UKC

There have been quite a few threads and assorted posts lately, lamenting the bygone glories of UKC-past and the current disincentives to participate, particularly in forum discussions.

What's largely missing, or perhaps being missed because of the fragmented and ad hoc nature of posts on the subject, are solutions. There's a resource right here; the management and users benefit from increased traffic and facilities, so how should they be achieved?

Just to start the ball rolling:

1) Rein in posters like me. Seriously; the odd verbal joust is one thing, but it's a war zone right now.
2) Introduce a ratings system: either a thumbs up/down or stars. This might aid (1).
3) Have a more proactive moderation system, probably involving user-moderators
4) Meets. They were good fun, you know. I met a couple of complete internet w*nkers who turned out to be delightful. I only hope they said the same....
5) Ban all posts on religion and the referendum

There are probably more, but I write improve as 'improve' because it's all pretty subjective.

You want better; make better.

Martin

In reply to maisie:

I'd probably ban Robert Durran from the photography forum, but apart from that I'm not on here often enough to notice any problems.

In reply to maisie:

How would YOU 'improve' UKC? by ending anonymous photo voting.

In reply to maisie:

Definately think 2) above would help.

In reply to deepstar:


Is that an actual problem? My photos are so poor, I don't see any point in uploading them. Is there a hidden agenda, or a bunch of trolls downgrading decent photos?

Martin

In reply to deepstar:


+1

In reply to maisie:

Filters on 'My Logbook'.

I realise I can just export to excel, but it would be nice to be able to just view my leads, or O/S logs, or Lead O/S logs, etc.

In reply to maisie:

I think that the moderation is bang on the money. We all know that the mods are there and they keep things ticking along nicely.

As for this site being a war zone right now, I beg to differ. Back in the day this place was a real 'in-your-face' gloves off arena where no quarter was asked or given. Sadly today, we have a facsimile of those halcyon days.

At the moment I feel that the site is in a rut with two distinct polarised camps on all subjects. In the past, no matter the subject there was always a gray area where discussion could blossom and develop. But sadly, at the moment people are either for or against and there is no wiggle room. Those that do not subscribe to either polarised faction is ridiculed or impassively ignored. I don't think this is deliberate, it just developed slowly.

All religion threads are an example of this polarisation where mud is thrown on all sides and nothing gets discussed. Maybe the God Squad wants to have a theological discussion, and why not? But then the God Haters come stomping along and everybody shuts down. And visa versa, the God Basher's have an atheist discussion, which are their beliefs and values and along comes a Happy Clapper to rain on their parade and it all shuts down.

Maybe UKC has some sort of competition where people have drifted off to discuss stuff with other like minded types. I've never signed up to facebook but its probably something like this which has caused UKC to haemorrhage lively debate and banter?

In reply to maisie:

In reply to The Lemming:

Fair comments on how you see the current state of the republic, but what do you think would *improve* the site?

Martin

In reply to maisie:


I think it is an ebb and flow thing and there is nothing that can be done to improve matters, well at least not while the summer climbing season is hanging in there with the good weather letting the keyboard warriors play outside a few moments longer.

And please, no AVATARS or Like buttons.

Aggggg

In reply to deepstar:

How would YOU 'improve' UKC? by ending anonymous photo voting.

Remove the lower two voting options available ('Rubbish' & 'Poor') so that any voting is positive.
If people want their individual photo's critiqued, they can ask to do so in the Photography forum.

In reply to The Lemming:

Yes, but I think that you're just focussing on the forum debates: the site as a whole is a bigger resource. Even if you think that the discussions will naturally self-adjust (and I'd like to add a (6): ban for life anybody who uses the terms keyboard warrior, or keyboard hardman), what would make the site more useful to you?

In reply to FactorXXX:




That seems like a good move.

In reply to maisie:

There's not that much that I'd change to be honest - I like the relatively minimal interface and light moderation.

Two possibilities:

• rename Local Areas to Access & Local Issues or something so people stop thinking it's a UK version of Rock Destinations
  
• merge Off Belay with The Pub and create a separate forum for weighty matters like religion and politics so I can keep up with blather about the best chip shop in Yorkshire without getting drawn into a massive argument about political correctness or something.
  

In reply to tehmarks:

I'm flattered. I've obviously hit a raw nerve amongst those who see photography as mere colouring in and dot to dot for adults. And as long as the likes of Mr Livesey and Mr Stainforth are basically on my side I don't think I can be going too far wrong.

In reply to maisie:

I'd have us join the Euro and Schengen, and work towards ever closer union with sister sites such as nederlandklimmen.nl and danmarkklatring.dk

In reply to Robert Durran:

Take it elsewhere, Durran.... (and that goes for teh_mark as well)

In reply to skog:


First comedian of the night. Anything dull but useful?

