scotty305

iTrader: (2)

That wording looks good, thanks.

I'm ok with the current requirement of 10 posts (or whatever it is) before using the marketplace. I would be very cautious doing business with new accounts with 10 low-effort posts in their history, and possibly more trusting of relatively new accounts who have made effort to participate in meaningful forum discussions. If people want semi-anonymous buying/selling there are other places on the internet that allow that.

Gen2n3

iTrader: (1)

KansasCityREPU,

Thank you for adding a second choice of text editors!

Gen2n3

iTrader: (1)

Thanks for the feedback, Dak and Scotty305.

*Break, Break*

All members, Proposal 7 and Proposal 8 are now added to the list.

Proposal 7: Remove the General Discussion sub-forum from each Generation specific forums (1st Gen, 2nd Gen, etc...), and merge those threads into the main Generation specific section. This would reduce redundant posts - members ask the same questions in the General Discussion section as in the main Generation specific section. Such as, "why won't my car start?" "Which exhaust should I buy?" Or "where does this wire go?"... This removal would reduce the number of sub-forums a member would search (from 2 to 1 forums) and the likelihood of missing a thread would be significantly reduced. Originator: Dak

Proposal 8: Merge content from the Single Turbo FAQ sub-forum back into the Single Turbo RX-7s sub-forum (found under "Tech & Performance" section). Most of the FAQ content is outdated. Additionally, revise/update the sticky threads in the Single Turbo RX-7s sub-forum. These efforts would reduce the need for additional sub-forums, reduce confusion of relevant threads, and reflect current best practices for single turbo applications. Originator is willing to advise and assist when necessary. Originator: scotty305

Other than the originators of either new proposals, does anyone wish to second Proposal 7 and/or Proposal 8?

kutukutu1

iTrader: (5)

Second 7 and 8

Gen2n3

iTrader: (1)

kutukutu1,

Thank you for nominating Proposals 7 & 8!

*Break, Break*

All members in favor of all proposals (Proposal 7 and Proposal 8 now added) then vote +1 for yea and -1 for nay.

Proposal Vote Count:
Proposal 1:
Proposal 2: +1
Proposal 3: +1
Proposal 4: +5
Proposal 5: +3
Proposal 6:
Proposal 7:
Proposal 8:

To summarize, all 8 proposals listed below are open for member voting.

1. Create a sub-forum titled "Turbocharge a NA motor" in the "Tech and Performance" section. This would be useful to FB/SA22, FC, and Old School Rotary members who wish to add turbos to a naturally aspirated rotary. Originator: WondrousBread

2. Add a "First Unread Message" button/link in the header, similar to the "Go to Last Post" button. This would enable members to quickly view the first unread post of a thread without the need to open the thread first. Maybe the button could have an icon that shows "1st" and an envelope? The button design may not be important; it's illustrating an option that would be different than the ">" button. Originator: Toruki

3. Add a PDF Export function and/or improve the "Show Printable Version" capability of a thread to include photos, instead of displaying a link to them. It gives members the ability and options to print a thread (or relevant segments of it) and/or export it as a PDF for reference. This ability does have merit, especially in how-to or build threads. Originator: Toruki

4. Overhaul the method of image insertion to the composition window (text editor). Add the ability to "drag and drop" and/or "copy and paste" photos into the composition window. For example, the gmail composition window functions in this manner. This would reduce the amount of time and steps it takes to import a photo into a post. Originator: Toruki

5. Create an image repository by generation for entire vehicles and its various sub-assemblies. This would enable the forum to become an authority and a place where members (or outsiders) could trust the imagery and associated data. In addition, images would be readily available and members could see the original thread(s) where it was used. Originator would be available as an advisor. Originator: KansasCity REPU

6. Improve the composition window by replacing the current method with Bootstrap or tinyMCE. This would condense coding on multiple platforms (phone, tablet, desktop, etc...) into one streamlined module. Originator would be available as an advisor. Originator: KansasCity REPU

