dxmekch wrote:

Seems like one month later the profiles aren't updated. The add my website field still doesn't work.

And regarding to privacy and data security it might be worth to implement https.

Cheers

Again and again, I'm somehow confused but is it so hard to fix this bug? Today, 3rd January 2018 I am still NOT able to add my homepage.

Is there a solution for this problem? Maybe work in progress?

Sincerely,
Dominik

Dominik, it’s on the list but not a main priority.
Send the address to me, either to support@airliners.net or in a PM and I will add it through our tools

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

cpd wrote:

You cannot click "11 hours ago" - it goes nowhere. You should be able to click that and be taken to the most recent reply on that topic, as it does on the topics list. It would save a lot of clicking.

And something else odd, clicking on the title of the post seems to take me to the list of posts in that particular sub-forum instead of the topic.

Similarly, I wish the "your posts" list (and maybe other lists in the hamburger menu, haven't checked) would let you go to the first unread post by clicking the icon next to the topic title - like you can from the normal forum indices. At the moment I have to load the first page of each thread then load the first unread page one by one in a second round of clicking. Quite a waste of time.

Just bringing this to the attention of the staff - this problem still exists and the original post was made three months ago.

It's really annoying and time wasting to force people to make extra clicks and page views.

Hi cpd
The first part works fine as far as I know. Sorry that it looks like something a 5 year old made



I’ll check the second part

Second part is not fixed, clicking the unread icon in Your Posts or other filtrs does not work. Clicking the time stamp takes you to the last post as it should though.

JohnKrist wrote:

Hi cpd
The first part works fine as far as I know. Sorry that it looks like something a 5 year old made



I’ll check the second part

I'm not sure which part refers to which, but my quoted section (clicking the icon to the left of the topic) still does *NOT* work in "your posts". Instead of going to the first unread post it does... nothing. This has always worked in the main forum index (which is what your image shows)...

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

I'm not sure which part refers to which, but my quoted section (clicking the icon to the left of the topic) still does *NOT* work in "your posts". Instead of going to the first unread post it does... nothing. This has always worked in the main forum index (which is what your image shows)...

Yup, that is what I wrote in the next post.

JohnKrist wrote:

Second part is not fixed, clicking the unread icon in Your Posts or other filtrs does not work. Clicking the time stamp takes you to the last post as it should though.

Hi

I don't know if this issue is new or was present a few months ago. But it seems like the picture container is displayed in width:100%. I have changed the css in firefox and added max-width:90%. This would fix the issue and the picture will be displayed 90% of the screen-width. On monitors (mostly laptops) with a screen width less than 1920/1600px you can see the whole picture without scrolling (overflow-x).

In addition to that the medium and large buttons are not working. It always displays the picture "large".

Hello,

Every now and then, there is an answer to a post that appears before the said post in a thread. Case in point:
viewtopic.php?p=20271967#p20271967
In this thread, reply #25 is ap305 answering to Polot's reply #26.

Safari 11.0.3
OS10.13.3
MacBookPro 2010

Aircellist wrote:

Hello,

Every now and then, there is an answer to a post that appears before the said post in a thread. Case in point:
viewtopic.php?p=20271967#p20271967
In this thread, reply #25 is ap305 answering to Polot's reply #26.

Safari 11.0.3
OS10.13.3
MacBookPro 2010

Its gotten very frequent nowdays. Thanks for reporting it I always forget to

Just some quick feedback on moderating in Civil Aviation. Today I had two threads I was really interested in, one about odd departure procedures out of Kennedy this morning:

viewtopic.php?t=1392461

And then this one about jetliner types that have been fully withdrawn from use:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1392445

Both got moved out of CivAv, the Kennedy ops one to TechOps, and the retired types on to Polls and Prefs. They clearly fit in the other forums they got moved to, but doing so gives those threads a lot less play on the site. Additionally, by moving these slightly more niche discussions out of CivAv, it makes CivAv more dominated by these long threads that often end up in toxic flame wars about A v. B or United or Detroit or whatever the latest conflict is. It feels like the moderating has been a bit more aggressive lately, moving the somewhat more narrow threads out of CivAv. I would like to push the mods to consider letting some of these more geek threads stay in CivAv. They attract less flame, and it seems like the more we can all do to keep a.net more about information and less about internet drama the better.

