[markg]

If that were the case then why are people ie Brian noting issues with the forum. Either your walking around with rose tinted specs or your part of the problem 

It isn't rose-tinted spectacles it is an objective, easily-verifiable truth that almost all the threads on here are good-natured.  Just because someone notes an issue doesn't mean it is necessarily valid.  I think the moderation around here is very often ridiculously heavy-handed with entire threads frequently disappeared due to a few comments.  Others are clearly fine with it though so I wouldn't try to argue anything be changed just to suit me.  Do you see?

[Michael_Rolls]

Steve
As I said earlier there will always be differences of opinion in some posts, and this is only to be expected. Despite what you say - and for that matter what Brian Cooper says - I have not been aware of any worsening of these facts over time. If that makes me, in your view, 'part of the problem' I take that very badly indeed and would appreciate an explanation of just what you mean by such a comment.
Mike

[CF-FZG]

I think that if just a tiny majority feel that way then perhaps the problem is theirs and they need to adjust their expectations a bit. 

You couldn't be more wrong Mark.

Whether they're old respected members who're leaving because of the way the forum appears to be going - or new members who look around, feel the wrong end of someones stick and say 'stuff this, I'm off'.


Mark.

[CF-FZG]

Live with it, the forum is no longer what it used to be. We need to get it back to how it was,

I don't understand Steve, which one are you saying   because it can't be both

I do agree with you that a lot of 'long standing' members have upped sticks and gone though


Mark.

[CF-FZG]

It isn't rose-tinted spectacles it is an objective, easily-verifiable truth that almost all the threads on here are good-natured.  Just because someone notes an issue doesn't mean it is necessarily valid. 

Then you won't feel aggrieved if I say the same applies to your opinion

[Wiz]

Now Mark, just take a look back through this thread and see where it's starting to go wrong; to get personal and have an unwanted and unwarranted "edge" to it.....this is typical of a thread that's about to go off the rails.  Ironic isn't it?

[Michael_Rolls]

Now Mark, just take a look back through this thread and see where it's starting to go wrong; to get personal and have an unwanted and unwarranted "edge" to it.....this is typical of a thread that's about to go off the rails.  Ironic isn't it?

Nigel
I am bit surprised by this post. We have people disagreeing - but 'an edge'? 'Off the rails'? You do seem to be rather over-sensitive about Mark's comments - comments with which I largely agree. If the forum is going to become a place in which nobody is allowed to disagree with anybody else, what on earth will be the point of it? It might as well be reduced to an indexed data base of FAQs with no debate allowed.
I did ask you a couple of questions earlier to which you have not yet replied - I do think that they deserve an answer.
Mike

[Steve Mitchell]

Wiz
Does that actually seem to be the case? Is there any way of telling? I know that I have said this in the past, but I simply don't recognise this forum as predominantly full of bad-tempered quarreling egos as could be implied from some of the comments in this thread.
Mike

I'll answer this in the first place.........YES.

I know of 8-10 people that used to be regulars around here, they no longer post due to the bad attitude of some of our members. I know as I speak with them face to face or on the phone.

I'm sure Wiz will be along shortly.

Steve

[Cactus]

good to see member info back
as a suggestion, could we remove or somehow force the sigs area narrower ( which we're all lived without seeing for over a year anyway  ) to keep as much post width as possible
once you get lower down the page and the adverts stop I've got a 50/50 split on used and unused on my mini lappy screen

I wouldn't be apposed to adverts running across the screen, top, middle and bottom of a page maybe to allow full width posts down the whole length of page

or the left side bar and adverts made a tiny bit smaller with adverts popping out like the for sale section when hovered over, it could also add another advert everytime a new post was made so they continue all the way down the page
of course top advert pays the most, with cheaper ones running down the page.
umm, that idea i do like

I can see maybe what Mark's getting at, while the vast majority of posts are great and friendly, the amount of friendly non modeling chatty topics is dropping
the west cornwall slopers thread is just a friendly local chat, used to be a few chatty threads like this running.
i can see there are a few friendly threads about tho, i just get involved less because i'm not overly interested in the content and it's not "my" group of forum mates

back to posts getting snappy, it is the keyboard warrior ( and often just as bad, defender of opinion ) that can let threads get out of order in a way they wouldn't in the real world
you often see someone bluster "you'd be on your ass if you said that to me face to face" but even thats keyboard bravery
real world, you'd know your pecking order, give up on a point far earlier, or walk away knowing your audience will never agree anyway.
here, the old "new reply" brings you back again, and after reading a reply you feel compelled to answer, probably to the detriment to the thread"

[Wiz]

Cactus. No.

