Introducing New Conversation Types - Continued
- MplsM ary Jul 27, 2014 07:11 PM
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.
It is kinda plastered on every page though.
RE: MplsM ary
How so, Mary?
RE: c oliver
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
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 ^
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.
"...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.
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.
hey, what happened to the rest of this conversation? There were 30-some comments here just an hour or so ago.
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.