Hello all,

We (moderators) are currently working on a number of new and amended rule changes to better organize our forums. Many of these changes are based on user feedback over the past year, particularly with regard to the new site and its changes to our operations.

Before we publish any of our proposed changes for the community to review, we would like to hear from you on things you feel need to be changed based on our currently published rules. What should be different? What should be added or removed? What nagging issues do you feel detract from your experience on this site?

I don't want this to be a discussion on things like paid versus free membership, because that's an entirely separate topic. This discussion just relates to the things you'd like to see moderators enforce more/less/differently, and how you feel the day-to-day functions on the forum should be.

Please make this a constructive discussion so we can all help to make this site better.

Thank you for your input!
✈️ atcsundevil

A few thoughts, in no particular order:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Unfortunately that is a development issue, and I don't know if/how that can be remedied. I think something to that effect is on their "to do" list, but we have several more critical items for them to get to first. The easiest way to quote multiple users is under the Full Editor & Preview, scrolling down to the list, then by clicking the quote icon on the upper right of the post you want to reply. It's nowhere near as convenient as the old site, but it's better than nothing. Hopefully something down the line can address this.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for your comments, and I hope others will provide input as well! These forums belong to all of us, so it's important that we get feedback to find a way to improve the experience for everyone.

✈️ atcsundevil

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.

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.

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.

One criterion (perhaps not the only one) ought to be that if a topic has been discussed in multiple threads, it needs its own thread. So something like BNA-LHR, which was discussed in BNA threads, BA threads, and new TATL route threads would qualify.

As for OAG, that is the one place where I think double discussion is okay. The OAG threads allow people to see and discuss larger trends, but some of the individual changes probably do deserve their own threads.

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.

For me, one of the advantages of a.net over some of the competition is the breadth of CivAv. The more granular fora are great for asking a specific question that someone with knowledge will see, but our format excels at putting all of the news I care about in one place. When we move factual threads to Polls & Prefs, we risk losing that. But I do think clarity is the most important thing.

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.

YMMV, of course, but for me the issue is the difficulty of quoting on my phone. It's doable, but for a more complex post like this one I wait until I am at a computer.

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.

In the thread bump rule we will be including that if a user feels it necessary to add a comment to a thread that has been dormant for 6 months or more they must get approval from a moderator or alternatively start a new thread with a link to the old one

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?

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?

That's the unofficial policy we adopted at the start of the year, but our intent is to make it official. With the old site, threads were locked and restarted after 250 posts. With this site, because posts shift to new pages, there's really no need to cap them based on post count. Information does evolve and become old, and lengthy threads can become cumbersome to navigate and keep up with, so we do have timetables to renew threads. Most are based on calendar years, some are renewed monthly, and a handful are quarterly. It was just something we tried at the start of this year, and most people seem to be happy with the policy shift.

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.

Like I said to Cubsrule, I don't believe we have an auto-lock function available to us. It might be something the developers could implement, but they've got a long list, and several important items have taken much longer than anticipated to roll out. We would have to manually lock old threads, and with literally millions of threads on our archive, that's just not feasible. We're defining the terms of posting to old threads, and while it won't fix the issue, it will at least clear up confusion among users.

As for some kind of tutorial, I would be supportive of a new user guide of some kind. That's definitely something we can look into, but our focus right now is on updating our rules and policies. That could be something we move on to next, however.

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.

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:

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.

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? I'm not sure if we have another way of replicating the top threads section, but maybe that would make things a little clearer in terms of catching up on current events?

We've had a lot of similar comments regarding threads. There's a competing argument of merging all like threads vs. keeping subtlely related topics separate. I see the merits of both, but there seems to be more support for the latter. While that isn't really something we would address in the forum rules, it is a policy thing that we as moderators can try to address.

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.

The policy we're proposing is that any thread active within in the past six months is fair game to post. Anything inactive for six months or longer would require Moderator approval beforehand. This allows us to regulate things a little better and actually determine when old threads should be bumped. We can't preemptively stop people from posting to older threads, but it'll give us an explicit policy for which we can act. Right now, thread bumps are being enforced, but its application varies because we don't have a set standard — that's obviously what we're aiming to correct.

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.

1) Duplicate threads are tough to control. We have a lot of people who will post in a duplicate thread with a link for the original without reporting the post to us. We need to try to educate users to alert us so we can act faster. Some people seem to think that certain keywords like "mods" will call our attention, but we are only alerted by reported posts.
2) We currently have a rule that addresses this, but is somewhat unclear, in my opinion. Our proposed changes more clearly define this. The old site would have automatically rejected most low quality posts, but this one doesn't. Having this more clearly defined gives users a heads up on our standards, and gives us recourse for warnings/bans. We do have some habitual low quality posters. We intend to post the new rules to the top of every forum for a set period of time, so hopefully it'll draw their attention.
3) This is another thing we're trying to address. The forum descriptions need to be elaborated, because even I'm not always 100% clear on what belongs where with some topics. However, we've had a few users recently post in Civ Av intentionally knowing it was the wrong forum to elicit more responses, which is something that will be defined as a violation.
4) We have specifically targeted a new section of the rules for trip reports, and the rules for creating threads in the TR forum will potentially be permanently pined to the top of that forum. We're going to allow video trip reports, but it must be explicitly labeled in the title, along with fulfilling certain criteria. We've had a ton of complaints, so it's something we will definitely be addressing.