Mark. I'm thinking.

[Cactus]

no?

[Wiz]

Was I unclear

[SteveBB]

I'm probably, no, am as guilty as anyone else for posting less than appropriate comments from time to time, but 9/10 it isn't intended to hurt anyone, and is usually tongue in cheek. I hope that those comments haven't put anyone off the forum.

On a less personnel note; I think that most of the thread contributions are intended to be helpful, and make a great contribution. Although I fly gliders and nothing else, my visits to the gliding section have been fewer. I don't know the reason for that; although like a lot here, I was disturbed by the little exodus last year caused by god knows what, and frankly I don't want to know. What resulted though was the input from some very knowledgeable and interesting members was suddenly no longer there, and it cannot be replaced.

I'm not a believer in the phrase 'he/she/they can be replaced'; it's usually said by those who don't see the real value of someone's contribution to whatever it was they were involved in. If one of our club members leaves our club, and I know them personally (we have enough members to not know everyone), I feel a genuine loss, as for me to get to know someone, means I value them as a person, and possible friendship.

For what it's worth, no forum with this many members can possibly have everyone getting along; it isn't going to happen. However, it isn't to say that their contribution cannot be valued, and encouraged. The time we stop learning is the time we give up and lie down to wait for the worms to eat us.

Group Hug everyone? 

[flytilbroke]

I must be part of the problem too. I have been posting less although I have "attended" much as I have over a fairly long time. Why? I cannot think of a good reason. I do think,  and I am not alone, that some who left were, over quite a long time, very sensitive to anyone who did not agree one hundred percent with them. Also some who were "well respected" were also rather acidic with anyone who had a different view to thiers, and a bad practise came in, "Oh, it's just thier nature". There were also some "Well respected" members who were responded to in unpleasant terms. Usually the "Mods" stepped on the worst cases when this happened

A couple of very "moderate" posts on this thread which expressed a different opinion from the Bosses got a stronger than needfull reply. Sadly, I might now post even less, or even attend less if it keeps going this route.

[leccyflyer]

We've always had far more readers than posters but it's true, it is an increasing trend.  A couple of contributing factors and there may be more which I don't know about.  I can only go from what people tell me and my own thoughts....

1) I know for a fact that a lot of people have either stopped visiting or posting because they're fed-up with every post they made turning into complete gargage or a bun-fight after a few posts and I think this is a major factor which must be addressed.  I also beleive, and again I can only go by what a handful of disgruntled members have told me, that there is a feeling in the wider-world that this place has become a bit "cliquey"  with most topics dominated by three or four prolific posters and that can be very intimidating for the less vociferous members.  I think that's what people mean by "unfriendly".

If that really is the case the identification of the three or four prolific posters ought to be extremely easy. The thing is that those three or four prolific posters, if there is any truth in the perception, are probably contributig to a high proportion of the site traffic. I have to say that if anyone asked me to identify three or four most prolific posters who could be charged with making the site appear to be unfriendly that I'd struggle to do so.

2) Most of the content of the forum is viewable to guests and therefore there is no real incentive to register, log-in and get involved.  Personally I think this is a bad thing but over the years it's the way it's gone through "public pressure" - I got howls of derision when I dared to make the glider boards "members only" and the same for a number of other areas.

3) The stat's are contradictory.  I monitor lot's of stat's around here, more than are available to the members, and the fact is that in terms of visits and hits, we are busier than ever and it's an upward trend. 

That's why I posted the thread, the two trends are contrary to each other- steadily decreasing posting, but steadily, and rapidly increasing, viewing and reading. The timeframe over which the data is readily available for plotting means that it cannot be something as siple as everyone is busy building, or out flying, because the trend is pretty clear over a few years.

I suppose if the posting level really declined then the lack of content would mean that the viewing figures would begin to decline but there is no sign of that happening.