In reply to FactorXXX:


But then I suspect it would just effectively become recalibrated so that "average" meant "rubbish".

I rarely vote for a photo unless I feel particularly strongly about it. Most of my votes are either 5 or 1 (the majority 5), and I admit voting 1 always feels rather mean spirited. Perhaps the best system would have only one tier - just vote for photos you like and the total number of votes could be displayed. Negative voting would be eliminated.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think if it were just a system of 'likes', then the capacity to judge on technical merit would be severely reduced - and there's no doubt for me that the robustness of the current system has elevated the photography forum to become the best feature of the site. I regularly show the weekly top ten to non-climbing friends and colleagues, and the response is hugely positive.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

>




I am a member of the VW T4 forum and while their site has a lot of shortcomings one nice idea is that you can "hover" your cursor over a topic title and it gives you a sort of precis of what the thread is about.

In reply to maisie:

Hmm.

It would probably benefit from finding a way to steal conversations back from Facebook, or wherever it is they've gone.

I'm not sure what that would be, though.

In reply to FactorXXX:



What a stupid suggestion. That's just like McDonalds renaming medium sized drinks as large to make everybody feel like they're getting a better deal. Some photos are, by the definition of average, below average. Do you also bemoan the fact that some people are below average IQ?

In reply to victim of mathematics:

Would you like to make a positive suggestion?

In reply to maisie:

Why? How do we know at the moment whether a photo is voted for on its technical prowess or on its visual merit (by no means the same thing)? It's all just an average either way.

In reply to maisie:

Less grumpy bastards who never have anything good to say about anyone?

In reply to Robert Durran:


Both those things make a decent photo and both will count; but with a graded system there's the opportunity for differentiation. A simple like doesn't do this. Being able to pick out the really good and/or interesting photos helps both to reward (I presume) the photographers and demonstrate consensus views on what makes a good photo.

It's funny, but I thought the photo galleries were one of the areas which didn't need any improving.

In reply to victim of mathematics:

Back to the question, then. You're a mathematician, so I'm sure you can algorithm your way out of the loop.

In reply to victim of mathematics:

Remember, this is principally a climbing forum. The Photo's are just an add-on to that.
A lot of people add photo's, no matter how technically and/or compositionally rubbish, just to show their what they have done at the weekend, etc. It's a bit shitty to have people voting them as 'Rubbish' based purely on photographic/artistic merit.
As I suggested, if people want their photo's critiqued, let them ask via the appropriate forum.
What's the problem with divorcing the two?

In reply to FactorXXX:


I'm not really sure I agree with that. There's plenty of excellent photographers who post their pictures here, but don't contribute much to the forums. I'm quite happy for them to do that.


That's nice for them. I generally think that sort of thing's for Facebook or your blog, rather than spamming UKC, Brixton Climber style, with billions of shots that will be of no interest to anybody else. But if that's really what people want to do then they can always disable voting on their photos.


But then you lose the ability to create the weekly top 10s, which are a great feature, even if I don't agree with some of the entries.

It 'solves' a problem that doesn't exist, whilst creating some others that do?

In reply to maisie:

How would I improve it? I'd bring back the old Icons. I've still not got over the change and the ensuing palaver of it all.

In reply to victim of mathematics:
>Less grumpy bastards who never have anything good to say about anyone?

*Fewer* grumpy bastards. And fewer grammar pedants too.

In reply to deepsoup:
I interpreted it as making the ubiquitous and immortal grumpy bastards happier. It's about bums on keyboards, after all.

In reply to deepsoup:

Nah, bastards who are less grumpy, not fewer in number...

In reply to maisie:

I'd try allowing anons to post for a bit and see what happens.

I think rating different users's posts could become personal.

Some meets happening would be cool.

Could be helpful to have a 'niceness rule' or something. I don't know how it'd work, maybe just have something about if it's possible to phrase something in a more civil way, then post it like that, in the guide lines, as it helps the general vibe of the forums?

In reply to Timmd:

If everything is too civil, wouldn't life be terribly dull?

I'm not condoning vicious and unprovoked personal insults, just that some kind of weird code of enforced niceness seems like a truly godawful idea.

In reply to victim of mathematics:
Not a code, more have it 'strongly suggested'.

It's not that difficult given enough thought to phrase something tactfully.

Perhaps I'm from a chilled corner of life, but I don't get the 'online hoo har'. It nearly always results in clever reply one up-man-ship.

Why not explore a topic instead? Then one might learn something or think in a new way...

I think that's why the meets and the related chat went onto facebook, going on things posted back then. Too much aggro and 'aha gotcha'.

In reply to maisie:

Limit replies to 150 words.

In reply to maisie:
Its a question without an answer that is correct, many shades of grey under the sun. Essentially you have a collective of people who have joined a portal, the people who run the portal because of the bandwidth generated can sell advertising and earn a living, with that in mind because it's run by people drawing a wage, they essentially set the rules or the 'tone' shall we call it.