Thank you to the mods as always for doing the work you do!

TW870 wrote:

the more we can all do to keep a.net more about information and less about internet drama the better.

Thank you to the mods as always for doing the work you do!

Thumbs up to all that...

TW870 wrote:

Just some quick feedback on moderating in Civil Aviation. Today I had two threads I was really interested in, one about odd departure procedures out of Kennedy this morning:

viewtopic.php?t=1392461

And then this one about jetliner types that have been fully withdrawn from use:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1392445

Both got moved out of CivAv, the Kennedy ops one to TechOps, and the retired types on to Polls and Prefs. They clearly fit in the other forums they got moved to, but doing so gives those threads a lot less play on the site. Additionally, by moving these slightly more niche discussions out of CivAv, it makes CivAv more dominated by these long threads that often end up in toxic flame wars about A v. B or United or Detroit or whatever the latest conflict is. It feels like the moderating has been a bit more aggressive lately, moving the somewhat more narrow threads out of CivAv. I would like to push the mods to consider letting some of these more geek threads stay in CivAv. They attract less flame, and it seems like the more we can all do to keep a.net more about information and less about internet drama the better.

Thank you to the mods as always for doing the work you do!

In general when we move threads it comes from a decision that the thread is better suited in another forum, examples above are good examples. Unfortunately we have has some instances where users have used Civil Aviation to post threads which belong in other forums just to get more attention. This is something we don't want to see happening so we need to tow the line somewhere. While I can not speak for the other moderators thought process, I personally only move threads when they are reported with the exception of if the thread is rather obvious it should be in a different forum. There will always be the case where some users will say they don't agree with us moving a thread but on a site like this we can not please everyone.

I appreciate your comments on the flamewars whether is be Airbus vs Boeing, United, Delta, Detroit etc. As a moderator living in Australia in a lot of these threads there is a general lack of respect amongst some users. I have to say as someone who engages with the other Australian posters in the Australian thread there is a high level of respect between all the users, to the point where you can disagree on something and still come out the other side on friendly terms with each other. I wish this was more widespread over the site but unfortunately it isn't. All I can suggest is that if you come across the Airbus vs Boeing, United, Delta , Detroit flamewars is to report them and bring them to our attention so we can deal with them. I appreciate you can be frustrated by these sort of threads, trust me they are frustrating from our point of view as well.

I dont agree that our moderating has been aggressive. Sometimes we may need to take a hardline approach if we feel that a user or users are breaking a particular rule. For example at the start of this month over a period of 5 days I would have deleted at least 30 copyright violations over those 5 days which at the time was a lot higher than normal. Rules such as copyright rules you either follow them or you dont, there is no middle ground where as other rules there is some middle ground of which we can be more lenient if required. When there is an issue that we see over and over again we generally discuss it with the rest of the moderators firstly so everyone can keep a look out and secondly so we can work to a common goal to try and address it, one of our main goals is to try and improve posting quality.

qf789 wrote:

TW870 wrote:

Just some quick feedback on moderating in Civil Aviation. Today I had two threads I was really interested in, one about odd departure procedures out of Kennedy this morning:

viewtopic.php?t=1392461

And then this one about jetliner types that have been fully withdrawn from use:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1392445

Both got moved out of CivAv, the Kennedy ops one to TechOps, and the retired types on to Polls and Prefs. They clearly fit in the other forums they got moved to, but doing so gives those threads a lot less play on the site. Additionally, by moving these slightly more niche discussions out of CivAv, it makes CivAv more dominated by these long threads that often end up in toxic flame wars about A v. B or United or Detroit or whatever the latest conflict is. It feels like the moderating has been a bit more aggressive lately, moving the somewhat more narrow threads out of CivAv. I would like to push the mods to consider letting some of these more geek threads stay in CivAv. They attract less flame, and it seems like the more we can all do to keep a.net more about information and less about internet drama the better.

Thank you to the mods as always for doing the work you do!

In general when we move threads it comes from a decision that the thread is better suited in another forum, examples above are good examples. Unfortunately we have has some instances where users have used Civil Aviation to post threads which belong in other forums just to get more attention. This is something we don't want to see happening so we need to tow the line somewhere. While I can not speak for the other moderators thought process, I personally only move threads when they are reported with the exception of if the thread is rather obvious it should be in a different forum. There will always be the case where some users will say they don't agree with us moving a thread but on a site like this we can not please everyone.