Another fact is that we are way above the global average for "click through rates", that is the nukmber of clicks that the advertisements attract.  The global average is 0.9% and we're running at an average 1.2% which is up there with the Amazon's of this world and the reason that's an important stat is that it proves we're getting "real hits" as opposed to search engines and spambots.

Other stat's show that in all other areas we're performing well.  For example what's called the "bounce rate" this is people who visit the site and immediately click the back button without looking at anything - we're running at 39% and the recognised global "target" is 30%.  For reference a bad site will have a bounce rate around the 90% mark so that indicates again that people are interested in the content and this is backed-up by another stat which shows that people are spending an average 7.5 minutes on the site per visit which, again, in web-land is very good indeed and, while they're here, they're viewing an average 5.7 pages.

Those are all interesting and encouraging stats. 

One curious stat and this may well be something related to the OP and that's where our visitors come from and how they got here.  These are figures for the previous 12 months.....

59.61% from Search Traffic of which around 90% is from Google
10.07% from Referral Traffic - that is people have followed links from other sites and RCU is the biggest referal source.
30.32% from Direct Traffic and that is where people have typed the URL, opened a bookmark etc.

I say it's curious becuase the trend is towards more search traffic and less direct traffic.  Two years ago this was more like 50/50 and I'm not certain yet what this indicates, if anything?

If my forum use is anything to go by if I access the forum on my smartphone I do so by typing RCMF into the google search and following the first link, then clicking on Unread Posts. For a while I couldn;t get onto the forum unless using Tapatalk, according to the popup message I got when first trying, and I don't use Tapatalk, going throough that google route sorted that out for me.

Anyway, I firmly believe that the way to encourage more people to post and get involved is to make them feel welcome and not make them reluctant to post for fear of ridicule or the whole thing becoming nonsense.  I think I've quoted this line before but it's one that resonates with me time and time again .... this was a from a fairly prolific member of some 10 year's standing who stopped posting.  "I've given up making posts and replying to posts recently becuase it seems that every time I do they get ridiculed and taken over by those who like the sound of their own voice far too much for my liking.  I shall continue to visit but on a read only basis from now on".  That sadens me and, if it's a general trend, worries me enormously becasue it goes against everything this place was ever about.  There is of course a lot that we moderators can do to control things but then it can seem oppressive.  I would much rather the membership moderate itself on that score.

Again, if the moderator staff have identified the source(s) of such attitudes and unwanted behaviour then perhaps a quiet word with the posters concerned is in order?

Let me give another example of what I consider poor form - we recently saw a post from a new member, in fact it was his first post.  He asked a question and yes, it was a topic we've debated many times before around here BUT the first response was "Oh god not that old chesnut again ....blah blah blah".  Funny but the member that asked the question hasn't posted again but visits regularly.  Does that paint a picture I wonder?

Could you provide a link to the thread in question?

Another factor is complexity.  What we have here is a vast database of modelling topics and like all databases it needs some organisation.  Over the years as more and more disciplines and technologies have emerged we've had to adapt and grow but I do understand that in doing so the structure around here can look daunting and difficult to navigate for a newcomer.  It's something I'm giving a lot of thought to and looking at perhaps some kind of navigation page.  Jury's out on that one but I do recognise it as a potential issue.


And another factor to put into the melting pot - A lot of the regulars have bookmarked their "favorite" sections and tend to just go there and not visit the main pages to see what else is going on.  A few have quite openly stated that, and I quote, "I can't be bothered to trawl through other sections" and "I never visit the main page".  Well, I think personaly that while it's understandable to a degree, it's also a very selfish approach which may be a reason for some topics to be dominated by just a few members. 

Personally I used to always use the main page, but now I tend to use the Unread Posts option that I was introduced to last year, since it enables me to see where the new posts have been made. If I haven't been on the site for a few days I might revert to goig to the main page, but at the moment my RCMF link on my main computers is set to go straight to the Unread Posts page.

Anyway, this is interesting discussion and let's just hope it doesn't degenerate!

Yes indeed.

[flytilbroke]

Some interesting stuff fom "Leccyflyer", post 8579.

[Cactus]

wiz, unclear as to what you're "no"ing yer

[SteveBB]

wiz, unclear as to what you're "no"ing yer

I'm guessing Phil; but I think your various proposals to change the page format.

