Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Cubsrule wrote:1) This may be more of a development issue, but I wish we could have a quote function that makes quoting multiple replies easier, more like the old system.
Cubsrule wrote:2) I think auto-locking posts after 14 days was a good thing, and I think we should go back to it. Moreover, the new ability to merge threads means that when resurrection of an old thread is truly appropriate, it can be combined with a newer thread that might prompt the moderators to consider unlocking the old thread.
Cubsrule wrote:3) We need to think about when news belongs in a general thread about a city, region or airline and whether it deserves a new thread. Taking the BNA thread as an example, BNA-LHR clearly deserved its own thread. BNA-RDU (on OO) probably didn't.
Cubsrule wrote:4) This has been a problem since before the changeover, but we need to think about the distinction between CivAv and Polls & Prefs. The Rules explain this as fact versus opinion, but that's not really how the moderation has worked. I don't necessarily object to, for instance, discussions about FF program changes going to Polls & Prefs, but we should all understand the rules and the moderation should be consistent with the written rules.
atcsundevil wrote:Cubsrule wrote:This may be more of a development issue, but I wish we could have a quote function that makes quoting multiple replies easier, more like the old system.
Unfortunately that is a development issue, and I don't know if/how that can be remedied.
atcsundevil wrote:Cubsrule wrote:2) I think auto-locking posts after 14 days was a good thing, and I think we should go back to it. Moreover, the new ability to merge threads means that when resurrection of an old thread is truly appropriate, it can be combined with a newer thread that might prompt the moderators to consider unlocking the old thread.
As far as I know, we don't have an auto-lock function available to us. We are addressing this in our proposed rules update, that dormant threads from six months ago or more should remain dormant. We've had a lot of discussion from users on merging threads and allowing users to reply to long dormant threads, but the general consensus seems to be against this practice. It's commonplace on other sites, but users here tend to be adverse to "old" topics. If there's a practical way to make that happen though, then we're happy to consider it. We would just need to find a way to placate users who are strongly opposed to thread bumps.
atcsundevil wrote:Cubsrule wrote:3) We need to think about when news belongs in a general thread about a city, region or airline and whether it deserves a new thread. Taking the BNA thread as an example, BNA-LHR clearly deserved its own thread. BNA-RDU (on OO) probably didn't.
I agree, and it's something we need a solution on. Some people feel that new route discussions belong in the applicable OAG thread, others feel that they deserve their own discussions. We've created more of the region specific threads and put many of them on set timelines (e.g. Having the thread run for the entirety of 2017 regardless of post count), but deciding what constitutes thread-worthy news over what belongs in a region thread is tricky. If you or others have ideas on how to define this, then we'd be interested to hear about it.
atcsundevil wrote:Cubsrule wrote:4) This has been a problem since before the changeover, but we need to think about the distinction between CivAv and Polls & Prefs. The Rules explain this as fact versus opinion, but that's not really how the moderation has worked. I don't necessarily object to, for instance, discussions about FF program changes going to Polls & Prefs, but we should all understand the rules and the moderation should be consistent with the written rules.
Our proposed changes add more description to each forum, so hopefully it'll help fix some of those issues to better define what goes where. As it currently stands, it's not abundantly clear where certain topics fit. What we've done so far might even need to be expanded further, now that I think about it. We tend to have some crossover between some of our forums on some topics, so it needs to be more clear what belongs where. On that note, we're also considering adding a politics specific forum to move politics out of Non Av. A lot of people seem to be getting tired of it dominating the forum.
LAX772LR wrote:atcsundevil wrote:Cubsrule wrote:This may be more of a development issue, but I wish we could have a quote function that makes quoting multiple replies easier, more like the old system.
Unfortunately that is a development issue, and I don't know if/how that can be remedied.
What about the interim step of a basic tutorial? Perhaps as a Youtube video?
It's not hard to learn: I think people are more intimidated by it, than incapable of accurately learning it. That might change it.
Cubsrule wrote:atcsundevil wrote:Cubsrule wrote:2) I think auto-locking posts after 14 days was a good thing, and I think we should go back to it. Moreover, the new ability to merge threads means that when resurrection of an old thread is truly appropriate, it can be combined with a newer thread that might prompt the moderators to consider unlocking the old thread.
As far as I know, we don't have an auto-lock function available to us. We are addressing this in our proposed rules update, that dormant threads from six months ago or more should remain dormant. We've had a lot of discussion from users on merging threads and allowing users to reply to long dormant threads, but the general consensus seems to be against this practice. It's commonplace on other sites, but users here tend to be adverse to "old" topics. If there's a practical way to make that happen though, then we're happy to consider it. We would just need to find a way to placate users who are strongly opposed to thread bumps.
I don't like thread bumps, but there may be a few circumstances where they are okay. For instance, let's assume there is a thread when Route X is announced. If someone goes to the inaugural, takes a few pictures and finds out the load when it launches, that discussion might fit better in the old thread, which has a lot of background on the route.