Thank you for taking the time to post your comments! This insight has let me know that our focus on the rules update has so far been pretty spot on.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Allowing threads to run longer is something that we've received a lot of feedback on, which is why we changed our policy on this at the start of 2017. I do agree that new events being posted to existing threads and are worthy of their own thread should be dealt with — we have the ability to split specific posts of threads off into new topics. It's a new tool to us, and only a few moderators utilize it, but it sounds like maybe it's something we need to utilize more often. If you see examples of this, then please report it, and comment in the report that you're requesting that the post and related comments be split into a new topic.

I don't know if this is something that should be addressed in the forum rules we're working on, but it seems like a lot of people want some sort of FAQ or tutorial page, so this is something that could potentially be outlined there. If users know what moderators can do, then they're more likely to request that of us. We can't prevent users from posting new thread worthy info to lengthy threads, but we can address and correct the situation when it happens.

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.

We do issue warnings and bans quite regularly, but our aim with expanding and redefining our rules is two fold: one, it will hopefully give users a better understanding of the expectations on this site, and two, more clearly defines our ability to take action against users. While we don't want to prevent people from posting, it is important to us to make sure people are posting something that's worthwhile. We've had a lot of people commenting with "lol" or emojis (probably thanks to Facebook and texting), and while our current rules address that, it isn't done so in a clear and prominent manner. Clear trolling is another issue, and is something that will be addressed. I don't expect a revised set of rules to fix all of our problems, but it will allow moderators to handle certain situations which the current rules don't specifically provision.

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.

Thank you.

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.

We have added new rules to reflect the new features to the site over the old one plus we have tried to add more information and clarity to the existing ones. We will take all feedback onboard before we finalise the rules. Did you have any particular rules that needed to be tightened?

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.

Yes that seems to be the norm for a lot of users. We have put more information of what forum a topic should be discussed in so we hope that will reduce the problem however as you say some post it in the wrong thread normally civil aviation to get more traction.

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).

I agree. There are a lot of users who do not bothering searching and I mean there have been some occasions when the same topic has only been a few threads down. I normally come across a few a day and I am of the opinion that some use the excuse that the search tool doesn't work, I am of the opinion that its more to do with users not knowing how to use it properly and that's something we will need to address. I brought up a few things about a week ago with the other mods mainly just out of frustration and things I have read. One of them was rules, another was the need to do something about post deletion notifications. Unfortunately the automated notifications aren't going to be up for a while so we are looking at sending out notification emails ourselves. We are currently working out how to go about this and we probably just send them out when there are violations of the rules, no reference posts or housekeeping matters though. Hopefully by doing this we can start to educate users and some of the issues that repeat themselves can be reduced. We are well aware that some users will ignore them but I would hope some would learn from their mistakes.

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 have suggested to the mods that things like the production threads should be a yearly thread. I think we need to find the balance of not too long and not too short. We also have to be mindful that very long threads users who haven't read them all the way through are likely to post things in there that have already been covered

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.

6 months seems to be the right balance. Anything longer we ask that if you have something worthwhile to add your request permission from a moderator

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.

This is something that needs to be looked at. I agree with your comments it can be quite annoying particularly if your quoting from a mobile device. Unfortunately its something we cant fix as moderators however we can ask admin to look into though with a long list of other things to be fixed or added as well it will take time

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.

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.

The automated email for post deletions is currently not working and it will be sometime to when it will fixed. Once we have refined the ruled we will likely send out notifications for rule violations. In the mean time if you can email us at moderators@airliners.net about why your post was delete we will respond with the explanation

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

I'm late to the party here (I don't browse the Site Related forum much unless I have a bug to report), but I'll add some comments.

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").

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The vast majority of feedback we've received have been requests to have threads run for longer periods. The only reason threads were capped previously was because they would all display on the same page with the old site, but obviously we have multiple pages now. Many users requested we keep threads open permanently, so we settled on a happy medium by having them cycle monthly/quarterly/yearly. Nearly all of the feedback we've received since moving to this system almost a year ago has been positive. I apologize if it's not your preference, but we had to find the best solution possible.

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").

The only viable solution I could see here is creating a rolling thread like we do with many generalized topics (Phoenix Aviation, United Fleet Thread, etc) to contain "annoying" persistent discussions. A 757 discussion thread could definitely work, but we'd have to walk a careful line as to what would be merged into it and what could stand on its own. I agree that constantly rehashed topics get old, but part of our rules update will be to officially require threads dormant for longer than six months to remain dormant, unless there's moderator approval. So, if the last "Let's bring back the 757" thread was seven months ago, a new thread could technically be fair game. Just because many of us who have been around for a while are tired of these dreary old topics (and trust me, I'm with you), it doesn't necessarily make it fair to deprive newer users the chance to discuss.