I appreciate your comments on the flamewars whether is be Airbus vs Boeing, United, Delta, Detroit etc. As a moderator living in Australia in a lot of these threads there is a general lack of respect amongst some users. I have to say as someone who engages with the other Australian posters in the Australian thread there is a high level of respect between all the users, to the point where you can disagree on something and still come out the other side on friendly terms with each other. I wish this was more widespread over the site but unfortunately it isn't. All I can suggest is that if you come across the Airbus vs Boeing, United, Delta , Detroit flamewars is to report them and bring them to our attention so we can deal with them. I appreciate you can be frustrated by these sort of threads, trust me they are frustrating from our point of view as well.

I dont agree that our moderating has been aggressive. Sometimes we may need to take a hardline approach if we feel that a user or users are breaking a particular rule. For example at the start of this month over a period of 5 days I would have deleted at least 30 copyright violations over those 5 days which at the time was a lot higher than normal. Rules such as copyright rules you either follow them or you dont, there is no middle ground where as other rules there is some middle ground of which we can be more lenient if required. When there is an issue that we see over and over again we generally discuss it with the rest of the moderators firstly so everyone can keep a look out and secondly so we can work to a common goal to try and address it, one of our main goals is to try and improve posting quality.

Thanks qf789 for the thoughtful response. Sorry for using the word aggressive - which was too strong of a word. Ordinarily I don't think I would have even noticed this moderating practice of moving threads. I often purposely post in these more narrow threads because I think granular topics - such as whether Kennedy is routing southbounds over WAVEY or Robinsville - will be less likely to generate flame wars. But your response about posting just to attract attention makes perfect sense.

I also appreciate your point about respect in the Australia forum. As I am sure you know, the U.S. is deeply polarized and honestly a scary place to be right now with a level of political anger that is nothing like I have seen in previous decades. The internet is amplifying that wider cultural flame war, and there is no way that airliners.net is going to exempt from that. It bums me out that many airline employees have left for other platforms to avoid the flame. As a former United Airlines employee, I think there is still excellent stuff on here, and I am glad that you all work as hard as you do to make it work.

Nice to see the link fixed on the homepage, where clicking on "Civil aviation" actually brings you to the Civav page.

Why is the " Official 747-8 Production/Delivery thread 2018 "suddenly locked ?

747classic wrote:

Why is the " Official 747-8 Production/Delivery thread 2018 "suddenly locked ?

Not sure why it was locked, it looks like it was done by mistake, I have unlocked it now

I know there has been some discussion about subforums for non-av to cover other topics (mainly politics) but has there been discussion about breaking up Civil aviation further? On busy days there are several dozen worth of threads getting bumped up and down. Might be nice to have some of the regional aviation discussions put into their own forum for instance.

Any plans to bring back the ability to search by decade instead of just specific year? That was an extremely useful feature on the old site, and it should be super quick and easy to implement.

Also, something that has always bugged me about the "Featured photo album" section on the front page: When clicking on any of the five preview photos, it takes you to the album instead of to that photo, which means you have to look through page after page to find the photo again (sometimes hundreds and hundreds of photos). It would make more sense if just clicking the album title took you to the album, while clicking on one of the photos took you to that photo.

Good points and I believe they have been mentioned earlier.
Would be very helpful if the developers could post a list here of all the bugs/issues that still need to be fixed.

Another user and I both are unable to change our forum avatars, we've tried everything. The avatar changes on the homepage, but not on the forum:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1338787&p=20693567#p20693567

I've tried deleting the old avatar, saving changes, uploading a new one, saving changes, logging out and logging in again, everything. The old one (the black and white one with the trees in the background) won't go.

Interestingly, if I delete the old one and save changes, then the forum avatar goes blank. But if I upload a new one, then the old one reappears again.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

Good points and I believe they have been mentioned earlier.
Would be very helpful if the developers could post a list here of all the bugs/issues that still need to be fixed.

Any news on this?

dutchspotter1 wrote:

dutchspotter1 wrote:

Good points and I believe they have been mentioned earlier.
Would be very helpful if the developers could post a list here of all the bugs/issues that still need to be fixed.