However without us the posters less genuine bandwidth, less revenue from advertising and sponsors, so to that end the community does play a BIG part in this symbiotic relationship. With various profiles I've been here since late 2003, made some good friends, climbed with some really unsafe people, learnt a lot, and even the one time I got a good job from the website.

I understand over this time I've wound some people up, sometimes for fun, sometimes probably cos they deserve it, sometimes we get just bored and lazy, and other time because I think some of the issues that have been discussed are really important.

My only rule I have is try not to go negative or you could say rise to the bait.

So just for shit and giggles really. I'd say make the moderators and above only log in database public to all registered posters for a limited time, and lets see what they've been saying about us.

Peace x

In reply to victim of mathematics:

I'm not really sure I agree with that. There's plenty of excellent photographers who post their pictures here, but don't contribute much to the forums. I'm quite happy for them to do that.

Yes, totally agree, there are some amazing photographers contributing some amazing material. Can't see why reducing the voting to a only positive bias would limit that. It's a bit like the 'starring' system for climbs, the vast majority are non-starred and only the best warrant stars. Seems to work there.


That's nice for them. I generally think that sort of thing's for Facebook or your blog, rather than spamming UKC, Brixton Climber style, with billions of shots that will be of no interest to anybody else. But if that's really what people want to do then they can always disable voting on their photos.

Isn't that a rather elitist attitude way of looking at things?


But then you lose the ability to create the weekly top 10s, which are a great feature, even if I don't agree with some of the entries.

Why would limiting the voting to a positive only bias stop that?


It 'solves' a problem that doesn't exist, whilst creating some others that do?

It removes the needless negativity generated by the 'Poor' and 'Rubbish' categories. The good photo's will still be rightly recognised and all the others will remain anonymous.
If people want to discuss the merits of individual photo's/photographer's, then the Photography forum is the ideal place to do so.

In reply to maisie:

Ban from posting for a month anyone who makes it into the top 40 list. Might (arguably) reduce the overall number of posts, but I'd bet the quality would improve.

In reply to FactorXXX:

The one thing that the photo section could do with is only allowing a vote on the quality if it is accompanied by a comment. If you disable comments then you also disable voting. Most photos should be a 3 - it's the median value though since most people will only put up their better shots there'll be a bias so maybe the majority will be between 3 & 4 - you get a decimal value when viewing your own gallery BTW, so 3.6 rather than 4.

Some shots are genuinely rubbish - an out of focus shot of someone's foot blocking the view of the climber for example. I suspect they were uploaded either by accident or as a joke.

The beta version of the new look forums has like/dislike buttons but they aren't fully operational yet apparently.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Elitist is just a loaded, emotive term for outstanding. Anyone who achieves more than others can be knocked down as "elitist", rather like the ludicrous left-wing cliche of challenging anyone who does not parrot left-wing orthodoxy or paraphrase some self-righteous whining Guardian piece as "lacking empathy". Is Uli Steck "elitist"? Put it that way if you like, most people would say he is just an incredible alpinist (although possibly not actually human).



Nonsense, if very mediocre or poor pictures, showing banal cliched scenes, washed out light or out of focus get voted up by "mates votes", without negative categories, there is no way of restoring realism. It is rather like perpetual grade creep in A levels, if everyone gets an A there is no way to distinguish the good from the lazy or stupid, so ever more positive grades get added to show genuine ability.


If people want to post a "this is a crap picture but of interest to me and my mates (or has a pretty girl in fairly skimpy clothing, but other than that is not much good), picture, they can already bar voting.

Generally the photographic standard is very high, personally I try to avoid putting mediocre pictures up. But pretending that very poor pictures are good and must not be criticised is, as was pointed out above, like whining that 50% of the population are below average intelligence.

In reply to Simon4:

I feel a bit woozy but I agree with you here.

In reply to Simon4:


Except one is noun and the other is an adjective and they mean very different things. Elitism has its place, but just being very good at something doesn't make you elitist, some of the greatest sports people I have met have been very inclusive, I have also met many people who are average at best, but have elitist attitudes.

In reply to maisie:

Bring back Fawksey, Teflonpete and Gingerkate.

It's all about the people.

In reply to AndrewW:


I presume you're serious? Can you please explain why the quality would improve in your opinion? I don't get it.

In reply to maisie:

War zone - "back in the day" on ukrc you needed a tin helmet just to log in - it's very tame on here - largely to do with moderation of the more exciting threads and also a degree of self censorship as people have become more aware that it's not a "private club" but accessed by many people some of whom on occassion seem to be trying to get a story.

Religion and referendum - I find it's those who are for want of a better word activists who seem to post a lot - I guess its a case of you don't ned to read the posts if you're not interested.

