quote:

Originally posted by VA90USAW5:

Please do not eliminate these features. Especially the ignore feature.

Noted... and personally I agree. These are useful features to have. Since I wonder about this as well, I will have to make it a point to ask specifically on this. Remember to give the tech gurus time to work on this stuff. Rome was not built in a day... and it will take time to work all the bugs out.

quote:

Originally posted by RobRodriguez:

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.

Free-for-all... no.

Monitored and moderated... yes... as best as coverage will allow. Remember that our moderator ream is made up of a few dozen volunteers and we get thousands of posts per day. And most of us have day jobs. That's why we will continue to depend on you (the members) to set the tone.

OK - fair enough but ... what is the infraction reporting mechanism to be? I can't find any equivalent to the "exclamatory triangle" in the current format to alert moderators to a TOS violation under the new format ...

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:

OK - fair enough but ... what is the infraction reporting mechanism to be? I can't find any equivalent to the "triangle" in the current format to alert moderators to a TOS violation ...

Will there be a feature similar to the "triangle"? This I won't know until all the features are up and running. In the mean time, please email your favorite moderator.

I'm a little confused on how I get to old articles from the news page. For example, there was an article "Graffiti on Memorial Outrages Vets" ... the military.com post was:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163660,00.html

posted on 10 March 2008.

I found it by scrolling through 4 pages of threads on ITN. How would I find that article under the current format and assuming ITN no longer existed?

No matter how it is sliced, it appears to me that the shelf life of any article is going to end up being somewhere in the range of 24-48 hours ... as long as it takes to be superseded by newly posted news articles. Am I missing something?

It seems to me that without ITN, the member base must either visit military.com news page several times per day ... or risk missing the news. There are no "headlines", even when one clicks "all headlines", earlier than today ... yesterday's are already OBE.

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
I'm a little confused on how I get to old articles from the news page. For example, there was an article "Graffiti on Memorial Outrages Vets" ... the military.com post was:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163660,00.html

posted on 10 March 2008.

I found it by scrolling through 4 pages of threads on ITN. How would I find that article under the current format and assuming ITN no longer existed?

No matter how it is sliced, it appears to me that the shelf life of any article is going to end up being somewhere in the range of 24-48 hours ... as long as it takes to be superseded by newly posted news articles. Am I missing something?

It seems to me that without ITN, the member base must either visit military.com news page several times per day ... or risk missing the news. There are no "headlines", even when one clicks "all headlines", earlier than today ...

Jade,

I must confess that you've got me on this one. I'm not a member of the news team, so I don't know... but I will ask.

quote:

Originally posted by RobRodriguez:

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
I'm a little confused on how I get to old articles from the news page. For example, there was an article "Graffiti on Memorial Outrages Vets" ... the military.com post was:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163660,00.html

posted on 10 March 2008.

I found it by scrolling through 4 pages of threads on ITN. How would I find that article under the current format and assuming ITN no longer existed?

No matter how it is sliced, it appears to me that the shelf life of any article is going to end up being somewhere in the range of 24-48 hours ... as long as it takes to be superseded by newly posted news articles. Am I missing something?

It seems to me that without ITN, the member base must either visit military.com news page several times per day ... or risk missing the news. There are no "headlines", even when one clicks "all headlines", earlier than today ...

Jade,

I must confess that you've got me on this one. I'm not a member of the news team, so I don't know... but I will ask.

Thanks for the response. I'm not trying to play "stump the chump" ... just trying to highlight the fact that this is really a dramatic change to what we currently have ... and IMHO, one that decreases the site's appeal to a fair number of its constituency. I've been playing with this off and on for a couple hours now and it appears to me that the new design denies any real opportunity to have anything other than a flurry of comments on any given news item. Any opportunity for meaningful discussion is lost because of the rapidity with which new news items are posted forcing the day old bread off the shelf.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jade_Gate,

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:

... Any opportunity for meaningful discussion is lost because of the rapidity with which new news items are posted forcing the day old bread off the shelf.

Bravo.
Jade_Gate, they ought to give you a regular column.

quote:

Originally posted by RobRodriguez:

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.

Go easy private... the rules apply on the new pages as they apply here. It would be a shame to get your account suspended for something silly while you kill time.

Threats for what? Is it silly to wonder how there might be much of interaction on that other format?
Aside from just loud complaints at that other thread there is some interesting input here and there.
Is the threat that I must shut up or express in more agreeable fashion?

PS:
It might have been good to have invited input before springing the change as a surprise where no one had a clue what was going on.

quote:

Originally posted by Craig_Kling:

quote:

Originally posted by RobRodriguez:

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.

