I agree, this forum is great and there are some interesting topics on it but navigation is a nightmare to me. I replied to one the other day and never did find where my reply went. All replies should go to the top of page one with, as you have now the original post at the top. Today I am completely puzzled because looking down the page there is a reply posted 19 hours ago, the next is 17 hours, the next 11 hours (why isn't that at the top?, then we have 17, 14, 11, 13 hours. Why are they not in time order. To be honest once I have started reading the original post and the first page I rarely go onto the next page unless it is something that will really affects me. So, please can we have some order in an excellent forum?
HI Paul, I have the same problem, i have no idea how it works, i read Brians explanation, which is helpful, but i still don't get it! I reply to things sometimes, but have no idea if it lands in the correct place or anywhere even! Once someone told me I had posted in the wrong place in a blog instead of a reply or vice versa! So unless I feel extremely ruthless i just don't bother, i don't feel part of this side of things, it is too complicated for a mere mortal such as i!!!the sffb page is my place- easy!!!
Just as I leave this thread... Yes, Shirley does joke that way and I read it the same as you. I think Gail missed her points rather than be confrontational, I also suspect she was enjoying a mini-debate and I absolutely ADORE debate, so let's get on and have a good Sunday now instead :-)
Gail, Shirley Morgan cracked a joke about the previous comments which included the word fight. It was, in my opinion, lighthearted. I think perhaps your post comes over as a little confrontational. Perhaps that is it.
Actually Gail, you are losing the chain. No, Shirley brought up the 'f' word, you opened your response questioning it and I have since only responded as you still are questioning it now. I think you are the unwitting witness who could be taken for the guilty party :-(
Good though that you see it is just exchange - but magic? No ma'am, I had the 'fortune' of a year of a health thing that restricted me to home and little work. I am too easily bored to not indulge...
Right, rain gone, sun out so time for gardening. Work before pleasure tomorrow, so let's all get on with life. Mind you a good debate... ;-)
I think James and Catharine do a great "job". How they find the time is beyond me. How some of the readers find the time to look thro' 23 pages is also beyond me! Treat the whole thing like a bran-tub. Dip in here or there and often you come up with something interesting, fun and informative and occasionally some rubbish. It is not a microsoft web-site mit alles in ordnung! You don't get much in life for free so be thankful for SFN as it's members have helped many readers to sort out seemingly intractible French problems.
Semantics? I picked up precisely what you said and responded to those points. That is dialogue or is it not?
I personally do not find the navigability at all difficult as some people do because I eased my way into into it rather than expecting to click my fingers and have it all happen. I tried to explain it as simply as possible early on and typically find that at this stage with four pages it is already fairly apparent that people dive in to the newest response and do not give a few moments to look back over the thread. Their loss, their choice and thus no need for any kind of fight.
Here I am doing my early trawl of political columns of newspapers and find a 'debate' of equal voracity developing. How strange. How unnecessary here.
Gail, the donation issue. It is entirely voluntary, there is no 'have to' involved. So no issue and need to go further with that.
The name says what SFN is. A forum calls itself a forum and most of the fora I know, which is quite a few, are far less diverse than this network. The main point being overlooked is that the word network refers to human beings being in touch with each other rather than this being a forum that far more anonymously deals primarily with issues. Simply look at it in human terms as others do and, unless I am mistaken, accept that that is what Catharine and James set it up for.
Fight, no need. Enjoying a difference of opinion and being able to express that without heavy handed censorship as some fora have is welcomed here. Disagree, debate, get a bit angry but fight, why?
I don't find a problem with it because I don't spend much time on here. I like the e-mails because then I can either go direct or ignore, depending on my interest in the subject matter. I don't generally read blogs.
The one thing I like about this is because it isn't a forum and you get a good variety of people who are not all retired with nothing better to do than be sarcastic to one another unde pseudo names. I also find accurate answers to business related questions which you do not get on other sites.
