-archived, non-searchable) page for short comments.

Rob, what are the "checks and balances" (if any) to prevent click-through ad revenue from being military.com's sole desideratum?

We all know (but it doesn't hurt to be reminded) that cheerful assurances along the lines of "there are many things in our future (as a community) that you will enjoy" do *not* count as "checks and balances." Because that's the kind of talk my son and his young Marine buddies hear before each deployment.

If there are no checks and balances, then it's not *really* a community, is it?

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

Rob, what are the "checks and balances" (if any) to prevent click-through ad revenue from being military.com's sole desideratum?

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

Rob, what are the "checks and balances" (if any) to prevent click-through ad revenue from being military.com's sole desideratum?

I'll ask again. Shorter this time.

quote:

Originally posted by RobRodriguez:

quote:

Originally posted by Craig_Kling:

Did you get PR training from M$ regarding what you call a feature?
From what I see there will be no more notification of new posts to a thread one finds interesting to follow.
I suppose there will not be danger of threads running on for multiple pages since people are sure to lose interest for sake of the new format.
I suppose everyone will have incentive to get their post right the first time since there is not means to make corrections.
The new feature of not including quotes ought to save much bandwidth since it will quickly become lost who someone responds to. But I suppose the confusion should be minimized by fact there will be fewer readers and posters.
I bet there are a number of people who will be offended to read how stupid you think they are that you really believe they will believe your BS about anything of the change to be wonderful new features.
I think you are going to find there be a lot of Judge Judy fans that whatever else they migbht disagree they will come together on the idea, "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining."

Craig,

If you have something productive to offer, you're in the right place. But if all you want to do is whine and cry, take it elsewhere. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

By the way... this is not Judge Judy's show.

quote:

Originally posted by RobRodriguez:

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

Rob, what are the "checks and balances" (if any) to prevent click-through ad revenue from being military.com's sole desideratum?

I'll ask again. Shorter this time.

Common sense and member feedback (like this thread). Ad revenue is great, but when members are affected, the ad revenue means nothing. What good are ads if there is no one to see them?

Changes to the site are not meant to attract more ad revenue... they are meant to attract more members. Some changes are good, and others fail. But let's not kill this one before it's given a good fair chance. It's been only a day. It's like when you buy a new pair of boots. They need to be broken in. Let's break this new feature in before we go buying another pair of boots.

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
Wonder how the new, "distributed" format will be moderated, if at all ... or is it to be a free-for-all, anything goes comment stream like so many news sites have.

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
OK -

First, the "new" format is not only unfamiliar but offers few, if any, of the little bennies (emoticons, block user, editing features etc) that are present with ITN threads ... and the comment print is small and difficult for us half-blind old farts and fartesses.

Second, what happens to a news article, for example yesterday's "Dempsey To Succeed Fallon at CentCom" when it falls off the front page news (as it already has) and out of the "Most Popular" which it is about to do? It seems to me that long running threads will become a thing of the past ... not a good thing in my view since it discourages depth of discourse.

Now, what I anticipate happening, at least to some degree, is that those of us wedded to ITN will find the original source for stories posted on the front page ... and start our own threads on ITN (as long as that capability is left untouched). That will split respondents between the front page article and ITN ... not good.

I speak only for myself and without anger but perhaps with a bit of disappointment in saying that if the new format continues ... and ITN goes by the wayside, so will I. The flame will no longer be worth the candle.

Edited to add:

The argument about duplicate threads is a bit specious. If someone opens a thread on a subject on ITN and the military.com editorial staff opens a story on the front page, there are still duplicate threads ... in different places with a divided constituency. I'd prefer to see military.com revert to the old format but have the editorial staff open the "join the discussion" thread (on ITN) at the same time they post the story on the front page ... admittedly one extra step for them but it would ensure a decent title for the thread (and help discourage duplicate posts). It would add about a minute to the military.com editor's time per story.

quote:

Originally posted by Craig_Kling:

If you were going to address individual opinions at this pagehow would you go about it?
In the "old" way I found it easy enough to take up reading where I had left off. It was especially easy for sake of the notification of new posts in threads I found to be of interest.
I do not know if this new format will ever break down into more than one page but just on the page above I found it difficult to find where I had left off reading yesterday. I also saw very little of actual interaction and without quotes I did not know what the few responses to other posters was about. - Someone thanked someone else for a tip. I wondered what the tip might have been and think I found it. It is a pretty long page to scroll up and down to find things.

There was mention about the link to the forums. The link does not lead to a discussion about the article of interest but just leads to the main forums page, which I assume that most everyone already has bookmarked.
What that new format does with that link is more to lead away from discussion and interaction. I would think that this new format could lead to more redundancy for sake of folks who want to discuss in an interactive manner would go to "In The News" and post with their own header.

Oh well, I have already unsubscribed from The Early Brief since its only interest to me was that it led to articles of interest that led to an interactive discussion forum. As it is I might as well skip that same link to the forums that is on every article and just use my bookmark to "In The News" and see if there be topic headers that seem interesting.

You said this: "For now, there will be a link to the old way of doig things (that brings you to the In The News forum). But this is to give everyone a chance to get used to the new system. Believe me, once you see that you don't have to re-direct or get lost between duplicat threads, you will notice the convenience and possitive difference."
That gave me the impression that the way of things was keeping the old forum during a transition where it would be phased out.
You say that the link brings to the "In The News" forum, but it does that by a very indirect route since the link only brings one to "Military.com Forums" and one must click a few times from there to see what are the recent posts to that forum.
I think it would also tend to lose a lot of newcomers who might be tempted to post for sake of it being more difficult to find where there is an interactive group discussing the topic they found interesting.
The new way only encourages the making of comments and discourages much interaction.

The new setup does not indicate who might be newcomers and oldtimers.
Clicking on a name only leads to the personal profile page. I thought the old drop down to be conveneient.

Oh well, I did notice lack of response to what folks had to say about the new forum on the news item of "Dempsey To Succeed Fallon at CentCom" just that makes a statement about the new way.

Your personal opinion of what I said in other post was interesting but I would think it might discourage others from saying what they really think.
I suppose that if someone is suspended or banned or warned in new format some folks might or might not notice after awhile since they will just be absent rather than it be announced in all forums they have posted.

Oh well, the powers that be sure do not owe folks anything since they offer what they offer for free and just hope that there is lot of hits on pages with advert's that pay.

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
Wonder how the new, "distributed" format will be moderated, if at all ... or is it to be a free-for-all, anything goes comment stream like so many news sites have.

quote:

Originally posted by Craig_Kling:
Is this not the third day?
Is not more members come to more ad revenue?
I'd be the number of hits to see the adds has increased and convince someone that there has truly been a boost. I'd wonder how it will go down the line though.
I'd imagine that some newcomer might come to the news and find an article to be interesting and read lot of comments at the bottom which will lead them right by the link about sounding off in the groups. With the line of comments at the bottom what would lead many to think that there is something of the forums. If they do find an article of interest what might lead them to where there is some interactive discussion about it other than the comments following the article?

Oh well, been killing time until time to go do something.

I will be taking more look at "Dempsey To Succeed Fallon at CentCom" to see if someone addresses much of what folks have had to say there.

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
Wonder how the new, "distributed" format will be moderated, if at all ... or is it to be a free-for-all, anything goes comment stream like so many news sites have.

Will be archived? Will the archive be searchable? Will it be moderated? Will posts be linked to member profiles?

If the answer is "no" then what advocates call "simpler" is instead "dumber".