As for punishment for creating similar threads — again, we have to walk a little bit of a fine line. I'm personally in favor of requiring a new user to reach a required post count before creating a thread, but my opinion doesn't seem particularly popular with everyone. We also have to determine if someone is maliciously spamming by creating multiple similar threads, or if they just don't understand our rules or culture. If they are malicious, we deal with it just like we always have, but we can't act without some sort of established track record. We're constantly accused of keeping people from voicing their opinions, so we have to be careful not to act in ways that might lend credence to those conspiracies.

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.

If it requires some kind of development, that's pretty much a no-go. Our list of priorities development-wise is extremely lengthy and filled with pretty desperately needed items. If you're just referring to effectively editing the first post to provide updates, that's something that any moderator can theoretically do right now. It would be rather labor intensive for us, but if it's a copy/paste of thing, I would be fine with that.

Other sites do this regularly, however, our general policy is that only head moderators are permitted to edit posts (hence why we have to delete the entirety of posts containing a reference to a deleted post). Historically it's something we as moderators aren't permitted to do — we have the technical ability to do it, but our longstanding policy prevents it. I would be in favor of something like this if people are in favor of the idea, and the head moderators agree to permit us to edit posts under certain circumstances. Either way, I'm happy to at least present the idea, because I think it would be a nice enhancement to long-running, popular threads with regular developments. Due to the extra work involved in this, there may only be a handful of moderators willing to do this, so it may not be able to happen on a large scale if the head mods agree to give this a try. It's certainly worth the discussion, and it's a new idea, so it's appreciated!

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.

I agree. I think a lot of people have hyped the old site beyond its actual capabilities. In large part, it's probably due to the shaky rollout of this site. The new site was pushed out much quicker than I think many of us expected, and in hindsight should have had much more beta testing and development. That said, the old site was riddled with functionality issues, and was such a patchwork of coding that it was bordering on impossible to fix. It was a truly custom site in every sense of the word, and had become too unstable to continue with. This site has its quirks, but it's functionality stable being a highly customized off-the-shelf platform (meaning that developers years from now will still know how to fix it), and things like the quote feature work just fine. It's just a new normal. I think the tutorial idea is one worth pursuing after we're done with this rules update. Another request has been for some kind of acronyms/general technical info page, which I think is a great idea.

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.

I actually try to do this as often as I can. I'm not sure why people think that some sort of keyword will spring us into action, but it absolutely doesn't! Hopefully with some sort of tutorial, it can better educate users on issues like this.

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.

This thread was just a quick survey to see if we had all of our bases covered. We mostly completed our rules update before this thread even posted, but at least I was personally hesitant about slapping new rules up and saying, "Here's what we did!" This way, we're doing our due diligence, and making sure we aren't leaving anything out. I very much believe that the community needs to have its say as to how we function day-to-day, and many of us feel that this feedback is important. This will be the first rules update specifically adapted for our new site, it's functionalities, and the various new or different tools it offers.

The next step is to post the purposed rule changes pinned at the top of Civ Av (with another one in the Trip Reports Forum, because it will have some rule subsections unique to that forum), and allow people to comment. Hopefully that will happen very soon — maybe in the next few days. After that, we'll make any changes if needed, and they'll go into effect. We'll make them very prominent when posted to solicit feedback, and then again once they're implemented, so no one will be able to claim they didn't know the rules have been updated.

Locking old threads is silly, some times interesting trivia can be posted in there rather than start a new thread for it.

So when are these proposed rule changes likely to be published as it's been three months since this thread was opened?

SamYeager2016 wrote:

So when are these proposed rule changes likely to be published as it's been three months since this thread was opened?

Hopefully soon. I'll send out an email this weekend to try to get things moving again. A lot of us have had a lot going on over the past couple of months, so as with many things, life tends to get in the way sometimes! We're basically finished, so hopefully we can get them posted for everyone to check out very soon.

I am really late now but still.

1. I really hated the auto locked threads of the old forum.
2, I really dislike when threads is broken up into smaller pieces. It makes it more difficult to find a certain post if there is 20-30 different parts of topic.
Minimum length should be 12 months for post intensive treads such as production threads and no limit for less post intensive threads such as Nordic aviation.

The whole point of moving to a new forum was to get away from the limitations of the old forum and I think it would be a really bad idea to go back
to implement the limitations of the old forum into this new forum. Many short threads will only clog up the index pages and this being a PhpBB forum means
that it can handle very very long threads without a problem. I pretty much disagree with everything Cubsrule said,

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.

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.

We don't lock threads and delete comments because it's our prerogative. The old site automatically archived old threads, but the new site unlocked everything. The mentality from many longtime users is that old threads should stay dormant, so our actions are reflective of that consensus.

If you have a desire to bring up old discussions to impart your knowledge, I have no doubt that people would like to read that. We just ask that you create a new thread if the old one has been dormant for more than six months. I realize that not everyone is a fan of this, but we're just trying to strike a happy medium.