SamYeager2016 wrote:Although with the new forum there's not such a need to create succession threads for performance reasons I still think that long running threads should be periodically closed and new ones opened with a link back to the old thread. I'm thinking of threads such as the A320, A330, A350, B737 & B787 threads in particular here although no doubt other threads might fall into this category. Perhaps new threads should be opened when the old one has been open for more than a year?
LAX772LR wrote:1) Definitely would like to see auto-locking of threads return.
2) Would like to see codified rules for when a similar topic gets merged into a longer thread. Nothing's more annoying that trying to see if an official announcement has been made about something, if it got merged into a preexisting thread with 200 posts of pure speculation.atcsundevil wrote:Cubsrule wrote:This may be more of a development issue, but I wish we could have a quote function that makes quoting multiple replies easier, more like the old system.
Unfortunately that is a development issue, and I don't know if/how that can be remedied.
What about the interim step of a basic tutorial? Perhaps as a Youtube video?
It's not hard to learn: I think people are more intimidated by it, than incapable of accurately learning it. That might change it.
TW870 wrote:I agree with Cubsrule and others who have said there needs to be a clearer way to introduce news in Civil Aviation. Right now, I think there are too few threads total, and many of the threads that exist are too long. The worst example is the AA LAX-PEK thread. There are several pivot points in that thread where major news emerged on the topic. But it is all condensed into one long thread. The problem with that is that it has allowed a deluge of general pro-AA or pro-DL advocacy into the forum that distract the reader from the actual events in the route approval process. I still use a.net, but threads like that make me use other sites much more.
2 years ago, the top threads section of the main page got a person 100% up to speed on that day's industry developments. Now it never does. Seeing that the LAX-PEK thread or the Indiana aviation thread is back on the main page does not allow the user to have a snapshot of where the industry is that day. That is what was so great about a.net, as you used to have both the photos and the news showing you what you had to know, plus with one click you could read very informative people adding info to those news stories. Today you have only the photos to get you up to speed.
LAXintl wrote:Thank you for the opportunity to chime in..
While I am not in favor of threads from years ago being brought back to life, the concept of a 14-day auto lock is not the answer.
For example, I often post DOT route applications. The decision timeline can often take many weeks if not months before the DOT authorizes the route, and then it might take a few additional weeks before the airline announces the launch of the route.
Personally, it makes sense to maintain the thread with as a consolidated single point of information regarding the news. Yes I agree at times the threads like the AA LAX-PEK one goes off the rails with off topic discussion, but we already have a means to deal with this by informing the Mods who can choose to caution members, or delete the off-topic postings.
LAXintl wrote:My biggest gripes about the forum are:
1) Frequency of duplicate threads
2) Low quality of some threads which are essentially nothing more than a link to a news source without compelling commentary or discussion by the OPer. We are after all a discussion forum and not a news feed.
3) Off topic threads, for section they are posted in. I believe we might need stronger clarity about subjects that should be posted in Travel&Polls for example versus CivAv. For example to me things such as info about specific flights, opinions about airlines/airports, random hypothetical questions belong over at Travel & Polls versus clogging up CivAv.
4) The growth in numbers of trip reports hosted on other websites, or solely video ones.
Thankfully, for the most part, our Mods deal with these issues properly if they are informed of them.
atcsundevil wrote:Thank you for your comments. Would you be in favor of having moderators pin the headlines of the day or week to the top of the forum page?
LAXintl wrote:Thank you for the opportunity to chime in..
While I am not in favor of threads from years ago being brought back to life, the concept of a 14-day auto lock is not the answer.
For example, I often post DOT route applications. The decision timeline can often take many weeks if not months before the DOT authorizes the route, and then it might take a few additional weeks before the airline announces the launch of the route.
Personally, it makes sense to maintain the thread with as a consolidated single point of information regarding the news. Yes I agree at times the threads like the AA LAX-PEK one goes off the rails with off topic discussion, but we already have a means to deal with this by informing the Mods who can choose to caution members, or delete the off-topic postings.
My biggest gripes about the forum are:
1) Frequency of duplicate threads
2) Low quality of some threads which are essentially nothing more than a link to a news source without compelling commentary or discussion by the OPer. We are after all a discussion forum and not a news feed.
3) Off topic threads, for section they are posted in. I believe we might need stronger clarity about subjects that should be posted in Travel&Polls for example versus CivAv. For example to me things such as info about specific flights, opinions about airlines/airports, random hypothetical questions belong over at Travel & Polls versus clogging up CivAv.
4) The growth in numbers of trip reports hosted on other websites, or solely video ones.
Thankfully, for the most part, our Mods deal with these issues properly if they are informed of them.