Any news on this?

Yes, this list is posted at the top of this forum, titled "Update - Punch List of Bugs, Errors, Requests".

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1406245

There probably won't be much progress made on this, or the other things you've asked about. We no longer have a dedicated developer, and I don't know when Matt will be replaced. At this point, it seems that the people who are working on the site are simply trying to keep the site stable. It's been slow and timing out off and on for about three weeks now.

Thank you for your reply, although I'm disappointed to read that VerticalScope is pretty much giving up on this website. Let's hope they will sell it soon to a party that actually cares to invest, rather than just sit back and wait for the ad revenue to come in.

That punch list is the just for the bug thing (Errors 500/502) we've been having recently. The real 'list' is different and has mostly editor/screening related issues as the highest priority, plus the ability of notifications when posts are deleted. As for the future plans for the site or timeframes of certain fixes, the crew don't know. Also no-one has said that VS are giving up, that's just an assumption from your side at this moment.

airkas1 wrote:

Also no-one has said that VS are giving up, that's just an assumption from your side at this moment.

It certainly feels that way - we have a list of bugs and errors affecting the site, and the only developer working on it has left, with no sign of a replacement. Then, we have the larger list of enhancements and updates that has been sitting out there literally for years, while the moderators repeatedly tell us "developers are working on it, but we don't have any information on when they will get done". And yes, I understand the moderators don't have any influence on when or what gets done by the developers, so I'm not blaming you. But it sounds to me like VS doesn't really care about this site other than the revenue it generates, or they would have one or more developers fixing the recent errors and making progress on the larger list of enhancements.

Moose135 wrote:

It certainly feels that way - we have a list of bugs and errors affecting the site, and the only developer working on it has left, with no sign of a replacement. Then, we have the larger list of enhancements and updates that has been sitting out there literally for years, while the moderators repeatedly tell us "developers are working on it, but we don't have any information on when they will get done". And yes, I understand the moderators don't have any influence on when or what gets done by the developers, so I'm not blaming you. But it sounds to me like VS doesn't really care about this site other than the revenue it generates, or they would have one or more developers fixing the recent errors and making progress on the larger list of enhancements.

My point exactly. The whole website redesign of a few years ago was of a good intention, but poorly executed. This caused the developers to waste a lot of hours on unnecessary re-programming (since they didn't get it right the first time). If all these hours were spent on the enhancements that are still on the to-do list (any chance we can actually get to see this list?), the website would be a lot further along, perhaps even to the point that "simply trying to keep the site stable" would be fine. But now it feels like VerticalScope is just quitting while the work is only halfway done.

The forum is not accessible over the last day. Getting "HTTP 502 - error" or "HTTP 500-error". What seems to be the problem? Plus the forum has become very slow to load pages.

blrsea wrote:

The forum is not accessible over the last day. Getting "HTTP 502 - error" or "HTTP 500-error". What seems to be the problem? Plus the forum has become very slow to load pages.

Hi

See this thread for more viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1405941

Paul

Is there still an issue with the quote button? Today I saw that posts written by me were quoted/attributed to someone else, and posts written by someone else were quoted/attributed to me. Is that still a bug on this site?

Furthermore, why are some of my posts being removed without any good reason. I broke no rules yet my posts are being removed.

ErichHartmann wrote:

Is there still an issue with the quote button? Today I saw that posts written by me were quoted/attributed to someone else, and posts written by someone else were quoted/attributed to me. Is that still a bug on this site?

Furthermore, why are some of my posts being removed without any good reason. I broke no rules yet my posts are being removed.

It's never been a bug, it's users formatting the quote incorrectly. They may be quoting a user that quoted you, but accidently delete their username instead of yours. When there's a referenced post inside a referenced post inside a referenced post, the formatting can look pretty confusing if you aren't careful.

The vast majority of deletions are because of referenced post deletions. Your posts may have been removed as a string of deleted comments from one that did violate the rules. You're always welcome to email us at moderators@airliners.net and ask why your post was removed.

atcsundevil wrote:

There probably won't be much progress made on this, or the other things you've asked about. We no longer have a dedicated developer, and I don't know when Matt will be replaced.

