quote:

Originally posted by RobRodriguez:

To represent 10 million registered members, how big does the focus group have to be?

That question reminds of the scene in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where the natives of the planet Golgafrincham (the Planet of the Middle Managers) waste thousands of years forming committees to decide what color to paint their rescue spaceship.

Three people and three questions ought to do it. But they have to be the *right* three people and the *right* three questions!

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.

then how are taking away feature's progress? How is alienating your core base good for attracting new members? We want the link to the forums because the news articles are the catalysts for some of the best give and take discussions that I've seen on the Internet. Please don't talk to me about progress and that we have to get use to the new format. I work in the industry, too and I can tell you that it is the most stupid comment and excuse that I have ever heard. You're suffering from pride of ownership. So far, all I have seen is justification of your decision and not listening to your community. I have yet to see one positive comment for the new format. I'll put it succinctly, IT SUCKS!!

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?

Actually, you do. If you are a forums administrator of any worth, you will see the regulars. How hard would it be to do a query on your db and see the top 25 or top 100. I have read through the pages of this discussion. You don't care about the community. You just care to justify your moronic new format that has less features, no continuety, no sense of developing the community, etc. So, tell me, what are the improvements other than to readily see a comment. God, you should be a used car salesman.

quote:

Originally posted by AirForceAggie:

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.

then how are taking away feature's progress? How is alienating your core base good for attracting new members? We want the link to the forums because the news articles are the catalysts for some of the best give and take discussions that I've seen on the Internet. Please don't talk to me about progress and that we have to get use to the new format. I work in the industry, too and I can tell you that it is the most stupid comment and excuse that I have ever heard. You're suffering from pride of ownership.

So far, all I have seen is justification of your decision and not listening to your community. I have yet to see one positive comment for the new format. I'll put it succinctly, IT SUCKS!!

You are right, AirForceAggie. But it looks like the change is locked-in. At least, the military.com so far is showing plenty of "defense" and not much "learn and adapt."

This may indicate:

• an already-signed advertising contract says to "do it the new way", or
• hey, these changes were the bosses' idea!

Or both.

Well, before we hang, cut and quarter, and boil in oil Rob, let him at least consult with the powers who think they be. A reasonable individual, the courts definition of someone who is the common man, should at least think that perhaps, just perhaps, that this new idea is not necessarily a good idea. Or am I out to lunch and this is a done deal????

quote:

Originally posted by SLDO:
Well, before we hang, cut and quarter, and boil in oil Rob, let him at least consult with the powers who think they be. A reasonable individual, the courts definition of someone who is the common man, should at least think that perhaps, just perhaps, that this new idea is not necessarily a good idea. Or am I out to lunch and this is a done deal????

Well, to be honest, I'm not impressed with Rob. What we have is a young individual who has pride of ownership. He spends more time justifying a bad decision than listening to the community. As for his pathetic excuse on how to get a marketing focus group, my response is for him to go to some community college and take marketing 101. It really isn't that hard to see who the regular posters are on these boards. And yes, that includes Outlaws (much as I shudder at that prospect.) I work in this industry, too and have worked on some of the biggest websites. His excuses and reasoning are pathetic. I'm sorry if I'm a bit angry, but reading 5 pages of his excuses and dismissing of sound criticisms just finally got to me. I'll give them a week. Afterwards, I'm leaving this site if there are no changes. News articles I can get from anywhere. The fun of the give and take in the forums is why I visit this site. Even those who differ in viewpoint from mine, I have learn from. Rob, mil.com has alienated its base. That is not good marketing. With the exception of one poster, a moderator, there has not been one positive comment for the new "improved" format. Just answer this simple question: How are taking away features an improvement?

One final note. As with any news organization, the reader is the final customer. No readers, no hits. No hits, no ad revenue. How is telling a customer that they have to cater to mil.com's needs satisfying the customer? That's like me going to a car dealership and them telling me I should get a station wagon instead of the coupe because that is what they have and that I'll get used to it. Well, as the great General McAuliffe stated at Bastogne,

NUTS!!!

What we all should do is send a bag of nuts to mil.com's offices. Maybe then, they'll get the message.