[Cactus]

helpful suggestions
i would of thought a page with adverts right to the bottom would be welcome 

[fly-navy]

I cannot put my finger on what has happened,yet something has and it is'nt the place it once was.I wish we knew what the solution was so it could be rectified,I don't think it's something major but there is something lacking.
I would hazard a guess that the response to the opening post 90% of the replies are from the people who regulary post and non of the old faces seem to bother.
Good luck in your quest mods to pull the wandering bods back into the fold.
John

[Wiz]

i would of thought a page with adverts right to the bottom would be welcome

Actually Phil, I was being a bit flippant but all of the space left and right (if you have it switched on) is available for advertising if anyone wants it.   As you may have seen from the various miss-formatting accidents over the past few weeks, I have completely changed the way that advertisements are rendered to the screen. This was not just a cosmetic exercise, in fact the main reason behind it was to be able to give advertisers accurate and audited stat's around their effectiveness and to also allow multiple images to rotate automatically through the same space.  All of this I had to do while keeping the forum itself looking the same on all browsers and devices.  I think I'm there, except for perhaps an issue on iPads which I'm finding difficult to nail.

Another benefit of the new system is that images are delivered asynchronously; that is  the page loads and then the images catch up, rather than holding-up the page-load time for each ad which should be better for people on a 3G or slower connection.

Jobs left to do include making the new banner at the top of the page blend in better.  At the moment it looks like it was just dumped there, which in fairness, it was!

So back on to the real topic and what we can do to bring back some of the old stalwarts and make sure everyone feels comfortable posting and, more importantly, feels that posting is worthwhile - because that's at the heart of it all really - that combined with making certain that new members feel able and want to stick around and get involved.

Firstly the mod's and me are going to tighten-up in two main areas:-

1) Any post thought to be irrelevant in an otherwise serious topic will be removed so as to avoid good topics going bad.  If a topic branches into two useful topics, which does happen, we will split the topic into two and both will remain.

2) Any deliberately antagonistic posts will be removed and we will use the existing in-built warning system to let the culprit know they're being watched.  We are able to increase or decrease the "warning state" on any member but if it rises above a pre-determined level, it results in an automatic, temporary posting ban.

3) We're going to clamp-down hard on any posts or topics which we know have the potential to go bad very quickly.  You know what these are already and they usually involved race and/or religion.  If and when we spot them, the whole topic will be removed into our "limbo" area where we mod's will discuss and either clean and replace or confine it to room 101.  Just to make it clear though, we never delete anything entirely, just remove it from public view.

4) Of course this is going to mean more work for the mod's and so I am recruiting three or four more over the coming few days and weeks and will announce them as they come on-board.

5) And just to put your mind at rest, most reasonable and decent members will not notice any difference in the moderation policy at all.  But those who seek to be disruptive and deliberately aggressive most surely will.

...oh and one more thing.  I'm going to start publishing a quarterly newsletter to all members via the email.  This will include news, views and announcements - hopefully I can make it interesting too!  I think this might help in some small way to engender a "community feel" back into RCMF.

[Michael_Rolls]

Wiz
Don't see that anybody could disagree with any of that - and I like the idea of a newsletter
Mike

[bobt]

Wiz
Don't see that anybody could disagree with any of that - and I like the idea of a newsletter
Mike

I pretty much assumed thats how it worked anyway. Sounds good.

[Yoyo]

Now Mark, just take a look back through this thread and see where it's starting to go wrong; to get personal and have an unwanted and unwarranted "edge" to it.....this is typical of a thread that's about to go off the rails.  Ironic isn't it?

I'm very surprised by this too - I haven't seen any personal comments or 'edge' to this thread at all so far. Does that mean I'm part of the problem too?

I have found since I started posting here a couple of years ago that there are a lot of people who just talk about stuff, but some who seem to be able to conjure upset from nothing I can see at all.

On the point of heavily moderating and keeping things strictly on topic, I read the BARCS forum where a lot of the glider exiles went too. Threads there are strictly on topic. They usually fizzle after half a dozen very dry posts with not many people contributing, and there is little enough there that I don't bother visiting more than once or twice a week, whereas I keep up with RCMF a few times a day.

BARCs feels like some people having a quiet chat in an office, RCMF feels like some mates enjoyably  killing time in the clubhouse or pub. Which way would you prefer it to be?