Are there any plans to hire a new dedicated developer this year? Or can we consider 2019 another lost year when it comes to the Airliners.net website development/bug fixing?

dutchspotter1 wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

There probably won't be much progress made on this, or the other things you've asked about. We no longer have a dedicated developer, and I don't know when Matt will be replaced.

Are there any plans to hire a new dedicated developer this year? Or can we consider 2019 another lost year when it comes to the Airliners.net website development/bug fixing?

I have no idea. I know they've been doing work, but I don't know if someone other than Jeff is dedicated to this site. Those things are above our pay grade (not that we're paid anyway).

Hi

There are no plans to hire an Airliners.net specific developer instead we have a large pool of developers we can draw upon at any given time 24/7 so it's the same as when we had Matt just different faces and by no means is Airliners.net an afterthought for them

PanAm_DC10 wrote:

by no means is Airliners.net an afterthought for them

I would like to see that proven by fixing bugs/errors and enhancing/developing items that have been on the to-do-list for several years now. Thank you.

Another thing I need to bring up is for some reason the avatar changing function actually somewhat works with newly created accounts; a friend of mine seemed to have no problem setting his avatar shortly after he made an account here, but completely broken for older accounts. Really strange stuff.

Edit: more details:

- It seems to think you're attacking the website? I've tried to change my avatar on Chrome, Edge, Internet Explorer, on Incognito Mode, adblocker disabled, but all seems to result in the same error message.
- The error message seems to be some Cloudfare thingy where the page tells you to paste this ID "4a6f5e16f9575f4b " to the website owner. Is this an issue only I'm receiving or are others having this problem? It happened after I deleted my old avatar thinking it would speed up the process of changing my avatar.

PanAm_DC10 wrote:

There are no plans to hire an Airliners.net specific developer instead we have a large pool of developers we can draw upon at any given time 24/7 so it's the same as when we had Matt just different faces

I've worked in software for a long time, and it is by no means "the same." Not even close.

PanAm_DC10 wrote:

and by no means is Airliners.net an afterthought for them

Then why don't any bugs get fixed, and why isn't a developer assigned to maintain the site?

How many person-hours of maintenance - not VerticalScope prevailing upon the goodwill of people offering free labor, but paid professional maintenance - are allotted to the site on a monthly basis?

PanAm_DC10 wrote:

by no means is Airliners.net an afterthought for them

Half a year has now passed in which there has been no evidence to support this statement. Virtually nothing has been done to improve the website, fix bugs, etc., at least not visible to the end-users, who in turn are the ones that bring in the ad revenues for the website owners. The website owners are nowhere to be found to keep the end-users in the loop about the progress/plans for this website, let alone clarify their lackluster approach.

Not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I wonder if the mods can consider ways to break up the giant, catch-all threads on broad topics. In particular, I am referring to the 737 Max thread. I try to wade into that thread for information about the re-certification process. But it is so hostile and there is so much drama, that finding actual news is like finding a needle in a haystack. I think this is in part because the thread is so broad that we end up in a situation where anything goes. I would like to see it cut up, with one thread for recertification, another for discussion of the technical issues, another for the marketing and capacity issues of the operators, etc. - so we would have at least some greater chance of finding news and skilled dialogue. Compared to decades past, the moderating has moved to a consolidated model, where topics are pooled into large threads. This is just a suspicion, but I think it might contribute to how hostile the forum has become.

TW870 wrote:

Not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I wonder if the mods can consider ways to break up the giant, catch-all threads on broad topics. In particular, I am referring to the 737 Max thread. I try to wade into that thread for information about the re-certification process. But it is so hostile and there is so much drama, that finding actual news is like finding a needle in a haystack. I think this is in part because the thread is so broad that we end up in a situation where anything goes. I would like to see it cut up, with one thread for recertification, another for discussion of the technical issues, another for the marketing and capacity issues of the operators, etc. - so we would have at least some greater chance of finding news and skilled dialogue. Compared to decades past, the moderating has moved to a consolidated model, where topics are pooled into large threads. This is just a suspicion, but I think it might contribute to how hostile the forum has become.

This is a bit of a touchy subject with some people. We try our best to find a happy medium with the consolidated threads, but it will never appease most people.