AFA -

Might I respectfully suggest easing back on the throttle just a tad? Rob is Forums Administrator, not the designer or decision maker. He's offered to carry the mail for us ... meanwhile he has to support his "unit". He certainly doesn't have the authority to reverse policy ... any more than you had the authority to change regs while you were in the service even if you and/or some of your subordinates didn't like them. Rather than alienating him, it seems to me we should be reinforcing some of the points already made and adding new ones so that he is carrying live ammunition up his chain of command. Believe me, nobody likes this new format less than I and my husband do.

Regards -

Jade

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
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!}

It's Rob's explanation thread that I don't want to hijack from him and steal all the fun because I am enjoying the observation role (he-he-he).

I'm an optimist by nature vs a pessimist I guess. I'm looking at the change as a relatively minor one that a lot of people are drawing negative conclusions on....many of which have not even been answered yet.

I guess I'm happy they are modernizing the website to make it more in sync with Google and Yahoo news. I guess that is my point of view because Internet is my day job and I surf a lot.

I personally like conformity and standardization more then I do hodge podge and disjointed. Most people do, IMO. If that was not the case why is USA Today such a success?

I think we are going to find that the changes appeal to a wider audience. Just a hunch.

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
AFA -

Might I respectfully suggest easing back on the throttle just a tad? Rob is Forums Administrator, not the designer or decision maker. He's offered to carry the mail for us ... meanwhile he has to support his "unit". He certainly doesn't have the authority to reverse policy ... any more than you had the authority to change regs while you were in the service even if you and/or some of your subordinates didn't like them. Rather than alienating him, it seems to me we should be reinforcing some of the points already made and adding new ones so that he is carrying live ammunition up his chain of command. Believe me, nobody likes this new format less than I and my husband do.

Regards -

Jade

Well, if Rob chooses to be the spokesperson, then he should realize that he will take the ire of those who are put off by the changes. He is not an advocate, by the posts that he has made. Instead, he goes and throws insults at those who point out the flaws in the new system. And yes, while may not have the authority to make changes, he can listen and bring the concerns to those who can make the changes. Instead, he makes excuses and weak ones at that. When I was an officer, I listened to my men on what they had to say. I let them have their say and then I would bring up their concerns to my superior officers. I would not try to justify an idiotic policy to them because you would lose all credibility doing so. What I would have said is that, "this is the policy at hand and we have to follow it as professionals. However, I will listen to your concerns and bring it up to the commander." The last thing I would do is to belittle my men for bringing up their concerns as Rob did with Craig Kling and others.

I must agree that I also dislike the "add your comment" feature. Like many of you here, I have seen a similar feature on many news sites that I frequent, however, none of them are meant to foster debate and are very difficult to follow especially when the article is more than a couple days old. I belong to several other forums that utilize the format that I am posting on now. These types of forums easily allow a good flow of discourse and many topics are current and relevant to the site's membership.
I wonder if Mil.com wants to cater to "fly-by" news readers or keep its base happy? I think many of us regular posters have been ignored by this "new" idea.
It has already been noted that those responsible for "cherry picking" the articles posted on the front page are very much behind the news curve, especially when we all notice that many news stories get posted to ITN in virtual real-time and a hot thread can often be 2 or 3 pages deep before it gets posted on the front page.
The Tanker threads are an example of this. News of the decision, the protest, and other aspects of the discussion were light years ahead of the editors who posted only "party line" articles.

ITN is one of the few reasons I frequent the site although I must admit I was a reader 3 years before I ever posted.
All 3 of my oldest kids now frequent the site and find it useful for other reasons than the discussions although I feel ITN is the "bread and butter" part of the site. I pay attention to the ads, most do not interest me but sometimes I have donated to a cause or bought calling cards or something that came by an ad featured here.
Again, Rob, if it wasnt for a place to come and be able to truly participate as only this format allows, I would visit anywhere near as often and as a byproduct, wont see the ads.
I wouldn't even mind paying a yearly subscription to keep the format. many of us already pay a paultry sum to have an email account through the site so whats the big deal?

If ITN forum were to disappear, I think many of us would as well or would start posting our own news threads on PCP instead.

A good suggestion would be to keep the ITN format as well as the other. I bookmarked it just like others have because its a pain in the rear to get here from the home page.