I'd like a "like" button too.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Except that negativity seems to result in the moderators pulling the thread

In reply to victim of mathematics:

Less grumpy, but not so much so that they have anything good to say about anyone? You could be on to something there.

In reply to maisie:

I think anonymous posters or those using usernames rather than their real names should be treated/rated particularly harshly when they use abusive language.

We do get some slightly contradictory messages on this thread. There are complaints about language and aggressive posting, alongside requests to allow unregistered posters back on the main forums. There are even some requests to allow back some serial offenders who gave huge amounts of hassle in the past.

The reason we stopped unregistered posting on the main forums, and banned certain individuals, was precisely because of the language and aggressive posting problems they caused. From my ;point of view as a moderator, this has only improved the forums and made them easier to moderate.

Alan

In reply to maisie: Ban name changing. I don't care what anyone is called, but keep the name the same.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


I think the idea of having a separate forum for philosophy, religion and politics is excellent because, as you say, at the moment threads often get hijacked by such weighty issues (and almost invariably then become acrimonious).

In reply to maisie:

Could we have some sort of pomposity filter.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


+1

I'd say this is a great idea

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


We could look at that but we would need a snappier title. "philosophy, religion and politics" is too long a text string.

BTW we are introducing a Like/Dislike button on posts when we roll out the new-look site in the next week or so. Not linked to Facebook, just one for UKC.

This will certainly give us good data for moderating, and it might give us some data we can use to promote more positive posting practice. I was thinking of as third criteria of 'useful' as wells that useful posts could be more easily found.

We are aware that Like/Dislike buttons can have unforeseen repercussions but it does seem worth trying out finally.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Soapbox? Speaker's Corner?

'Argument and abuse' might be a little too witheringly accurate though.

T.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Personally, I am pretty sick of the gratuitous rudeness and aggressiveness of some of the posters on UKC (not just things directed at me). Sometimes I don't post because it is happens so often. Sometimes I do post then ending up bailing from the thread and leaving them to it. I generally don't use the 'Report abuse' because it is so commonplace.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:


Pish?

In reply to The New NickB:


Speaking as a self-made exceptionally good-looking smart sensitive genius who knows more than anyone else on UKC and who has achieved more in my life so far than anyone at Oxford U. or Cambridge U., and having 11 Ph.Ds. (correct term - please learn from me) as I do - I am getting tired of casting my pearls before swine, and ipso facto vivie le difference I agree.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


I'd like to see what Icon you come up with for that.

In reply to Removed User:


Professors hat - easy

Alan

In reply to maisie:

I too am puzzled by 'punishment voting' on photos. If I upload a perfectly adequate pic to improve a confusing crag, my fragile ego doesn't like the almost instant punishment beating. How does it help?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


<likes this>

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I agree that the new Dislike button would be very handy for providing negative feedback on aggressive, rude posts.

In reply to maisie:

I would ban everyone, starting with myself. Then people would have to go out and go climbing!

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


I think this a really good idea. Probably the best thing about UKC is the fantastic mine of information out when you make the most obscure request for climbing related information. Maybe individuals could be rated for the usefulness of their posts!

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


In the absence of "sticky" posts/threads that would be, err, useful. If enough people voted a thread or post as useful you could have a specific filter for them so they could be seen in one place. You (well the moderators) would have to have a veto (or more positively, an "accept this") on whether the thread went on to the useful list.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:



Nah. Hot air balloon!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Poppycock and twaddle!

In reply to Pursued by a bear:


Soapbox is good. And I used to use a site that had (and possibly still has...) a Hyde Park Corner subforum for these purposes.

Weighty Matters or Serious Issues might work as well.

The key thing is that I should be able to see whether there's any fun off-topic chat without pitting my minimal willpower against the temptation to get involved in a huge argument about the implications of an independent Scotland for Muslim women's rights...

In reply to maisie:

Maybe some kind of Battle Royal/Hunger Games style competition between posters. That should liven things up a bit

In reply to Blue Straggler:


That works as a name for the proposed new forum, too.

In reply to maisie:
In my opinion UKC would be greatly improved, if everytime I posted, my bank account was automaticly credited with £5.

I think I'd be tempted to post more.

In reply to Ramblin dave:



Soapbox doesn't really work because those threads are usually discussions rather than preaching/diatribes. 'Serious discussion' would be true, but dull. Serious Stuff? That has a slightly ironic ring about it, as if it's got invisible quotation marks around it, and even perhaps a hint of 'stuff and nonsense'.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


We already have two non-climbing "discussion" forums for exactly that reason. "The Pup" is intended for the "fun off-topic chat" of little consequence and "Off belay" is intended for the "soapbox" discussions.

There isn't a need for a third discussion section, though perhaps the distinction could be made clearer, perhaps by renaming "off belay" to "soapbox" or whatever.

