Online Community - Comments, Improvements and Feedback

Dear Community,

We were pleased to see so many comments about the community on the recent thread about the Leader Board. We are always wanting to learn more about how we can develop the community and so have locked the previous thread so that all comments and suggestions about general improvements to the community can now be placed here on this thread.

Please comment here on any ideas, improvements or feedback you have about the Online Community. 

Please note that although we take on board all your ideas, we may not be able to implement all of them.

As always, please be kind and respectful when commenting to each other.

Thanks,

NAS Moderators

Parents
  • I really liked the feature on the old forum software that allowed you to go back over a member's postings so that you could see their history, where they are coming from, what was their first post etc. The current feature for "Activity" in a member's profile is a jumble of the

    a) their recent posts

    b) latest post by someone else to the threads that a user has started; 

    c) responses by someone else to a comment that the member made on a thread started by someone else.

    I don't find this useful and it does not help me to work out someone's backstory. A little research on a member';s previous posts can give you some useful info before stepping in with both feet.

  • Actually you can do that now. I fixed an obscure setting today. Click on 's forum name to go to his profile page. Then look at the Questions tab (under More). I'm trying to get it set to a more sensible name, but that setting is even more obscure.

    The Activity tab is like the activity stream on the home page, and shows updates from all users in the threads in which  has participated. The Questions/Threads tab shows his updates only.

  • WebPM said:

    The Questions/Threads tab shows his updates only.

    The Questions/Threads tab only shows a third of 'recombinantsocks' posts on the first page, with the remaining two thirds being other peoples posts. What am I doing wrong?


  • We are releasing a small upgrade tomorrow morning (28 November 2017). This should improve the above issue with users' "activity streams", as well as fixing a sign-in issue.

    Any chance of narrowing the "activity streams" down to 1 post and 1 reply, only?

    Also, what is going on with the >>> design on the top page tab, rather than the NAS logo ~ is the (old?) NAS logo being now phased out?


  • We are releasing a small upgrade tomorrow morning (28 November 2017). This should improve the above issue with users' "activity streams", as well as fixing a sign-in issue.

  • Apologies for dropping in and out of this thread, and that sometimes it takes me two or three goes to understand the problem fully. What I think I missed is that the Questions page lists the most recent user's contribution, whether or not it is the user of interest. You can jump to the listed post, using the time in the right column (e.g. "2 days ago"). However, if you're looking for 's posts, and  has posted to one of those threads more recently, you can only jump to 's post.

    It follows of course that, if someone has made three recent posts to the same thread, those posts won't be listed separately.

    Our challenge here is that we are using a standard forum system, with significant configurability. As well as configuring things, we can add in widgets to help with issues. However, changing fundamentally how it works is a different matter. Using standard software is good from the point of view of cost, and also because something used and tested by many organisations is likely to be very reliable; we are not getting significant levels of reporting of faults, for example. On the other hand, the kind of issue that we are discussing (not limited to this one but also to other threads) is more difficult to address because, to some extent, it "works the way it works".

    However, we will look to have a discussion with our suppliers to see what options we have.

  • Deep Thought, I think I love you! 

    What an excellent response 

    yours, a mere SLARTIBARTFAST In your honorary universe

    -humbled 

  • recombinantsocks said:

    I don't think you are doing anything wrong.

    Strangely enough ~ I did not think I was doing anything wrong either, although when it comes to using computers it is no way surprising or shocking that I do get things wrong.

    recombinantsocks said:

    I'm not sure that @webpm sees what we can't see.

    I think an analogy of asking for a microscope and being given a telescope that is instead a kaleidoscope ~ seems to some extent more relevant here perhaps. Bless @WebPM for all the assistance he offers, as informing us of what this website formatting does do when so often we need something that is functionally appropriate for people with A.S.D. ~ I just do not see how this could possibly be an easy job for any well meaning person.

    recombinantsocks said:

    Each of the options from that Questions page just leads to a list of threads that one has some involvement with. It doesn't take you to one's actual posts in those threads. i.e. It takes me to a thread with perhaps 100 posts in it but I have to sift through that 100 posts to find the ones from the user that I am looking at.

    Incredibly inconvenient and inefficient really . . .

Reply
  • recombinantsocks said:

    I don't think you are doing anything wrong.

    Strangely enough ~ I did not think I was doing anything wrong either, although when it comes to using computers it is no way surprising or shocking that I do get things wrong.

    recombinantsocks said:

    I'm not sure that @webpm sees what we can't see.

    I think an analogy of asking for a microscope and being given a telescope that is instead a kaleidoscope ~ seems to some extent more relevant here perhaps. Bless @WebPM for all the assistance he offers, as informing us of what this website formatting does do when so often we need something that is functionally appropriate for people with A.S.D. ~ I just do not see how this could possibly be an easy job for any well meaning person.

    recombinantsocks said:

    Each of the options from that Questions page just leads to a list of threads that one has some involvement with. It doesn't take you to one's actual posts in those threads. i.e. It takes me to a thread with perhaps 100 posts in it but I have to sift through that 100 posts to find the ones from the user that I am looking at.

    Incredibly inconvenient and inefficient really . . .

Children

  • We are releasing a small upgrade tomorrow morning (28 November 2017). This should improve the above issue with users' "activity streams", as well as fixing a sign-in issue.

    Any chance of narrowing the "activity streams" down to 1 post and 1 reply, only?

    Also, what is going on with the >>> design on the top page tab, rather than the NAS logo ~ is the (old?) NAS logo being now phased out?


  • We are releasing a small upgrade tomorrow morning (28 November 2017). This should improve the above issue with users' "activity streams", as well as fixing a sign-in issue.

  • Apologies for dropping in and out of this thread, and that sometimes it takes me two or three goes to understand the problem fully. What I think I missed is that the Questions page lists the most recent user's contribution, whether or not it is the user of interest. You can jump to the listed post, using the time in the right column (e.g. "2 days ago"). However, if you're looking for 's posts, and  has posted to one of those threads more recently, you can only jump to 's post.

    It follows of course that, if someone has made three recent posts to the same thread, those posts won't be listed separately.

    Our challenge here is that we are using a standard forum system, with significant configurability. As well as configuring things, we can add in widgets to help with issues. However, changing fundamentally how it works is a different matter. Using standard software is good from the point of view of cost, and also because something used and tested by many organisations is likely to be very reliable; we are not getting significant levels of reporting of faults, for example. On the other hand, the kind of issue that we are discussing (not limited to this one but also to other threads) is more difficult to address because, to some extent, it "works the way it works".

    However, we will look to have a discussion with our suppliers to see what options we have.

  • Deep Thought, I think I love you! 

    What an excellent response 

    yours, a mere SLARTIBARTFAST In your honorary universe

    -humbled