BTW, I dodnt think Craig_kling went over the line in any way. If that was over the line, then none of us regulars would be here

quote:

Originally posted by FlankerFlyer:

ITN is one of the few reasons I frequent the site although I must admit I was a reader 3 years before I ever posted. All 3 of my oldest kids now frequent the site and find it useful for other reasons than the discussions although I feel ITN is the "bread and butter" part of the site.

Ditto for me ... the diversity of opinions in ITN is something I cherish ... I learn a heck of lot *especially* from folks I don't agree with. So thank you, *everybody*!

When I first came to military.com com, I hung around the MODF (Marine Open Discussion Forum). About four years, MODF was the busiest forum by far. But something changed ... nowadays the MODF gets only about 20% of the traffic of ITN.

I moved from MODF to ITN when MODF was at the height of its popularity. The reason was simple. A new moderator was appointed who had an ideological agenda *other* than making sure MODF was a forum for lively, respectful, and open discussion.

It appears that a lot of other people left MODF too ... what do the ad revenues say?

quote:

Ditto for me ... the diversity of opinions in ITN is something I cherish ... I learn a lot even from folks I don't agree with.

ya dosha(me too)

To the topic: for what it's worth,I'm not happy with the change.

I feel the changes are ill advised and I do not like them at all ... for what it is worth.

I have a feeling that mil.com will soon be in an rapid decline if they do not respond to their base and get their act together.

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.

Thanks! I appreciate your timely response and hope your interest to keep the ability to ignore feature is successfull.

Another example of why this new format is bad:

Yesterday's (29 Mar) LEAD headline was the award of a communications contract to Lockheed, vice Boeing. Today (30 Mar) that significant story on cross-service communications is ... GONE (couldn't even find it with Google), replaced by a new lead story on Iraq. I wonder how many people had a chance on a Saturday to read the article, much less comment on it?

There was one on A-stan wanting foreign troops out of downtown Kabul, that so far hasn't seen the light of this forum.. I'm starved for news and subsequent perspectives on A-stan as it is.. and this doesn't help.....

All very true. I have to say Ive learned a lot from your posts .... even those we disagree with. I actually look forward to them as you have a well rounded perspective on history and how politics "really" works.

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

quote:

Originally posted by FlankerFlyer:

ITN is one of the few reasons I frequent the site although I must admit I was a reader 3 years before I ever posted. All 3 of my oldest kids now frequent the site and find it useful for other reasons than the discussions although I feel ITN is the "bread and butter" part of the site.

Ditto for me ... the diversity of opinions in ITN is something I cherish ... I learn a heck of lot *especially* from folks I don't agree with. So thank you, *everybody*!

When I first came to military.com com, I hung around the MODF (Marine Open Discussion Forum). About four years, MODF was the busiest forum by far. But something changed ... nowadays the MODF gets only about 20% of the traffic of ITN.

I moved from MODF to ITN when MODF was at the height of its popularity. The reason was simple. A new moderator was appointed who had an ideological agenda *other* than making sure MODF was a forum for lively, respectful, and open discussion.

It appears that a lot of other people left MODF too ... what do the ad revenues say?

Military.com and ITN has been one of the last truly open forums on internet. I must say that I have enjoyed ITN for many years now and have been part of many discussions which I think everyone has learned from, even me.

To take away our ability to post news items which we want to discuss and replacing these articles with ones being fed to us by Military.com is nothing less than complete censorship.

Military.com is only duplicating the many hundreds of news sites with their comments at the end of their stories.

Truth is, if Military.com continues down this road they might as well just drop ITN altogether and after that when the folks move to another area in Military.com they can follow up and close them also. Within a year, no more Military.com discussion forums.

If this is the ultimate goal of Military.com just do it, have the balls and come out and say so, tell the folks who have been on these forums for years to just buzz off and close the discussions.

I won’t pretend to know why Military.com is doing this, I do know it is not the stated reasons, something more like pressure from certain government agencies probably, no matter, Military.com is yielding to that pressure.

Have we been divided? Yes.

Have we come together? At times.

Do we all want what is best for this great nation of ours? Absolutely…….

Will censorship help America come together, No!

It’s been a great time and has occupied many hours and kept the brain cells working.

Sayonara,

Armydad and Armyma