But, anyhow, so long as thread titles are appropriate then why is there a problem? If people don't want to read lengthy threads on referenda, politics, religion or whatever then they needn't click on the threads. If they don't want such things cluttering up their "leader board" then they can un-tick those forums.

On that point, it might make it seem more of a climbing forum to new readers if fewer forums were "ticked" by default (e.g. if Off Belay, Culture Bunker, For Sale, Biking, Running etc were unticked by default, but of course still available by clicking on the left).

In reply to Coel Hellier:



The second part of that suggestion was "and merge Off Belay with The Pub". Which would have essentially the same result. And as it stands, Off Belay is for "general discussion and debate" rather than specifically for potentially controversial stuff.


Like I said, lack of willpower...


Basically, because some of the stuff in Off Belay is interesting but not likely to lead to long and serious arguments, while other stuff (religion, politics etc) is. And to me, that seems like a more useful distinction than the current "general non-climbing discussions and debate" vs "relaxed conversation, gossip, chatting to your mates". The sub-optimality of the latter is borne out by the number of topics currently in The Pub that would sit equally well in Off Belay.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


They start that way, certainly.


And they usually end this way. People take their dogmas for a walk, no-one listens to anyone else very often and much heat, but little light, is produced.

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

To be fair, though, I guess it's sensible to call it something that doesn't actively encourage people to go in guns blazing! Something that says "these are controversial topics, please keep it civil" rather than "screaming arguments, rant away..."

In reply to maisie:


It would be nice to see more useful reviews of products, carried out over
a longer period of time and with some fixed scales that allow similar products to be compared(similar to www.outdoorgearlab.com ).

There is also a distinct lack of news posted each day and often the sources of these stories are the same. (I.e what Danial woods has been doing, which obviously arrives in the UKC inbox every few days and simply gets pasted to news.) It would be good to see some actual journalism. (what happened to 'international news' for example)

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That is a good point. With all forum's ticked, you often have to look quite hard to find anything about climbing at all. Indeed, first impressions would often suggest you've landed on a cycling website by mistake - enough to put anyone off!

In reply to ericinbristol:

That is one of the advantages of the Like/Dislike system. A comment with lots of Likes can be made more prominent whereas lots of Dislikes can trigger it to be hidden.

At the moment we've just got a system setup to collect the Like/Dislike data from users and it currently doesn't affect how the messages are shown. We'll be testing out a few different approaches for this.

In reply to JimboWizbo:

There is a logbook filter function on the beta site (that should be live in the near future).

It currently only handles climbing Discipline, Partner and Country but I'll add ascent style to it for the site launch.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Good grief. You do realise that I could register with the name Gordan Staneforth - wouldn't mean that this was my actual name. Are you suggesting that before you register you send in a copy of your birth certificate? Even if it was my real name - so what? I don't know you from Adam and you don't know me. Do you really 'get' this internet malarkey?

In reply to abseil:


Because they are mostly twits with over-inflated opinions of themselves? Because they get into the top 40 list by engaging in endless "you're a wanker", "no, you're a wanker" exchange?

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:

Not one point you make relates to mine. I implied none of that. You're also quite rude with it.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Okay. Why do you think that people posting under their real names should be treated leniently if they're abusive?

I don't see any particular pattern on here suggesting that they're more likely to be restrained - plenty of the more, er, forthright posters use what appear to be their real names.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


I didn't say that either.

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:

Well both Gordon (Stainforth) and myself were in the top ten the week before last and to the best of my knowledge neither of us have participated in any Pythonesque contradiction arguments.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

You think people who don't post under their real names should be treated particularly harshly if they use abusive language, but not that people who do post under their real names should be treated more leniently?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

You said 'leniently' before. I'll express what i meant before slightly differently (then get back to work): people who use abusive language on these forums should be treated harshly. Those who do so while hiding behind a pseudonym should be treated equally harshly for their abuse, and then even more so for the separate vice of cowardice. That's all I meant.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


'Fightclub'

jk

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

"Intellectual blah"

In reply to Bob:

Yes you did.

In reply to maisie:

It seems to me that most of your replies are not what "YOU" could do to improve UKC but what could someone else to do to improve it !

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:



From your post earlier
"using usernames rather than their real names"

From 'Sally Bustyerface'(*)
"You do realise that I could register with the name Gordan Staneforth - wouldn't mean that this was my actual name."


I think that relates directly.

I used to post under my real name, but only my first name. Does this mean that before the Blue Straggler moniker started to be used, all my posts were somehow more worthy?








* = not a real name

In reply to GrahamD:


Well, it strikes me that all suggestions are useful in some way - and all better than whining about not having every whim catered to.

Interesting that the most common suggestion - a like button - is already on the way. Perhaps people might realise that there is a bit of proactivity going on.

