New Forum! Feedback thread

[SHaines]

Uh...dislike. If you could pass that on I think we'd all appreciate it. Very prominent, seemingly useless.

We'll take a look at this as well. I'm not positive of the specific need that setup is addressing, so I'll need to do some digging. Josh or myself will follow up tomorrow.

 

[PeterB]

It's possible to navigate to previous thread-page from the top if you're on a computer/laptop. However, if you're on your phone the previous button will bring you to the previous thread. What's even the point of that?

Yes, the issue is on mobile, and yes, navigating to previous or next thread at the top of the thread page seems useless.

 

[red_flanders]

We'll take a look at this as well. I'm not positive of the specific need that setup is addressing, so I'll need to do some digging. Josh or myself will follow up tomorrow.

Thanks, appreciated. I realize this is not the end of the world.

 

[Lequack]

These "How To" tags that started popping up are really annoying.

 

[DJ Sprtsch]

And why 'How To'?
And I fully agree on the mobile navigation issue, would be really nice to be able to jump to the last post from the starting page. Instead of jumping to the next thread.

 

[jsimenhoff]

Errr… not an issue, but why are random threads suddenly getting the How To tag?



The cool emoji is in the top-group, though.

That is an issue. It appears to be a bug. I'm not sure why those thread prefix's are auto attaching to those threads. I will investigate! Thanks all.

I've been trying to correct these mistakes myself so please be patient while I go through the forums.

EDIT: Aha, it was due to some moderators featuring these threads. I'm glad you like the new system for highlighting important threads in the forums. I would recommend against featuring discussion threads, since the featured threads are mainly meant for showcasing articles, reviews, and tutorial style content created by you all.

 

[RedheadDane]

I see now that more and more threads are getting relevant prefixes.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Especially funny because there is a "Vuelta" or "giro" or "riders/teams" prefix/tag, but all these topics get "how to".

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I see now that more and more threads are getting relevant prefixes.

Ah, indeed, just now.
Maybe they can add some more generic prefixes like "race thread" etc, so that random races don't get a "how to" prefix either.

 

[mojomonkey]

I'd recommend cleaning up the sticky threads. They take up prime space at the top of forums and I think some can be un-stickied by now. For example, the years-old thread about creating a poll on this sub-forum that is no longer relevant with the new forum software.

 

[RedheadDane]

Just realised. You can report your own posts!

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

The order of stories at the new posts tab seems to be all over the place.

The times of the most recent post on the top 26 items on that list, in order, are:
(It is now 10.45 pm, I will put those less than an hour ago as the time, not "n minutes ago"; all pm unless otherwise stated)

9.03
8.45
9.35
10.00
9.10
8.15
8.04
7.30
7.24
9.43
5.54
4.30
4.21
9.49
10.34
1.05
12.03
9.31
10.51 am
9.38 am
10.08
9.50
3.44 am
10.52 pm yesterday
10.35 pm yesterday
10.28

Look at those last two: the thread last posted on 24hrs and 10 minutes ago is listed above the one from 17 minutes ago. The second newest post on the New Posts list is 26th on that list, the newest is 15th.

Not what I would call user friendly.

Having been frustrated by that odd chronology on the 'New posts' tab, I started using the 'What's New' tab instead. I now discover that that omits loads of new posts.

So is there anywhere that gives a list of new posts that is both sensibly ordered and comprehensive?

 

[hrotha]

I tried to use the Gothic alphabet in a post and it wouldn't let me. "Server error". What gives.

 

[RedheadDane]

Didn't know where to post this, but I have a bit of a question about the Rules:

Necroposting (resurrecting very old threads or article comments) is disallowed.

What if it's relevant? Sometimes a Rider Thread might be dormant for an extended period - if the rider in question isn't showing much - but when there is a good result; expect the discussion to take off again!
Though I will admit that I'm a bit confused about the recent talk about Klöden's chances for a GT top 10...

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I copied from an Excel file to make a large-ish table, but the content of many cells moved to occupy empty cells to the left.

2nd issue: in trying to fix that, discovered that only two or three edits to cell contents were possible before it refused to move any further text, so I had to do numerous saves and edits, when only one should really have been necessary.

 

[RedheadDane]

Errr… why was everything suddenly changed around?

 

[tobydawq]

Errr… why was everything suddenly changed around?

Probably because it makes better sense as it is organised now.

For example, technically (not practically) you were not allowed to discuss doping in other sports than cycling because the clinic used to be a subsection of professional cycling, and therefore those discussions would be off topic there and illegal anywhere else on the forum. That always bugged the logician that I am. I'm glad they realised what a big problem that was.

 

[Archibald]

can't say I found that a problem, especially when you consider the background of the Clinic's creation...

Not sure what "Enthusiast Racing...." covers when much of the topics in that thread aren't about racing - yep, i'm nitpicking now...
Just like the 'Cafe's' 'General' forum is some how 'off topic', despite the threads all being topics in themselves

 

[RedheadDane]

Probably because it makes better sense as it is organised now.

