Forum Changes & Guidelines

[Saxon1]

Ah well you got me there. I had no idea. You learn something every day.
Cant even work out how to put a smiley face on here let alone do BOTS !!
Very clever that though if only I knew How………. immmmmm
Very sad lonely grey computer user am I.

[Rob]

A 40 page thread having 30k ‘reads’ as per the forum software is not that unusual – but will record those who use screen readers, spiders, caching systems, preload under a twitter app link, facebook post prefetch etc.

In terms of spiders and bots, the top right and bottom footer figure from Google Analytics has such things stripped from it.

There is a finite measure available, and IMHO it is much more preferable to getting a handful of Wrexham.com’ers writing a diary (!) or even us cooking up some numbers then multiplying them by some random number :D

[Rob]

@BenjaminM 19750 wrote:

I think that the decision to close the thread ‘sad announcement’ was a very draconian use of the veto that you (Wrexham.com) have indicated will come into play soon.
It has been refreshing that certain contributors have introduced a degree of levity into the forum that certainly raised a few smiles.
Perhaps the veto option would be more appropriately used on threads that go on and on and on without conclusion and repeated posts saying exactly the same thing over and over again. I cite 350 homes for Llay as an example, but there are many more.
If that is how it is to be used, I would urge a serious rethink.

I am working on the new bits – and hopefully when it comes in will be embraced, or at least give a virtual cuddle and test before writing it off :D

[Liam]

I think you’re a Nazi, but with excellent facilities.

[Metalhead]

Not wishing to cite Godwin’s Law but why exactly was that mentioned thread locked? It may not have been relevant to Wrexham but it seemed pretty harmless (to me anyway). Could it not just have been moved to the ‘Not about Wrexham’ forum?

Also 28,000+ views on 380 posts on the Llay homes thread would appear to show this place is as lurkertastic as ever, I find it quite hard to believe they are all bots!

[DR]

You’d be surprised at how many people do read the forums and the difference between the amount of people who post to how many who ‘lurk’ and simply read the posts.

At the time of this comment there were 10 registered users on the forums and 67 ‘guests’ reading them

[Alunh]

@Sheefag 19570 wrote:

Pretty much all of my comments have been deleted without any communication, PM or email.
Pretty shabby in my book, you can have censorship or debate, which is it?

You are quite right about this, especially as your broad viewpoint, like mine, appears to want change from the current approaches. I do find your comments loaded with irony, however, because you told me a few weeks ago that, as an intelligent bloke, I should quit whilst I was behind (when making a debate point) and did I seriously think that this Forum made any difference anyway.

So which is it….a place where we can freely debate without sarcastic interjections, taking a meaningful discussion off point for no particular reason (bar to pour on some negative vitriol), or a Forum?

[Sheefag]

@Alunh 19768 wrote:

So which is it….a place where we can freely debate without sarcastic interjections, taking a meaningful discussion off point for no particular reason (bar to pour on some negative vitriol), or a Forum?

Ah, the eternal censorship dilemma, do you sanitise all comments and opinions or just those that you don’t agree with?
One man’s ‘Sarcastic Interjection’ or ‘Negative Vitriol’ is another’s dry observation, a thread won’t get dragged far off point if it has strength and merit.

You either allow comments or you don’t, I’m not for a moment suggesting that all censorship is bad, my experience suggest that anything other than a very light touch would serve to alienate a sector of the client base.

[Alunh]

I suspect Mr (or Mrs) Sheefag that both you and I know where the red line starts and where debate has drifted into slanging, sarcasm, personalisations and so on. I also suspect that the proposals that Rob has put forward are perfectly reasonable and allow a Monitor to make judgements where required.

I don’t like it when I see entries on here that accuse an individual of writing drivel or being stupid, ignorant or blinkered….rather than just countering the point. I think its perfectly fair to absolutely disagree with the point, to counter it with argument, gentle humour, etc…..but a lot of the people who write on here seem inclined to go far further.

There are a few people who contribute to this Forum who don’t hide their identity……I am one of them……..don’t hide their viewpoint……argue their case (right or wrong)….and would hope that the debate remains civilised. One or two others…..who do hide their identity…..think it reasonable to adopt the style of personal attack dogs.

I note that one or two Councillors have had their whole persona questioned by people not armed with full facts and whilst we can disagree with what many Councillors represent or stand for, I think that there is a line not to cross.

[Ferret]

I think the third Sarcastic Intervention album is probably their weakest

[Author]

Posts