Martin

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

*Awaits with scepticism*

I can't think of anything more annoying than people 'disliking' what I've said without bothering to say why. Equally, who cares how many people 'like' an opinion. I don't post on here to be 'liked' (in either the actual sense nor the icon-clicking sense) I post because I like to discuss stuff. Let's see how annoying I find it.

It might be more useful on other forums, but for pub/off belay debate, it just sounds deeply irritating.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Yes, though some people seem to have a bad impression of it and there certainly are the odd slanging matches, the level of debate on UKC is generally, I think, very good natured and of a remarkably high standard; one is often called upon to defend one's position with real rigour. A "like" button really does risk undermining and trivialising things, reducing it all to the banality of facebook. The idea horrifies me.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I agree. I think it's to UKC's credit that people who really know and care about completely non-climbing related subjects choose to discuss them on here. I've learned a lot from debating on here, clicking on links that people post and googling for evidence to support my position or to refute someone else's.

In reply to maisie:

If UKC collect "likes" then I'm for changing the Top 40 posters table from, by volume of posts, to by number of likes received. I'm not sure how or if it would change the site churn but surely it can only encourage a increase in the quality of posting?

Equally, there could be a sin bin (one week ban?) for the poster that received the mosts "dislikes"! We can then form cliques and gang up on a particular poster an vote them out of existence. Surely we wouldn't do that, would we?

In reply to Robert Durran:


Like

In reply to JLS:


I can scarcely imagine how depressing I would find that. The opinions of people who can't be bothered to say anything become the x-factor votes in the new UKC popularity contest. Euughh.

In reply to deepstar:


This is how 'not606' works. Saves time scanning through the forum trying to find something to read/ignore.

In reply to Jon Stewart and Robert Durran:

A couple of observations: first, the like facility probably hasn't been introduced for the benefit of people like us; second, aren't you just the reactionary pair? On other (professional) forums that I use, the management have trialled simple like systems, starring (like the current UKC photo system) or neither of the above. All were equally reviled on both sites.

The best of the ratings systems that I've seen was a like/dislike system which carried the voter's ID. So if BigBlueBanana liked your comment, his name appeared in the little box; ditto for dislikes. It was considered poor form for those involved in the discussion to use the dislike facility, so most comment was from observers. Whether you'd care to admit to being held sway by others or not, it did seem to disincentivise the more negative posting, without stifling debate. A decent argument was appreciated, regardless of the side taken. Often, those participating in a fairly robust debate would like an opponent's answer - whilst strongly arguing against it.

Martin

In reply to maisie:




I can assure you I won't be 'liking' Robert's posts when he argues that some trivial 8m HVS crack in the north west is worth E3 and 4(!!) stars.

In reply to maisie:

I guess what puts me off these systems is the incentive to boost your ego by collecting 'likes' rather than saying what you really think. If your line of argument isn't getting liked enough or disliked a lot, it will be easy to lose confidence in it. Whereas, if you mention tits a lot (or even post a link to a picture of some) then maybe we'll get loads of likes - so let's all just do that instead to save ourselves the humiliation of getting ignored or god forbid 'disliked'.

I can see it might work well in a professional context, but I post on the internet for fun, and as an outlet to express myself in writing (I'm not very creative!). I tend to forget that other people (those who don't reply) sometimes actually read it, and I prefer it that way.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


You know this is a weak argument.


No, you don't.

In reply to maisie:


no i don't. I think it introduces a new incentive is to post something that the most people will like, which might well be 'funny banter' (witty put-downs, jokes about tits, etc) rather than genuine contributions of views.


the fun i get from posting on here is from engaging in debate, not writing for a public audience. If it was the latter, I'd proof read so it made sense!

In reply to maisie:


Well possibly, although its a pretty self selecting bunch of replies from folk who already use UKC. To be really useful you would need an idea why all the people who don't use UKC are put off. Maybe all these extra 'features' is what puts them off ?

In reply to maisie:
The problem with a "like" button is that
1) It encourages the very idea that seems to put many people off the site: that discussion is adversarial and results in "winners and losers"
2) Posts will be judged not by the strength of the argument but by the prejudices of the readers.
So if there are a lot of "yes" voters on the site then "yes" posts will get "liked" even if the content is poor, and visa versa.

Personally, notwithstanding a certain amount of childish rubbish (eg.me and bruce!) and the occasional dummy throwing, I think there are still some pretty good debates on here. Some people, both in a real pub or on the internet, just don't enjoy robust debate. That's absolute fine but doesn't mean that robust debate is wrong.

Incidentally, although we have lost some good posters, many of the "good" posters could also be some of the rudest. In the "good old days' the site on a Saturday morning after a drink fuelled Friday night barney was like the morning after the poll tax riots.

In reply to Robert Durran:



Like. Smileyface.

