HOME > Chowhound > Site Talk >


Introducing New Conversation Types - Continued

I asked the mods to create a new thread to continue the discussion from this huge topic: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/983655

Never heard back and that thread is so huge it will not let me post a response to c oliver if that response contains a picture.
I *REALLY* wish that when changes were made to the site, they wouldn't just post it on Site Talk. So many people don't come here. A sticky link posted on every board would be helpful to let more people know what changes have happened.

RE: LindaWhit
MplsM ary
It is kinda plastered on every page though.

RE: MplsM ary
c oliver
How so, Mary?

RE: c oliver
MplsM ary
I tried to upload a pic. Because this thread is so overloaded I waited a half hour and had to give up.

The announcement is there on the right margin: "New Community Conversations Are Here." It's everywhere.

RE: MplsM ary
c oliver
Are you talking about the not-new feature (supposedly) that takes you to your first unread thread?

And so, I am attaching a pic here. See above ^

    Image Title (Optional)
    Caption (Optional)
    Image Credit (Optional)
    Copy to all
  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. But you're talking about the new features whereas I was talking about the supposedly not new feature for finding your most recently unread post.

    4 Replies
    1. re: c oliver

      Ah. Thanks for letting me know. I was responding to LindaWhit's wanting a sticky on every board.

      1. re: MplsM ary

        So do you want to email the mods and ask them to lock this thread?

        1. re: MplsM ary

          I think it depends on what a user might have blocked. I use AdBlock Plus, and perhaps my settings are such I rarely see any "NEW FEATURES!" posts.

          Three pics of what I see:

          1. This is my current view at the top of this thread.
          2. My Profile page.
          3. Board view (Food Media).

          As you can see, the only place I'd see the "Introducing New Conversation Features for the CHOW Community" is on a particular thread (first pic). And to be honest, I never look there. If I'm on a thread, I read the thread only. I access current threads I'm participating on via my Profile, and new threads via the actual Board.

        1. re: zin1953

          There's a very large black and white image displaying right under MplsMary's name at the top as the original poster. It's the same image as displayed in the right hand column of every page on CH right now that says NEW COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS ARE HERE etc. Missing from your view?

        2. "...My take on these changes is that they did not go far enough when it comes to layout. The layout for this site is still staid and old fashioned. "

          Glad you said it. I remember when the new site design launched in 2006 after the CNET buy-out. The reaction was, "Wow, Web 2.0!" as the newest thing and now the response is more like, "That's so Web 2.0", meaning out-dated. The change in UI made a big difference then, bumping traffic up 30% in a couple months, IIRC.

          I've seen a couple posts from folks who think that using the new link format precludes having a discussion. This capability should just be incorporated into the Discussion format, that's how it is on FB, instead of having to choose from the menu bar. Photo story too.

          2 Replies
          1. re: Melanie Wong

            I also truly believe they keep making the same mistake by keeping the mobile and desktop designs parallel when they should be split using an app for mobile. Staying with the Responsive web design is wreaking havoc on desktop and mobile users. Splitting the design has the advantage when redesigns are planned and rolled out - they can deal with one user group at a time. I dunno.

            1. hey, what happened to the rest of this conversation? There were 30-some comments here just an hour or so ago.

              1. With regard to up and down voting in the Q&A format, some have commented that they are pleased that downvoting is no longer available. But it seems to me as though not allowing it makes the format less useful in trying to fulfill its basic objective which, as I understand it, is to try to find the best answer to a simple yes/no question. For example, the Q&A format would be a perfect place to post the ubiquitous “I left XXX out overnight; can I still eat it?” posts. Without the ability of responders to downvote, the OP might best be advised to post a question, then to add two posts following that question, one reading “yes” and one reading “no.” People would then upvote either the “yes” or the “no.” But that’s awkward, and asking an awful lot of the OP, especially if the OP is a newcomer to the board. Allowing a downvote, the OP could simply ask the question and tally the votes.

                I understand all the objections to downvoting, but I’m not understanding how Q&A could ever become a useful addition without it.

                1 Reply
                1. re: JoanN

                  Good point, Joan. An up vote means little without the opposing view/vote.

                2. I wanted to point out something that's buried in the huge announcement thread. Sorry I don't remember who brought this up, but thanks for pointing out that the "New Community Conversations" banner has screwy wording.

                  "Discussion: The web's food experts are ready to debate" This is intimidating. I may not want to debate. I may have a simple question. If I wanted to ask a simple question I guess (if I didn't know any better) I'd hit "Q&A: Ask the community a question." Sounds friendly... community, right? This is bass ackwards.

                  Better wording: "Discussion: Our community exists to discuss food. Jump right in!"

                  As for the Q&A I'm sorry to say I can only form snarky or silly suggestions, so I'll leave this for others to suggest better wording.

                  10 Replies
                  1. re: MplsM ary

                    Looks like it's been changed already.

                    The changes produced quite a jump in Site Talk traffic this weekend - but guess what, half of the posts were by just 6 posters (according to boardreader) (and one poster stood by a factor of 3).

                    1. re: paulj

                      Well ...... A 700 post topic can do that.

                      In fairness I am grateful (or my thumb is) to be able to click on the number of posts in a long topic and be taken to the latest post I haven't read (it works most of the time). If that existed before, I was unaware).

                      Also , I just read a Q&A topic where someone was looking for a quick restaurant rec on one if the regional boards. The format worked perfectly for that need AND it occurred to me that, in spite if the possible negatives, a major positive is that it can avoid thread drift if used as intended.

                      1. re: paulj

                        I think *that* fact does not escape TPTB's attention ;)

                        1. re: paulj

                          Here's a link to the stats you reference,

                          The other spot where the "debate" language needs to be changed is from the menu bar at the top of each board index where one selects the post type. The bubble that pops up when you hover over Discussion says "Looking for in-depth food conversation? Our knowledgable Community is ready to discuss (and sometimes debate) all things food."

                            1. re: Melanie Wong

                              much better -- less evocative of a pack of hungry wolves waiting to pounce.

                          1. re: MplsM ary

                            Mary, I brought this up. I like your alternate proposed language describing the Discussion option.

                            And Paulj, looking to the right-side margin on this thread, the old language -- describing Discussions as "the web's food experts are ready to debate" -- is still there.

                            1. re: masha

                              Yes, I also noticed that. Maybe it is a warning, lol.

                              1. re: masha

                                I was looking at the popup balloon

                                1. re: masha

                                  Again, thank you, masha. Let me link up to your original post and the replies for a fuller picture of the issue,