If there is a problem here it seems to be with the people who can't tell the difference between disagreeing with their opinion and beating up their grandmother. Every so often I see a thread with a reasoned conversation where someone suddenly gets directly personal at another poster, often where there is a history of bad blood between them. That should be stamped on, no question.

I'm puzzled where you think that's happened on this thread though.

[leccyflyer]

5) And just to put your mind at rest, most reasonable and decent members will not notice any difference in the moderation policy at all.  But those who seek to be disruptive and deliberately aggressive most surely will.

...oh and one more thing.  I'm going to start publishing a quarterly newsletter to all members via the email.  This will include news, views and announcements - hopefully I can make it interesting too!  I think this might help in some small way to engender a "community feel" back into RCMF.

Thanks Wiz -those actions sound just the ticket and the idea of a newsletter is a good one too.

[Darkstar56]

There is all this talk of friendly and unfriendly.

I think that some of it is down to the way the English is used. You can answer a comment but how you phrase the answer defines whether it is unfriendly or not. Sometimes if you keep very close to the point it can seem unfriendly, yet with a few more words the same sentence can seem just the opposite.

Can I ask all who post to stand back and look at exactly what they have written and then ask themselves whether they would like that style back to them if they had asked a question etc. Doing that and adding maybe a few words can make all the difference.

Please think about it.

[Wiz]

...completely agree and I think from time to time we are all guilty of "post in haste, repent at leisure" -  maybe we're in a rush and posting quickly and sometimes this can come across as terse.  I'm not saying we should tread on eggshells around each other but I think that  just putting yourself in the shoes of the recipients for a moment before hitting the send button is a really good idea, particularly for the more contentious topics.

[Cactus]

problem is in your head you know it makes sense
i was just writing on the ford forum about a cubby hole thing i had in my head, made perfect sense to me, but telling someone how this would be constructed is very tricky.

[markg]

There is all this talk of friendly and unfriendly.

I think that some of it is down to the way the English is used. You can answer a comment but how you phrase the answer defines whether it is unfriendly or not. Sometimes if you keep very close to the point it can seem unfriendly, yet with a few more words the same sentence can seem just the opposite.

Can I ask all who post to stand back and look at exactly what they have written and then ask themselves whether they would like that style back to them if they had asked a question etc. Doing that and adding maybe a few words can make all the difference.

Please think about it.

That's a double edged sword too, though.  Some people make what are fairly snide posts wrapped up in politeness.  Then they leap to take offence when called out on their passive-aggressive sniping.

[SteveBB]

There is all this talk of friendly and unfriendly.

I think that some of it is down to the way the English is used. You can answer a comment but how you phrase the answer defines whether it is unfriendly or not. Sometimes if you keep very close to the point it can seem unfriendly, yet with a few more words the same sentence can seem just the opposite.

Can I ask all who post to stand back and look at exactly what they have written and then ask themselves whether they would like that style back to them if they had asked a question etc. Doing that and adding maybe a few words can make all the difference.

Please think about it.

This can also be compounded by how articulate and literate someone might be. If someone is used to speaking in basic English, and doesn't have a very broad vocabulary, it's hardly likely their written English will be any better; and likely be considerably worse. This could make someone appear too direct or even unfriendly. Just a thought. 

[bobt]

One rule someone told me was never to write in an email or post something you would not say to that person face to face. One can always try....

[leccyflyer]

This can also be compounded by how articulate and literate someone might be. If someone is used to speaking in basic English, and doesn't have a very broad vocabulary, it's hardly likely their written English will be any better; and likely be considerably worse. This could make someone appear too direct or even unfriendly. Just a thought. 

I'd have to say that the opposite is also true. There have definitely been many occasions where being articulate in posting has been perceived as being somehow unfriendly.  When people meet up in person it is very often a real surprise how different they are from the impression that might be gleaned from their posts.

Furthermore the point made earlier by Michael Rolls about the difficulty which some posters appear to have in differentiating between posts which address ideas, opinions and abstract notions, versus addressing individuals on apersonal level is a common factor in online "fall-outs". If folks are unable to depersonalise discussion of ideas from discussion of posters then that is a contributory factor. It seems to be particularly prevalent in an environment such as model-orientated forums, because they do tend to be inhabited by those with a technical best, often working in (or retired from) environments where robust discussion of issues is the norm, without it actually ever being personal. Mix that in with other folks for whom disagreement with their ideas or opinions is seen, by them, as being an attack on their person, and you have a volatile mix.