For example, technically (not practically) you were not allowed to discuss doping in other sports than cycling because the clinic used to be a subsection of professional cycling, and therefore those discussions would be off topic there and illegal anywhere else on the forum. That always bugged the logician that I am. I'm glad they realised what a big problem that was.

I guess I just always took it for granted that even though the Clinic was technically in the Road Cycling section, it was obviously for any kind of doping. Even personal doping, but I think the advice here would be don't!

And it certainly makes more sense now that it did the way it was initially organised; with the "less popular" cycling categories higher than road cycling. Though… I still find it a bit weird that Track is in the Off Road section. I know it's technically off the road, but... track isn't exactly what I'm thinking when I head "off road"...

 

[Eshnar]

Errr… why was everything suddenly changed around?

there were many sections almost completely deserted, and too many subforums were just called "general"...
The devs wanted to clean some stuff, basically. Nothing is set in stone however, they are open to feedback.

 

[SHaines]

Didn't know where to post this, but I have a bit of a question about the Rules:



What if it's relevant? Sometimes a Rider Thread might be dormant for an extended period - if the rider in question isn't showing much - but when there is a good result; expect the discussion to take off again!
Though I will admit that I'm a bit confused about the recent talk about Klöden's chances for a GT top 10...

Great question! We never want to paint with too broad a brush with the rules, because it's super easy to get sucked down the rabbit hole. However, a generally safe strategy if a thread is many months (or years) old, is to create a new topic when it's back in the news and link to the old thread for context.

This helps generate a fresh discussion with the latest news, while giving readers a chance to see the full backstory as well.

Errr… why was everything suddenly changed around?

Hey there!

We kept things pretty closely organized like the old forums at launch, just so returning users would have a familiar experience. Once we got up and running we wanted to work with your trusty Moderators to find ways of cleaning things up. With feedback we were able to make some really helpful changes that feel much better to us.

However, as Eshnar said, we're hoping to keep the discussion going so all feedback is welcome. We may not agree with every requested change, but we'll do our best to make the forums as helpful and user friendly as possible.

 

[fmk_RoI]

However, a generally safe strategy if a thread is many months (or years) old, is to create a new topic when it's back in the news and link to the old thread for context.

Well that's not how it actually works in practice, is it? Look, for instance, at The Clinic and its many, many, "many months (or years) old" threads that come back to life when new content comes along. Please don't suggest that such threads have to be killed and reborn with linkbacks, cause that's just *** up and defeats the intended purpose of many of these threads.

 

[SHaines]

Well that's not how it actually works in practice, is it? Look, for instance, at The Clinic and its many, many, "many months (or years) old" threads that come back to life when new content comes along. Please don't suggest that such threads have to be killed and reborn with linkbacks, cause that's just *** up and defeats the intended purpose of many of these threads.

The forum rules apply everywhere on the forums, but the categories like Off Topic or the Clinic aren't as time sensitive as other spots. I don't suspect this will turn into a major issue for those specific subforums, but if it does become a problem we'll figure out the best path forward.

 

[RedheadDane]

Great question! We never want to paint with too broad a brush with the rules, because it's super easy to get sucked down the rabbit hole. However, a generally safe strategy if a thread is many months (or years) old, is to create a new topic when it's back in the news and link to the old thread for context.

This helps generate a fresh discussion with the latest news, while giving readers a chance to see the full backstory as well.

But couldn't you achieve the same thing simply by having old threads be reopened - when relevant - and then people can look back as far as they find necessary?

The forum rules apply everywhere on the forums, but the categories like Off Topic or the Clinic aren't as time sensitive as other spots. I don't suspect this will turn into a major issue for those specific subforums, but if it does become a problem we'll figure out the best path forward.

But what about rider threads? Sometimes a rider might not do much for an extended period of time, then… BLAM! Wins something. Or their threads become relevant for other reasons.
Take the Madrazo thread, it had been silent for over a year, then he went and won a stage in the Vuelta. (Fun fact, I was sure I'd never heard about him before, but then I saw I posted in his thread, so... guess that disproves that theory…)

I mean, why do you think we have the Rider Thread Directory? Sometimes, when a system is working there is no need to change it.

 

[SHaines]

But what about rider threads? Sometimes a rider might not do much for an extended period of time, then… BLAM! Wins something. Or their threads become relevant for other reasons.

If you find an old thread that needs a fresh post after a long period of silence go ahead and post the update. The rules we have now work very well in the vast majority of situations. If exceptions need to be made, the Moderators can make them on a case by case basis. If we find that all of our time is spent reviewing a substantial number of old threads being updated, we may need to revisit the necroposting policy. My strong suspicion is that this won't actually be a problem if five or ten threads a year need a bump after a substantial period of hibernation.