In reply to maisie:

Smileys. They would eliminate any potential for people to be taken the wrong way and stop unnecessary posting of 'I didn't mean it like that' comments.

In reply to Toerag:


And eliminate the need to express oneself properly in English!

In reply to maisie:

There is a distinct lack of news posted each day and often the sources of these stories are the same. (I.e what Danial woods has been doing, which obviously arrives in the UKC inbox every few days and simply gets pasted to news.) It would be good to see some actual journalism. (what happened to 'international news' for example)

In reply to Tom F Harding:


Alternatively, they could offer a money back guarantee for anyone who visits the site and isn't satisfied with the depth and quality of the news coverage!

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Well if by 'money' paid you mean 'time spent looking at adverts' then unfortunately I'm never going to get that back...

In reply to maisie:

I really like UKC(in fact it is set as one of my home pages. I think the votes on photos is about right. The one improvement I'd like to see is to logbook filtering, in particular, it would be great to be able to sort by climbing partner.

In reply to maisie:


Ability to discuss climbs / areas in the main forum area and it automatically linking to the climb / area.

In reply to Orgsm:


Funny you should say that. It is one of the features we are adding in the new site due for launch in the next week or so.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:



Where is that new like button?

In reply to Orgsm:

Ability to discuss climbs / areas in the main forum area and it automatically linking to the climb / area.

What happens if the wrong climb/area are automatically selected?
It's not overly difficult to manually provide a Link.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Well the won't be because we are not stupid. You input the crag or route in a box below the main message text box and it produces a drop-down that you can then click on to select the correct route or crag. This is then inserted automatically into the text box. If you don't want to do this then you just type the route name as normal and nothing happens.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Well the won't be because we are not stupid. You input the crag or route in a box below the main message text box and it produces a drop-down that you can then click on to select the correct route or crag. This is then inserted automatically into the text box.

Despite your slight grumpiness, you sir are a genius (hopefully)!

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Hurrah! I've been requesting this for years

In reply to FactorXXX:


Thank you lol

In reply to maisie:

What I'd like to see is a "hide all posts from this user" button, like I've seen on other forums. Nobody knows you've clicked it so there are no repercussions, you just don't have to skip past their tedious ranting.

In reply to Hooo:


Yes please!

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

I like the way you are claiming the genius bit, but are quite happy for Alan to be labelled as 'Slightly Grumpy'!

In reply to Orgsm:

You should see a link to the beta site here http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

I do indeed and am now on new forum

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

Am I being dense? It looks just the same!

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

Where are you collecting feedback for the new forum?

In reply to Tall Clare:


You need to be given special access to get there. We handed out all the passes a week or so ago I'm afraid. A case of, "you're not on the list so you're not coming in".

There, if I am accused of being grumpy, I am going to live up to it. Paul can have the genius tag, he has certainly earned it more than me!

Alan

In reply to Orgsm:

On the Development forum which should be visible with the black chemistry bottle.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Ah, no problem!

In reply to tehmarks:


Maybe, just being able to block particular members from replying to your posts or posting on thread s you started might be better than a forum ban

Can you just imagine the joy of starting a particular thread topic that you know will attract a post from a certain member, (who would then find that they could not post on it. )

In reply to maisie:
A) I would like to see a filter in the 'for Sale 'forum so I would just view 'Ice-axes' if that's what I was after.


B) Also an Edit feature in the photo comments after you have just posted as I frequently mistype a word.

In reply to Hooo:

I would love that!

In reply to maisie:

Close the forum.

In reply to maisie:
add avatars, add ratings and change its name from C to B

In reply to Jim C:


So you could start a thread or make a post and then just block anyone who doesn't agree with you? What a daft idea!

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

That's a cool feature. It works really well on the other forum I use. Will it be linked back to the forums, so that if you go on to the route page itself you can then access all the threads that have mentioned that route?

Also, are we finally going to get a ground up option in the logbooks?

In reply to climbingpixie:

Are you referring to Ravelry by any chance? It may be 'only' a knitting forum, but its functionality is bloody brilliant with all the cross referencing of yarns, patterns, people, groups etc...

In reply to Robert Durran:



Which was clearly tounge in cheek and flagged as such ( or so I thought)

In reply to Tall Clare:

Yeah Ravelry. It must be the most sophisticated forum I've ever used. The databases are amazing as well.

I was using the road trip function the other week to find a wool shop between Leeds and Worcester, within 5 miles of my route, and I realised it would be a really good feature on the crag search on here. I do quite a bit of work travel and being able to find crags or walls within a certain distance of my route would be great!

In reply to Tall Clare:

Cheers I'll pass that site onto Karin since the recent upsurge of knitting products and wool issues found within the house

In reply to Removed User:

It's bloody amazing - there are sub-forums for everything under the sun, moderated by the members of those groups/sub-forums, there are more patterns than you could imagine, a database of every yarn available anywhere, it seems... and it's all built and run by one bloke, with lots of help from the community. Something like 3 million registered users now - it's a remarkable thing!