7. Remove the General Discussion sub-forum from each Generation specific forums (1st Gen, 2nd Gen, etc...), and merge those threads into the main Generation specific section. This would reduce redundant posts - members ask the same questions in the General Discussion section as in the main Generation specific section. Such as, "why won't my car start?" "Which exhaust should I buy?" Or "where does this wire go?"... This removal would reduce the number of sub-forums a member would search (from 2 to 1 forums) and the likelihood of missing a thread would be significantly reduced. Originator: Dak

8. Merge content from the Single Turbo FAQ sub-forum back into the Single Turbo RX-7s sub-forum (found under "Tech & Performance" section). Most of the FAQ content is outdated. Additionally, revise/update the sticky threads in the Single Turbo RX-7s sub-forum. These efforts would reduce the need for additional sub-forums, reduce confusion of relevant threads, and reflect current best practices for single turbo applications. Originator is willing to advise and assist when necessary. Originator: scotty305

Thank you again for all the comments and suggestions. Shall we keep them coming? Don't forget to show support or opposition to these 8 proposals.

Blk 93

Proposal 1:
Proposal 2:
Proposal 3: +1
Proposal 4: +1
Proposal 5: +1
Proposal 6: +1 for a short trial period ? .. if Bootstrap or tinyMCE create problems on a specific ........platform,then perhaps the inconveniece outweighs potential long term benefits ..until debugged ?
Proposal 7: +1
Proposal 8: +1 for tidying up dead links in all forum FAQs

JNew

I actually like the separation of non-technical subjects into the General Discussion sub-forum. I think Gen2n3's explaination of that separation in his PDF document sums it up quite nicely. I agree that there can be confusion of where to put a subject that has elements of both, but I think the solution is a more pro-active policy of moving threads which have been mis-posted into the proper forum. I think that policy, coupled with the use of thread (subject) tags, will make the organization of the forums better.

Actually, Dak said it best, even though he is proposing the deletion of the General Discussion sub-forums:
So I am going to do two things:

1) I am giving a -1 to Proposal 7 (sorry, Dak)

2) I am putting forward the following motion:

1) The policies of the RX-7club forum should be updated to encourage moderators to actively monitor the Generation Specific forums and their related General Discussion sub-forums and give them broad discretion to
i) move non-technical threads to the General Discussions sub-forum,
ii) move technical threads to the main Generation Specific forum,
iii) merge or delete those threads which are substantially the same that have been posted in both the Generation Specific forum and General Discussion sub-forums

2) Further, each Generation Specific forum should post a "sticky" thread that outlines exactly what is a technical vs. non-technical post, give some examples of each, and explain what the consequences are for mis-posting (moving, merging or deletion of threads by a moderator).

I should note that sub-section 1) iii) above wouldn't necessarily apply to threads that are separated by a reasonable amount of time (such as different members asking the same question again because they haven't searched the forum) but to the same member double-posting in the Generation Specific and General Discussion forums essentially at the same time.

swbtm

iTrader: (2)

Adding a few of my thoughts to the mix.


-Proposal 3: +1Proposal 4: Question- the latest iteration of adding a photo directly into rx7club works relatively well. Is there a way to auto lock the pictures to the threads after they are archived?

-Proposal 6: Tentative +1 if it fixes the timeout when typing longer messages. I have lost a number of long posts that deleted themselves when I was timed out in the background with no warning. A single time question reminding you that you might be logged out and to copy and paste your writing would be a sufficient stop gap.


-New suggestion: Allow the originator of the thread to edit the first post (within reason) so we don't have to ask moderators everytime items being sold are gone, price changes or similar. This way the first post if the most up to date and information is easily found.

-The edit button timeout seems to be different depending on how I am using the site. Sometimes I have access to it for a few hours, other times it is disabled immediately.

-Consider changing the default behavior of the site for "guest" members to not show related threads and disable infinite scroll. I tend to use the site not logged in and only log in to respond or initiate a thread. All other times I am a "guest" that cannot control the related threads and infinite scroll settings.