Here's our dilemma — some users want large consolidated threads to limit the duplication of discussion across multiple threads; other users want individual threads on every nuanced topic regardless of discussion duplication. Obviously we don't want everything in combined threads, but we don't want tons of nuanced threads either. Either extreme would drive everyone nuts, so we have to settle somewhere in the middle. Managing that balance is really complicated, and I don't think we've managed to get it quite right yet.

We generally like consolidated threads because it makes for a more free-flowing discussion. It means the are fewer off topic comments for us to delete. However, many subjects are noteworthy enough to warrant their own unique discussion.

We get a lot of flak from a number of users when we allow splinter threads, but I totally understand that it's hard to muddle through the mega threads. Most people don't want to wade through massive topics to get to specific discussions, which is why I allow splinter threads where I can. Although, we discourage it in some cases, like after crashes — there is too little information and too much speculation, so splinter threads would dominate the forum. In the days following the MAX grounding, there were no fewer than two dozen threads created in Civil Aviation alone. There simply wasn't enough available information to warrant so many threads, which is why we consolidated them for everyone's sanity.

If you think that a particular line of discussion warrants its own thread, then please let us know by reporting the first post that could be made into a new topic. We can split specific posts away from a thread into a new topic quite easily. Alternatively, you could create a new topic yourself referencing the other discussion. As long as it's relatively noteworthy info and worthy of its own discussion, we'll probably support it.

Tl;dr — we know it's an issue, and we try our best to find a balance. It will never be to everyone's liking, but our goal is to at least have most people be generally content.

atcsundevil wrote:

TW870 wrote:

Not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I wonder if the mods can consider ways to break up the giant, catch-all threads on broad topics. In particular, I am referring to the 737 Max thread. I try to wade into that thread for information about the re-certification process. But it is so hostile and there is so much drama, that finding actual news is like finding a needle in a haystack. I think this is in part because the thread is so broad that we end up in a situation where anything goes. I would like to see it cut up, with one thread for recertification, another for discussion of the technical issues, another for the marketing and capacity issues of the operators, etc. - so we would have at least some greater chance of finding news and skilled dialogue. Compared to decades past, the moderating has moved to a consolidated model, where topics are pooled into large threads. This is just a suspicion, but I think it might contribute to how hostile the forum has become.

This is a bit of a touchy subject with some people. We try our best to find a happy medium with the consolidated threads, but it will never appease most people.

Here's our dilemma — some users want large consolidated threads to limit the duplication of discussion across multiple threads; other users want individual threads on every nuanced topic regardless of discussion duplication. Obviously we don't want everything in combined threads, but we don't want tons of nuanced threads either. Either extreme would drive everyone nuts, so we have to settle somewhere in the middle. Managing that balance is really complicated, and I don't think we've managed to get it quite right yet.

We generally like consolidated threads because it makes for a more free-flowing discussion. It means the are fewer off topic comments for us to delete. However, many subjects are noteworthy enough to warrant their own unique discussion.

We get a lot of flak from a number of users when we allow splinter threads, but I totally understand that it's hard to muddle through the mega threads. Most people don't want to wade through massive topics to get to specific discussions, which is why I allow splinter threads where I can. Although, we discourage it in some cases, like after crashes — there is too little information and too much speculation, so splinter threads would dominate the forum. In the days following the MAX grounding, there were no fewer than two dozen threads created in Civil Aviation alone. There simply wasn't enough available information to warrant so many threads, which is why we consolidated them for everyone's sanity.

If you think that a particular line of discussion warrants its own thread, then please let us know by reporting the first post that could be made into a new topic. We can split specific posts away from a thread into a new topic quite easily. Alternatively, you could create a new topic yourself referencing the other discussion. As long as it's relatively noteworthy info and worthy of its own discussion, we'll probably support it.

Tl;dr — we know it's an issue, and we try our best to find a balance. It will never be to everyone's liking, but our goal is to at least have most people be generally content.

Thank you for the thorough and comprehensive reply. This makes total sense to me. A.net has gotten so much more hostile in the fifteen years I've been on it, with so many fewer airline people on the board after many have been driven away. But then again that is the entire internet, and A.net is still way more civil than some of the more public platforms.