Go easy private... the rules apply on the new pages as they apply here. It would be a shame to get your account suspended for something silly while you kill time.

Threats for what? Is it silly to wonder how there might be much of interaction on that other format?
Aside from just loud complaints at that other thread there is some interesting input here and there.
Is the threat that I must shut up or express in more agreeable fashion?

PS:
It might have been good to have invited input before springing the change as a surprise where no one had a clue what was going on.

Craig_Kling,
I share your confusion. I cannot tell what it is you have been warned for either.
Perhaps RobRodriguez would care to explain further?

MOD HAT OFF and speaking as a poster that comes to ITN on occassion....

I actually like the change because it makes a members comments more visible to someone that would only surf the initial few pages of Military.com for input. I think thats a better idea.

Also, allows old news items to roll off and new news items to roll on, keeping the discussions more current and not dragging on for weeks at a time after a news item has been discussed throughly already.

Not a bad change, IMO. So thumbs up for me.

quote:

Originally posted by ErichG2:
MOD HAT OFF and speaking as a poster that comes to ITN on occassion....

I actually like the change because it makes a members comments more visible to someone that would only surf the initial few pages of Military.com for input. I think thats a better idea.

Also, allows old news items to roll off and new news items to roll on, keeping the discussions more current and not dragging on for weeks at a time after a news item has been discussed throughly already.

Not a bad change, IMO. So thumbs up for me.

OK ... that's one POV. Now ... perhaps you can explain to me how to comment on a news item that was posted yesterday, 28 March under "headlines" (much less a day or so before that) .... and has already been bumped??? As noted previously, it appears that at best there will be a 24-48 hour window to read an article, much less discuss it. If what military.com wants is to cater to the fly-by's, fine. I doubt you will find many thoughtful posts, much less much discussion, in the new format. If military.com's intent is to eliminate a "forum capability" on current events, this change will, IMHO, accomplish that.

I'd also be interested in hearing why you think it is "good" that the only news worth discussing is the news that military.com news editors (whoever they are) see fit to post. ONE of the (several) benefits of ITN is the ability to supplement military.com chosen "news" with other sources and viewpoints.

{Note that I was very nice and didn't acuse you of sucking up to the Forums Administrator!}

quote:

Originally posted by RobRodriguez:
. . .
In the mean time, all of these comments and feedback are great. This is what the administrative staff and teams use to fine-tune what is good and weed-out what is bad... so keep it coming.

The truth from and old Army Warrant Officer, that’s an oxymoron – RIGHT!

I believe that this forum is one of the best tools that the “larger military community” has - this would include, active duty, retired, military families, future military and the family of the fallen heroes to name a few – to keep up with news and idea’s that are important to not only the individual members and our military community but also to the good our nation.

Where possible, this forum should be maintained in such a manner as to provide the widest possible voice to the “larger military community.” Updates, changes and/or improvements in policy and procedures should receive (again, where possible) input of the forum members, and considerable weight should be give to their input.

BTW, most of us are supporters of the advertisers on military.com. And, that must be apparent or there would be any advertisers. Additionally, I would think that the adverting department of military.com would want to be able to say that the member are very active on the forum boards and are very happy with the policies that govern them.

At least that’s the way, IMN2BHO, this old soldier and proud Coast Guard dad sees it!

Another fine post by Jade_Gate. Here are three more questions.

(1) Were any of military.com's respected posters *asked* about this change?

(2) If not, why not?

(3) How can military.com really be a "community," when people like Jade_Gate are not consulted?

These are *not* rhetorical questions. They need answers.

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:
Another fine post by Jade_Gate. Here are three more questions.

(1) Were any of military.com's respected posters *asked* about this change?

(2) If not, why not?

(3) How can military.com really be a "community," when people like Jade_Gate are not consulted?

These are *not* rhetorical questions. They need answers.

John,

With all due respect - we have over 10 million registered members. Do you reallistically expect us to play "mother may I" with each of them. Or if just a few, how many? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? If so, who? This is just not practical.

Also, do you expect that members will be up to speed and have all the knowledge on the latest computer programs and formats? How they work (if at all) with our servers? Legal issues? Marketing issues? Contract details? Engineering development timelines?

Need I go on?

quote:

Originally posted by RobRodriguez:

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:
Another fine post by Jade_Gate. Here are three more questions.

(1) Were any of military.com's respected posters *asked* about this change?

(2) If not, why not?

(3) How can military.com really be a "community," when people like Jade_Gate are not consulted?

These are *not* rhetorical questions. They need answers.

John,

With all due respect - we have over 10 million registered members. Do you reallistically expect us to play "mother may I" with each of them. Or if just a few, how many? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? If so, who? This is just not practical.