Shirley and Norman, you early risers or late sleepers whichever, thank you! I think some people are doing things that are making it hard for them:
a) Not accepting that in any network, blog, forum or whatever, once there are many responses a thread is long. Admittedly some threads on SFN go to many pages, by not even going a couple of pages back to see what has been said (even recently) we often find the same thing said by several people, each of whom probably thinks that they are the only person in the world with the info they are offering. The loss of satellite channels post recently springs to mind as good example. If people do not find out what is being said then they are often steering a thread toward its demise by making it repetitive.
b) Discussions have the main thread and the many 'sub-threads' by scrolling backwards and forwards it is possible to join in one of them where what one has to say is more relevant than anywhere else and possibly fits better than as a new thus freestanding comment.
c) It seems extraordinary to me that quite a few people are comparing this to other networks and fora that are better! That tells me that, for instance, many of those people do not use online newspapers where very similar threads develop and the 'sub-threads' on a particular angle often run into dozens of entries. That appears to break the thread itself but actually once people are used to it actually enhances it. Many of the fora that simply appear as sequential comments are actually quite bland because people simply put in disjointed statements where interesting discourses should develop. I would argue that it is because this network has a similar structure to some of the dozen or so newspapers I read across a number of languages I have stuck with it and feel very at home in a user friendly environment. Some of the 'debates' some of us have taken part in have been very 'heated' which is far too often not tolerated and whilst I have probably had more than my fair share of warnings from Catharine, none of us including yours truly goes away in a huff if we feel ourselves justified to stand ground. How many other sites allow that structurally or by their censors, for want of a better word.
d) People who have studied this kind of communication are noting a tendency for 'instant gratification' among people who read a headline/title but only part, sometimes none of the story/comment, then want to say something. Often that comes out as a rephrased comment in own words comment that repeats others because the respondent has not looked at the thread. Because I have had the larger part of my life having been a researcher, most of that time has found me with my nose stuck in books and journals and now electronic searches have made that easier but with a far greater load. My likes have the choice of either we go potluck for the first thing we find or spend hours, days or however long it takes trying to pin down what we want to find. The outcome is that scanning has replaced word-by-word reading for obvious practical reasons. The same applies to SFN and I would recommend scanning threads rather than looking for the end whether it is upward or downward reading to see if, in the case of a discussion particularly, there is a sub-thread where what you want to say fits in best. It stops all of you making embarrassing repetitions, also informs you what is being said by others with which you agree or disagree and wish to say so. As has already been pointed out, if you are pursuing a particular person's entries, then go for that person's page and find them listed there.
Sorry if I seem to have gone about this in what might seem a rather 'bossy' fashion but I think it is a case of calling a spade a spade. Since I do not believe that online discussions work on the 'instant gratification' basis, felt that it was better said than passively watching people ask for what would always be the impossible in any thread on any worthwhile site.
I have mentioned this also, but I think there is a relatively simple answer, which I am trying to use now, which is to address the answer to the person you are replying to. 'Hi Brian' or whatever. At least that identifies the 'trail'. NB as this is a general point and not a conversational one, I haven't used an opening address.
Wrong.
And when doing so it just brings up a general Google search of things that I wanted to search this forum for but the answers are from all over the net and not this site.
Ah, found it but only on the index page.
PS. WHERE is the search box as I cant find it to search the forum
As the average time spent on any web page is less than 1 minute, getting someone ( new users?) to fathom out how this particular set-up works and differs from most online forums work,
then I suspect that it could be missing out as users just give up. I did.
James, what is the churn rate here?
Its only saving grace/good point is the email topic links that catch my eye.
(Constructive criticism I hope!)
It's also a perfect example of the problem, Catharine, as this comment is not on the same page as your response to Sam. So if I want to find out/be reminded of what you said to Sam about what, and to see the example, I have to go hunting and that is time-consuming and frustrating, particularly in the case of very long threads, and will put people off.
Why, lots of good forum software is available for free!
Many with bridges that could perhaps be incorporated here.
Perhaps a separate forum whilst keeping all the other good stuff?
I'm afraid I am also one of those who finds it hard to follow blogs. I like "start with the answer and end with the latest comment". I can cope with that. I am even having trouble understanding your explanation Brian - duh. Maybe its just me??
Moi aussi Paul.