TW870 wrote:No. I think that what is great about a.net is that informed members take a news point - ie that AA is going to initiate LAX-PEK on Nov. 6 - and then react to the news with informed analysis. I can see airline headlines in many places. But it is the informed analysis that is unique to a.net. The problem with the current system is that the long threads allow people to continue to harp on particular advocacy points, which buries actual industry developments. The best example is the ongoing claim - without evidence - that DL is "forcing" connections through ATL as part of a politicized effort to downsize the MSP and DTW hubs. If we could have shorter, more news oriented threads, we would be less likely to get off topic into these advocacy points.
TW870 wrote:I agree with most of your analysis. But in reference to mods warning folks and deleting, I think it is not enough. I have been active since 2004, and in the last couple of years (as is true in most online forums), aggressive posters have become too much for the mods to even deal with. I think the answer should be to change the way the threads are structured, making them narrower and more favorable to facts and analysis rather than advocacy.
One of the coolest things about a.net back in the day were the concise threads about daily operational issues. Like when Kennedy would go on east flow with low ceilings and high winds so they have to land the ILS 13R (and thus screwing all of New York), people would post constant updates. Now those threads are gone. I think part of it is that the site has moved towards these long, angry threads about airline strategy. There is a place for that, but it should not be the whole site.
mercure1 wrote:Hello Moderation Team,
I echo many of the comments made by previous posters. In my view, it would be helpful to "tighten" the rules around the use of the website to bring clarity for both the user and for moderators.
I also find issues with things such as threads posted by default in Civil Aviation when they should be somewhere else which it seems some posters do regardless of knowing better. I actually would propose the site even consider the establishment of additional sub forum to further tailor the discussions.
Another issue I see is constant posting of duplicate threads when seemingly posters do not bother to do a little research to find out if there is an existing discussion on the topic (often located right on the front page even).
.In regards to things such as long threads, I do not have an issue with that. I personally actually like having long consolidated threads go many pages instead of having to start (and find) Part.2, 3, etc as done on the old forum
I also like the logic of allowing older threads (6 months was mentioned) to be still be posted in. There often can be many valid news updates to threads few months after their initial posting. I find it logical to maintain a thread with updates rather than start a new thread everytime there is a change/update to the news. This in my view makes a nice and clean unified thread to follow a single topic.
Technically while certainly not perfect, I have gotten used to the new site, though some things are still of annoyance. One of them being is the ability to simply quote a small portion of a post. At moment, the entire post is quoted, and one must go back and edit and delete the non needed quote portions. This can get quite tedious especially as a thread grows in size.
Finn350 wrote:I have now my latest post removed (in Military Aviation forum discussing Trump comments on Finnish fighter procurement) without any explanation. I would prefer that if posts are removed if they are considered to break forum rules that some kind of explanation is sent to the member in question.
AC853 wrote:Can you please breakup large posts into parts like you used to. An example of this is the Boeing complaint Bombardier with over 900 posts. Once the ruling came out why not start a new thread. Go back to part1 2 etc. Thanks
hOMSaR wrote:First, for the really annoying, repeated topics (i.e. restarting/updating 757 production, generic "why doesn't an xxx-yyy nonstop exist?", and any other annoyingly repetitive subjects), I'd suggest creating a master thread that we can quickly point to, for the next time someone tries to suggest it. Also, maybe actual punishments for users who (after fair warning) repeatedly make posts on the same topic over and over again ("Hey, I used photoshop to design a new airplane, now let me post these images to as many threads as possible").
hOMSaR wrote:Second, and this may require some forum software development or what have you, but for really long threads with developing information, it would be nice to have some kind of wiki or editable first post that could be kept up-to-date. For example, fleet update threads (painting, reconfig, etc.), production threads, or developing news stories would be easier to track (with less duplication of posts) without the need to dig through hundreds of posts.
hOMSaR wrote:Third, I agree with the idea of having a tutorial for simple functions like quoting (and, despite what people say, quoting was just as messed up in the old forum as it is in the new forum; you'd repeatedly see the wrong user name associated with quotes on the old site). That way, whenever people bitch about the "new software" making quoting so difficult, you can point them to a link that will teach them. Make sure to include the details on how to not delete the wrong username from the quote brackets as well.
hOMSaR wrote:Fourth, I'd suggest that whenever someone says "mods, please delete..." that, if this message is found (through someone else reporting it), that person actually get directly contacted by the moderators, with a link to the tutorial on how to alert mods to posts needing attention.
hOMSaR wrote:Finally, maybe post this thread to the top of the CivAv forum? This thread is a month old, but I only stumbled across it by chance, since I don't typically come this way.
SamYeager2016 wrote:So when are these proposed rule changes likely to be published as it's been three months since this thread was opened?
CanadaFair wrote:Locking old threads is silly, some times interesting trivia can be posted in there rather than start a new thread for it.
millionsofmiles wrote:CanadaFair wrote:Locking old threads is silly, some times interesting trivia can be posted in there rather than start a new thread for it.
I agree wholeheartedly. I've been reading these forums for years and only recently decided to join to post. I possess a great deal of historical knowledge about the industry and any time I add a historical perspective to an old thread, the comments are deleted and the threat locked. So much for this site being a font of current and past knowledge.