-No issue with the current 10 post limits.

-Proposal 7: +1 for combining the 1st gen general discussion the generation specific top page. These two end up with the same threads, redundant info or both have technical info. It seems different people stick to specific sub forums. Someone might only ever go to the top page and never actually look at the general discussion since they might not know what is in there. Both have similar info at this point.

-If at all possible, does an offline archive function exist? I regularly take threads that I find useful, copy and paste them into word and pdf and remove all the less useful info and add information from other sites that is relevant. Those serve as offline backups for me to reference at a later time. Could someone be setup to perform this function? Or in dos talk, could a robo copy script be setup to perform the basic backup function of say the archive section in each forum?

-Locking old threads would be nice, with an option for a person to contact a mod with pertinent information. Maybe have a form at the end of the closed thread. "Have something to add?" Fill out the form and a mod can decide if the information is relevant and adds anything to the discussion. This would keep a good thread accurate and still retain the info in (hopefully) one location. Would encourage finding the older good threads instead of posting good info in a separate spot.

Thank you.

colditz_II

iTrader: (2)

If anything, it should be in-line resizing to match the size of the window, but the actual image itself should not be edited. These aren't the 56k days.

KansasCityREPU

iTrader: (9)

I live in the country where the best internet speed I can get is 6 MB via ATT DSL. I would gladly pay $200 per month if I could get faster. Many threads are picture heavy and it takes several minutes to load if they load at all. The other aspect to this is Responsive Design. By having imaging resizing, an image can be saved in three formats (sizes) for phone-tablet-desktop. Why load a 3 meg file on a phone when it's only going to get compressed to a smaller screen size. It would also save data usage for phone users. I'm a web programmer (SQL, C# MVC, etc) and image size does matter.

Gen2n3

iTrader: (1)

Blk 93,

Thanks for the additional feedback with your votes. I acknowledge your vote of +1 for Proposals 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Proposal Vote Count:
Proposal 1:
Proposal 2: +1
Proposal 3: +2
Proposal 4: +6
Proposal 5: +4
Proposal 6: +1
Proposal 7: +1
Proposal 8: +1

Gen2n3

iTrader: (1)

JNew,

First, thanks for your thoughts on our proposals thus far. Second, I acknowledge your vote of -1 for Proposal 7. This is a good example of a well thought response to oppose a proposal. Lastly, let's work on your motion in my next post.

Proposal Vote Count:
Proposal 1:
Proposal 2: +1
Proposal 3: +2
Proposal 4: +6
Proposal 5: +4
Proposal 6: +1
Proposal 7: 0
Proposal 8: +1

Gen2n3

iTrader: (1)

JNew,

You have a few interesting concepts on updating the forum policies. Have you read through the forum FAQ recently? I would like to address a few of your talking points, so please bear with me.

Would you please tell me more about encouraging moderators to actively monitor each Generation thread?

Currently, the moderator team has broad discretion to edit, move, approve, deny, delete, merge, and create sticky threads. Moderators perform those actions based upon a permission system. For example, a moderator in the FD section may not have the same permission to edit posts in the FB section or in the marketplace. Members can see who their moderators are by looking at the bottom of each (sub-)forum. For the most part, the moderator team performs tasks that are invisible to the typical member. There are times when a moderator has to step in to (hopefully) de-escalate a dispute between 2 members. The point I wish to make is that moderators already posses the ability to play "thread tetris".

IMO, the amount of time a moderator spends performing those additional duties should be less known to members. The more time spent on approving, moving, deleting, etc... threads then that takes away time for a moderator to engage in the community, such as responding to a turbo related problem when you are a subject matter expert on the topic. It may also increase a moderator's cynicism or shorten one's fuse when dealing with a new member or rude member. For example, how positive and upbeat would you be when a new member created a post, "I can't see the classifieds" after you responded to 6 similar threads from equally junior members within the past 40min? One could easily become snarky and jaded after responding to this type of post, day in and day out.