Also, do you expect that members will be up to speed and have all the knowledge on the latest computer programs and formats? How they work (if at all) with our servers? Legal issues? Marketing issues? Contract details? Engineering development timelines?

Need I go on?

With respect, they're called "focus groups". Many businesses use them.

Any moderator who invited respected posters like Jade_Gate, old_mole, and (heck) Outlaws93 to a focus group that *listened* to what they had to say would IMHO be doing military.com a *big* favor.

As it stand, military.com has invented a "New Coke" that the customers dislike.



Please consider this picture to be my contribution to the focus group.

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

With respect, they're called "focus groups". Many businesses use them.

Any moderator who invited respected posters like Jade_Gate, old_mole, and (heck) Outlaws93 to a focus group that *listened* to what they had to say would IMHO be doing military.com a *big* favor.

Ok... let's explore that idea:

To represent 10 million registered members, how big does the focus group have to be? Would it necessarily be experienced users? How much technical knowledge/experience would you require? What level of military background would you include? How about marketing education or experience? Would the member even be interested? What about time zones... regional, national, and international legal issues (not to mention corporate policy). How much would the focus group have to know (or be trained) to be able to make an educated decision?

Like Jade mentioned earlier as a reply to me, "I'm not trying to play stump the chump here", I just want you to know that there is much more at work here that goes beyond throwing a switch and see what happens.

P.S. - I love the picture and analogy. I've already received word from our engineering office that they are reading this thread and are digesting the feedback... so keep it coming.

quote:

Originally posted by RobRodriguez:

quote:

Originally posted by VA90USAW5:

Please do not eliminate these features. Especially the ignore feature.

Noted... and personally I agree. These are useful features to have. Since I wonder about this as well, I will have to make it a point to ask specifically on this. Remember to give the tech gurus time to work on this stuff. Rome was not built in a day... and it will take time to work all the bugs out.

Rome wasn't built in a day??? Really! I suppose the big question is; if all the questions from posters bring up "good points", it would seem that you would have had a trail run on this, took suggestions, and then run the computer geeks back to their caves to work it out before stating "Here it is!!"

I realize you feel like you are on the end of the stinky stick here and are being somewhat unfairly picked on, but, as the mouthpiece for the guys who think they are in charge, you really need to emphasize how unhappy the users are.

Suggestion: Take a good poll on this and really find out how people feel about it. I realize that the "activist" will dominate the poll, but try and get it into the other forums so as many people as possible will participate. Just the meandering thoughts of an old guy!

quote:

Originally posted by SLDO:

Rome wasn't built in a day??? Really! I suppose the big question is; if all the questions from posters bring up "good points", it would seem that you would have had a trail run on this, took suggestions, and then run the computer geeks back to their caves to work it out before stating "Here it is!!"

I realize you feel like you are on the end of the stinky stick here and are being somewhat unfairly picked on, but, as the mouthpiece for the guys who think they are in charge, you really need to emphasize how unhappy the users are.

Suggestion: Take a good poll on this and really find out how people feel about it. I realize that the "activist" will dominate the poll, but try and get it into the other forums so as many people as possible will participate. Just the meandering thoughts of an old guy!

Oh boy, you've said a mouthfullllll...

But it's not so bad. I don't mind being picked on. I believe this discussion thread is good. When members express themselves, in an understandable manner, we can work with it.

Anyway... as in my previous post, I want you to know that the right people are reading this thread and are taking it in.

Well gang...

I've gotta take a break (or have this computer surgically implanted).

I'm taking my wife out to dinner and a movie. I'll check back in and address any questions later... how much later, depends on how dinner and the movie goes with the wife.

Recognizing that "figures lie and liars figure", just looking at some of the forum numbers ... the Hot Topics & Current Events category has a total of 15,554 topics with 549,394 posts (add 1 for this comment). That is roughly 8 times its nearest competitor at military.com. Within Hot Topics and Current Events, ITN has 8,486 topics (more than half the HT&CE total) and 200,622 posts (more than a third of the HT&CE total). It's nearest competitor is Point/Counterpoint with 2,950 topics and 167,651 posts. General Discussion follows with 2,022 topics and 126,736 posts.

Now, I don't know the member spread ... it could be that only a few members use ITN but are champion posters ... but I doubt it. In any event, it would seem to me that ITN by a significant margin is the most popular forum at military.com ... and a good place to start any survey on radically changing its format. Where I grew up, we'd call ITN a "bread and butter" forum.

IMHO, I believe if you queried the masses, most people don't come to ITN for the news articles ... they come for the give and take ... whether they participate or simply follow along until the urge to chime in overcomes them.