For the MAX thread, I visit it for return to service information, and that is almost impossible to find given that most posts are heavily hyperbolic and either imply that the MAX will never fly again or that the MAX should be flying now and that the whole thing is the pilots' fault. Depressingly, I get most of my MAX news these days from mainstream sources such as the New York Times - which is a huge difference from a decade ago when A.net was the go-to for all airline info. Again, I think this is a wider cultural problem and that you all have a tough job!

TW870 wrote:

Thank you for the thorough and comprehensive reply. This makes total sense to me. A.net has gotten so much more hostile in the fifteen years I've been on it, with so many fewer airline people on the board after many have been driven away. But then again that is the entire internet, and A.net is still way more civil than some of the more public platforms.

It absolutely has gotten progressively more hostile in recent years, which is part of the reason I wanted to become a moderator. I know there's only so much that I can do, but I try to make an impact where I can. Most of the hostility does seem to come from the enthusiasts rather than those of us who actually work in this field. You won't find many pilots or controllers getting into heated personal arguments over aircraft manufacturers or airlines. Discussions, sure, but not to the point of the personal attacks seen here. The so-called "fanboy" mentality is one that I'll never understand. The thing that really bothers me are the self-proclaimed experts who go out of their way to attack young or new users. It gives them a false sense that people who work in aviation are bitter and salty, which just isn't the case.

TW870 wrote:

For the MAX thread, I visit it for return to service information, and that is almost impossible to find given that most posts are heavily hyperbolic and either imply that the MAX will never fly again or that the MAX should be flying now and that the whole thing is the pilots' fault. Depressingly, I get most of my MAX news these days from mainstream sources such as the New York Times - which is a huge difference from a decade ago when A.net was the go-to for all airline info. Again, I think this is a wider cultural problem and that you all have a tough job!

The problem we have with that is that even if we were to create a dedicated return to service thread, the discussion would still be dominated by speciation and random nonsense. Some people just can't seem to help themselves. Users have asked us to create a locked thread pinned to the top of the forum for us to post factually confirmed updates to big news stories. While I like the idea in theory, the problem I have with that is two-fold: one, I don't believe it's our job to determine what's "factual" except in cases where the information is clearly dubious, and two, I believe that content should be provided by all users and not just us. I hope that someday we can find some sort of solution to this, but I think it's a delicate balance, because it shouldn't redefine our roles as moderators. I can't get on board with something that fundamentally changes our purpose here.

So whats with the new Mods bar?

stl07 wrote:

So whats with the new Mods bar?

It was needed in order to get permissions set up correctly for the new additions to the moderating crew.

Could a summery of changes or highlighting the changes in the TOS to go into effect June 1 be posted by the site managers ? It would be very useful to know them. Thank you.

tys777 wrote:

stl07 wrote:

So whats with the new Mods bar?

It was needed in order to get permissions set up correctly for the new additions to the moderating crew.

Any chance we can get the gray bar changed to transparent or the same color light blue as the rest of the site? It works fine when viewing a thread but when in a specific forum there is a needless gray bar.

ltbewr wrote:

Could a summery of changes or highlighting the changes in the TOS to go into effect June 1 be posted by the site managers ? It would be very useful to know them. Thank you.

Pretty sure it was intended to be in the TOS thread as the thread says to see the bottom of the post for the summary but it isn't there.

ltbewr wrote:

Could a summery of changes or highlighting the changes in the TOS to go into effect June 1 be posted by the site managers ? It would be very useful to know them. Thank you.

I created one, but it hasn't been posted yet. I'll either try to get it posted as a separate thread, or create a post in the existing thread with the summary.

alasizon wrote:

Pretty sure it was intended to be in the TOS thread as the thread says to see the bottom of the post for the summary but it isn't there.

I actually intended for it to be in a separate thread initially so that it would get more attention. I was worried that if it were at the bottom that people would miss it. It just hasn't been posted yet, but I'll see if I can get it put up.

ltbewr wrote:

Could a summery of changes or highlighting the changes in the TOS to go into effect June 1 be posted by the site managers ? It would be very useful to know them. Thank you.

alasizon wrote:

Pretty sure it was intended to be in the TOS thread as the thread says to see the bottom of the post for the summary but it isn't there.

The changes summary has now been posted. There were very minor changes to rules that aren't listed, but that list contains all of the relevant changes.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1446869

Where has all the advertising gone to ?

Ssshhhh, don't poke the bear!