It sounds like you agree that the forum should better define technical versus non-technical content. Refer to Post 87 for the conversation I had with Dak. How would this sound as a proposal?

- Define guidelines for posting technical content and general content in their respective sub-forums. This may spell out the roles of members and moderators. The result would create a standard for members and moderators to follow, reduce the guess work of where to post, and indicate the consequences of misplacing a thread. Moreover, it would help a moderator quickly move/edit, etc... a thread to its proper place. This could be achieved by means of a sticky thread in each forum or updating the forum's main FAQ page.

What do you think?

Gen2n3

iTrader: (1)

swbtm,

Thank you for the support and feedback! I will address your votes shortly. Allow me to answer your questions.

First, it's good to hear that you do not have any problems with adding photos to your threads/posts. I hate to answer your question with a question but I must first seek to understand...What do you mean by auto-locking a photo after a thread is archived? Could you cite (or give a link to) an example? In the current model of photo importation, there is a lock icon. Unlocked, the photo is added to the collective of photos in the forum and is added to your post. When the icon is "locked" then the photo is only kept in the thread. Thread photos typically remain active until the member deletes them from their UserCP profile (User CP>Miscellaneous>Attachments) or a member's account is closed/banned/removed.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...b3061e2bec.jpg
Example of a locked photo during photo import process.

A member must manually click on the icon for each photo imported.

Second, I feel your pain when the composition window times out. This maybe something to address without the need for a proposal. Since you documented the problem, I will address it when briefing the moderator and Internet Brands team. As a quick fix, you could combat the time-out by using the copy & paste function. Simply highlight your reply in the composition window, choose to copy then paste into a MS Word document (or similar). Or after the content is copied then hit the "Submit Reply" button. If it timed out then choose to paste the content back into the composition window. Hit the "Submit Reply" button again and your post should finally take. I cannot say with certainty that Proposal 6 would fix the time-out feature.

Third, the new marketplace will allow a member to add and remove items with ease. Refer to Post 69 for more. Would that answer your question about having the ability to edit for sale ads?

Fourth, it seems like the double post problem is more prevalent in the 1st Gen forum. Interesting! I will brief the moderator team about that. Thanks for that additional feedback!

Fifth, an off-line archive is part of Proposal 3. Is there something more you wish to add?

Sixth, Moderators have the ability to re-open threads. If a member believes that a thread should be re-opened to add content then contact a Moderator and sell it. Alternately, if a member wants to add new content to a closed thread then create a new thread. You may reference the closed thread (provide a link when appropriate) then post the updated content. How does that sound?

Seventh, thanks for commenting on the 10 post restriction.

Finally, I acknowledge your vote of +1 for Proposal 3.

Do you still want to support Proposal 6, or any others?

Gen2n3

iTrader: (1)

This updated vote count recognizes swbtm's vote.

Proposal Vote Count:
Proposal 1:
Proposal 2: +1
Proposal 3: +3
Proposal 4: +6
Proposal 5: +4
Proposal 6: +1
Proposal 7: 0
Proposal 8: +1

Gen2n3

iTrader: (1)

colditz_II and KansasCutyREPU,

Would Proposal 4 or 6 infer some aspect of in-line image scaling or would this be a separate problem to solve? Do you believe we need to amend Proposal 4 to include in-line image scaling for threads?

JNew

Heh, that's not a light read. Is there a specific section that would help me with the discussion about Proposal 7?

I think I owe the moderators an apology. Re-reading my proposal, it sounds like I think the moderators need encouragement to monitor the forums; that couldn't be farther from the truth. The moderators in this forum do an excellent job keeping things running smoothly. I recognize all the mods in the section I most frequent (1st Gen) which tells me they are not only good moderators, but good community participants; I've been on other sites where I don't recognize moderator names.