I'll say this though - no matter how much any individuals may fall out, as a result of disagreements in these forums, there is usually a way back from that, if there is a willingness to bury the hatchet. Examples abound on this forum, and elsewhere. It just needs a bit of give and take. It is, after all, only the tinternet.

[SteveBB]

I'd agree on all that Brian. I'd add too that when this forum comes good, it comes very good in pulling together. We both know to what I'm referring. On that occasion a certain Mr R showed his true colours; not the grumpy bugger he likes to portray. 

[leccyflyer]

Agreed  - when push comes to shove this forum has been magnificent in demonstrating the spirit of what is best about online communities 

[David61]

Are we actually asking the right question?
I still clas myself as a relative newcomer with less than a year under my belt.  yes there are some posts where the poster is so far up their own backside that it beggars belief, but surely we all know to take them with a pinch of salt.
At the time of writing this, there are 49 members online, but 74 guests. 
Surely the question is why are we not converting guests to members??
If there are more guests than members online then there are always going to be more reads than posts.

Although I disagree with much of the rhetoric posted on here, and sometimes struggle not to retort, the BIG BIG point in favour of this forum is that whenever you need help or advice it is given freely and quickly.

Overall this is a very friendly place to be, with lots of support on hand, both modelling and otherwise.  The 'Leg Ampuation' thread in the pub (or what used to be) proves this without a shadow of a doubt.  And all from folks most of whom I've never met, but just share a hobby with.

Let other forums boast about massive growth, that really means sod all.  In spite of the criticisms about cliqueyness and all the other niggles, this is no more than a reflection of life anyway, this is still a terrific forum.

But let's turn some of the guests into members, if only to find out why THEY keep returning!

[bobt]

Are we actually asking the right question?
I still clas myself as a relative newcomer with less than a year under my belt.  yes there are some posts where the poster is so far up their own backside that it beggars belief, but surely we all know to take them with a pinch of salt.
At the time of writing this, there are 49 members online, but 74 guests. 
Surely the question is why are we not converting guests to members??
If there are more guests than members online then there are always going to be more reads than posts.

Although I disagree with much of the rhetoric posted on here, and sometimes struggle not to retort, the BIG BIG point in favour of this forum is that whenever you need help or advice it is given freely and quickly.

Overall this is a very friendly place to be, with lots of support on hand, both modelling and otherwise.  The 'Leg Ampuation' thread in the pub (or what used to be) proves this without a shadow of a doubt.  And all from folks most of whom I've never met, but just share a hobby with.

Let other forums boast about massive growth, that really means sod all.  In spite of the criticisms about cliqueyness and all the other niggles, this is no more than a reflection of life anyway, this is still a terrific forum.

But let's turn some of the guests into members, if only to find out why THEY keep returning!

Trouble is, newcomers wont know to take people 'with a pinch of salt'. Politeness costs nothing, we should all be aware of the responsibility in posting. I highly agree with the friendly face shown on most threads, but I'm not sure how we turn watchers into members, and thats really what Wiz is after.

[tomkfly]

Are we actually asking the right question?
I still clas myself as a relative newcomer with less than a year under my belt.  yes there are some posts where the poster is so far up their own backside that it beggars belief, but surely we all know to take them with a pinch of salt.
At the time of writing this, there are 49 members online, but 74 guests. 
Surely the question is why are we not converting guests to members??
If there are more guests than members online then there are always going to be more reads than posts

But let's turn some of the guests into members, if only to find out why THEY keep returning!

Most of those guests will Probbably be bots or spiders and not humans.

Tom

[bobt]

Most of those guests will Probbably be bots or spiders and not humans.

Tom

Euk! Wheres me ray gun!

[Wiz]

Most of those guests will Probbably be bots or spiders and not humans.

Good guess but we actually exclude those and capture them separately.  Usually there are 100+ bots on here!

[tomkfly]

Good guess but we actually exclude those and capture them separately.  Usually there are 100+ bots on here!

So, do we actually have 89 people reading the posts as guests?

Tom