(It also has the 'like/dislike' buttons, but they're expanded to 'interesting/educational/agree/disagree/love/funny' buttons; since lots of people get arsy about people clicking 'disagree' on their posts, there's a setting whereby users can hide all the buttons or just those they don't want to see.)

In reply to maisie:
What's wrong with the forum anyway?

People tend to harp back to the halcyon days and the idea that forums were better then.

Same used to be said on Redissue.( ManUnited forum).

Forums in the early days of the great new past time that was surfing the www. were perhaps the first great meeting place for interaction to take place.

Since then ,not only has the novelty worn off ,but Facebook has moved social media to the next level,and beyond.

Forums are now fairly primitive places ,in terms of interaction.

There will always be change ,and evolution.Forums will change ,social media will change .

In 10 years time , by which time technology will have made yet more frightening advances, forums may be a thing of the past,and computers ,iPads and the rest of them will be as redundant as phone boxes (remember them) are now.

In reply to Tall Clare:

I've pressed my invisible like button and a bit of Karma

In reply to andymac:


I'm not sure that there is much wrong: I think that some of the combativeness is clearly off-putting for others and the key theme has to be inclusivity.

But there seemed to be a wave of posts nostalgic for the 'good old days' and bemoaning the character deficits of new users; and very few of the posters had anything constructive to say. Hence this thread.

I work in a service industry. Some people are always dissatisfied and a greater proportion still seem to feel that they shouldn't have to make any effort to help reach the outcome they desire.

Martin

In reply to climbingpixie:
Ground-up is the logbooks as an ascent sub-style as well as DWS as a style.

Edit. Yes, the idea was to link the threads back from the crag/climb pages too but this will be done later once there's a decent amount of threads that have the new links.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Good idea, we'd considered having more options. I'll see what I can do.

In reply to maisie:



I started posting 8 years ago and guess what? There was a wave of nostalgia for the good old days and I was forever being told things aren't like they used to be! But one thing people kept on about missing was the old 'flame wars' so it's not necessarily the case that the combativeness is offputting.

Everyone thinks that when they joined was the best time. For me, 7 or 8 years ago was the best time! I used to sit at work silently shaking with suppressed laughter almost every lunchtime. I think there was far more chat and a bit less weighty discussion. The chat element has moved to facebook, and it's that I miss, but I do recall that at the time there were vocal people who despised the chat and tried to hound the chatterers away (successfully it seems) so you can't please everyone.

In reply to Alyson:

Same here, 7 or 8 years ago was great, fri night used to kick back with a bottle of wine and sit on UKC, better than telly. Facebook has undoubtly taken many posters away espescially with the ability to post photos <a pic often says more than a 1000 words> and part of the fun was the outspoken posters and a lot of those have been banned/moved on.
I use a mix of UKC and FB now but still enoy the banter here and continue to meet UKC'ers and very rarely have anything bad to say of them after meeting them in the flesh.

In reply to wilkie14c and Alyson:

Yes, that's about right: I've been coming on here for about ten years and there's always been a sense that unless you were in at the start, you missed out on something.

I don't agree that chat has moved on, but then I don't do Facebook (I already stole this account from my wife and I don't think she'd allow me onto FB, in case I broke it). Maybe I'm unwittingly missing out on the hot gossip concerning broccoli purchases and amusing cats, but there's a depth to the debates on here - which Gordon denies, but I think some of it's above his head - which I've not seen many other places. What does seem to be lacking, given the relative anonymity of the internet and the insular detachment of a written forum, is social feedback: people are often unable to understand how they're *actually* coming across. So some kind of ratings facility might inject a little truth and self-awareness.

It'll be interesting. Almost as interesting as watching a group of supposedly intrepid climbers flap about, pretending not to care about being 'liked'.

Martin

In reply to wilkie14c:


That's what I miss too. You, Fawksey, Teflonpete et al. It used to be a right laugh.

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:

Agree completely. I like a good argument as much as the next person but this place needs a balance between the impassioned discussion, and the banter and friendliness of like-minded people. The old poetry threads are a great example of how friendly, witty and creative the forums could be. Sometimes the poetry thread alone would get 100 posts on a Friday night, just doing its thing among all the other banter.

In reply to Alyson:

Last night's Friday night thread was a pleasant reminder of how it used to be. The forum's much better with you on it.

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:

That's a lovely thing to say. The balance of male to female posters used to be much, much better. Never 50/50 but probably 70/30 or so.

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:


Awww I'm touched! Teffers is still around on FB land, not heard from fawksey for ages. Outspoken but wore his heart on his sleave, I liked fawksey too