The point of my motion was to encourage mods to move/merge/delete threads between the Generation Specific and the General Discussion forums in order to maintain the technical/non-technical divide. Looking at the 1st Gen forums, I don't see (or recall) threads that have been moved/merged/deleted for these reasons (I'm assuming that moved/merged/deleted threads remain visible in the original forum where they were posted?). On other sites, I see threads being moved reasonably frequently to put them in the proper forum.

So the ability is there, good. Again, my proposal has to do with encouraging the mods to use that ability.

Agreed, which is why members and moderators need guidelines, and the mods need to encourage those guidelines. Sometimes rules don't get read, but behaviour is noticed. What I mean is that if moderators start moving threads, members will notice and will either a) read the post guidelines in the forum sticky or b) get a feel for what threads go where.

I think this sounds like a good proposal. Although, if Proposal 7 (Deleting the General Discussion sub-forums) passes, this proposal would be moot.

KansasCityREPU

iTrader: (9)

Yes - 4 and 6 would include image scaling. This would be seamless to the person adding images, but on the "backend" the image would be scaled to three different sizes and compressed. The three sizes could be determined bu=y the developers, but would include phone-tablet-desktop sizes. The compression is to limit the size taken a hard drive. When the web server servers up an image, it knows the type of device that is making that request and uses the appropriate image. The user would only know of one of these images and would not need to manage three images.

We use this methodology on our CMS system I work on (EPiServer) and it works great. There are also html calls with HTML-5 /CSS that will also server up right sized image.

Gen2n3

iTrader: (1)

KansasCityREPU,

Thanks for explaining the image scaling function. Would it be safe to say that we can put this problem to bed?

KansasCityREPU

iTrader: (9)

yes

Gen2n3

iTrader: (1)

It sounded like you read through the FAQ with particular attention to Member conduct and consequences for misconduct. Sorry, I should have explained that in my response.

No offense taken and thanks for the compliments. I'm sure the rest of the mod team would appreciate your suggestions and feedback!

You are encouraged to tune or sponsor this proposal. All of the proposals we are discussing may take some time to implement. Furthermore, the priority of these proposals would be driven by member votes. Proposals without support (no or negative votes) would not be explored and conversely, proposals with greater support would be explored by our forum hosts.

Here is the proposal for ease of editing:

- Define guidelines for posting technical content and general content in their respective sub-forums. This may spell out the roles of members and moderators. The result would create a standard for members and moderators to follow, reduce the guess work of where to post, and indicate the consequences of misplacing a thread. Moreover, it would help a moderator quickly move/edit, etc... a thread to its proper place. This could be achieved by means of a sticky thread in each forum or updating the forum's main FAQ page.

What are your thoughts?

Blk 93

Since there appears to be resistance to adopting proposal 7, would it be possible to put forward a proposal to rename both sections of each generation forum to Technical Discussion and Non-Technical Discussion ? .. or something less vague than general discussion and/or normal threads ?
We're aware of where sticky threads end, so the blue "normal threads" header might benefit from a more relevant name. A rename might help reduce posting in wrong sections in the event proposal 7 is defeated.

Thanks

Gen2n3

iTrader: (1)

Blk 93,

I think Proposal 7 is a worthy request. Otherwise, no one would have put a second nomination for it and received 2 votes.

As I stated before, part of my plan calls to rename the main and general sections of each Generation. For example, each main Generation would be renamed to FD Technical, FC Technical, etc... The general sub-forum would remain and be titled, "General Discussion". I believe this would easily identify where content should go. However, having defined guidelines and some examples would certainly help.

I would also like to mention that just because we vote on certain proposals doesn't guarantee they would be released. Or when they do, it could take some time to develop, test, then implement. There may be other factors that we, as members, may not be privy to - cost in time, money, and resources come to mind.

Thanks again for the feedback and voicing your concern.

Dak

If I understand correctly I can now vote on Proposal 7?
I'd like to vote +1 for Proposal 7.
Thanks.

swbtm

iTrader: (2)