Commonly Discussed Feedback

[nvrspk4]

This isn't exactly a revolutionary idea but I think there's real merit to this.

There are certain things that come up again, and again, and again, and again in Feedback. Having lived in my little hut in the corner of the Feedback section for many years now, I know that there are quite a few of them and most people who have been around for 3+ months know at least one.

My suggestion would be to create a stickied thread that is essentially a place that says: Got Feedback? Check here first.

General Management can post a list of questions that come up again and again. Then two spoilers underneath each question, one with a well-written management response, and one with links to all the threads before it.

This way, it doesn't completely close the door to rediscussing things that have been discussed many times before (sometimes there are reasons to) but it DOES force the poster to explain why circumstances have changed / prior reasoning no longer applies etc. etc.

Thoughts?

[-Danube-]

I quite like this, it would keep track of feedback ideas which come up. Often in feedback some really good ideas can come up but they can often can swept under the carpet because they get forgotten about or covered up by another 100 feedback threads which are loosely based around the same point.

This could kill two birds with one stone, stop the same thing getting posted all the time, but also keep a log of ideas which are good and need implementing.

[FlyingJesus]

Definitely a good idea. Unless something has changed drastically there are some topics that really don't need to be revived month after month

[GommeInc]

A good idea but a bad idea at the same time. It will work if the management allow for discussion and the creation of new ideas and events, but it won't work if the management copy and paste the reason and then close the thread without discussion. It also doesn't help when previous discussions are "closed" because they have effectively lost an argument and do not wish to discuss it further, using the "circular argument" as an excuse, even though the circular argument means something different entirely :P

Alternatively, you could get management to mention that this has been discussed previously without becoming sarcastic and actually get straight to the point. Some just make up some garbled response which doesn't really answer the user's question :P Using a sticked thread and hoping members read them may not work, sticked threads are somewhat useless and easily overlooked.

[Richie]

I like old threads popping up so I can shout at management again. Na but really I guess it would be a good idea but only with major topics that keep reappearing.

[Hecktix]

My only qualm with this idea, which is a very nice idea in princple, nvr however in practice I don't think it would work. For instance there isn't really that many things that get brought up again and again and again without being at least a little subjective.

Infact, the filter issue is the only thing I could think of that we could put in this thread as this is in my opinion the only thing that comes up again and again with the same points echoed around again and again, all other monthly feedback threads for instance "HxHD is dying" "HxL is crap" and "hang draw and quarter general management!" vary in context slightly so perhaps couldnt be given one individual response.

[Recursion]

Bad idea IMO. If it wasn't for the commonly discussed thread (filter) then ideas like this wouldn't come along.

[Nemo]

I quite like this, it would keep track of feedback ideas which come up. Often in feedback some really good ideas can come up but they can often can swept under the carpet because they get forgotten about or covered up by another 100 feedback threads which are loosely based around the same point.

This could kill two birds with one stone, stop the same thing getting posted all the time, but also keep a log of ideas which are good and need implementing.Speaking of good threads that get forgotten about, QUOTE NOTIFICATIONS ANYONE?

[Hecktix]

Speaking of good threads that get forgotten about, QUOTE NOTIFICATIONS ANYONE?

On our list, after a few more important things, don't worry.

[nvrspk4]

(Mostly @ Gomme and Oli but incorporating other points too)

I think I may have misarticulated the point of the stuck thread a bit. The stuck thread avoids having the same argument over and over. By no means will the thread be a comprehensive archive of every feedback thread and every management response. It will instead contain a list of common feedback posts (decided by management discretion), and the discussions that have taken place and what management's response is.

The reason for this would not be to stifle discussion, but to avoid rediscussing the same exact things that were discussed in the past. This thread would force users to come up with new arguments or explain why their argument was newly relevant.

Examples:
Get rid of the filter (here's why we won't get rid of it, here's the technical reason why an opt-out isn't viable now - if that situation has changed, it's reason to post a thread)
Raise the rep limit (here are previous threads, explain why your argument is more compelling than other ones)
Add features to Donator (this is the fansite rule, and we can't get around it - if you have extenuating circumstances then feel free to discuss it)
Hiring Procedures (Management will not discuss the process of hiring an individual, but may discuss the procedures used to hire staff in general)

etc. etc.

The tech caveat does apply to several things that are brought up time and time again, to be explained as "we can't do them for reason x, y, and z." If a user found a way that avoided the need for x, y, or z, then they know right away that their situation is different. Though I'm only remembering the filter right now, I know that there are multiple issues that commonly come up that aren't feasible for technical reasons.

[Grig]

I think you've got it spot on there. The amount of times I see the same feedback thread over and over again does get a bit repetitive. This could be a good solution and of course a good tool for newer users etc.

Although, the only way I would disagree with this is that it may ruin the discussion and constructive feedback process which sometimes comes out positively from some of these threads.

[GommeInc]

(Mostly @ Gomme and Oli but incorporating other points too)

I think I may have misarticulated the point of the stuck thread a bit. The stuck thread avoids having the same argument over and over. By no means will the thread be a comprehensive archive of every feedback thread and every management response. It will instead contain a list of common feedback posts (decided by management discretion), and the discussions that have taken place and what management's response is.

The reason for this would not be to stifle discussion, but to avoid rediscussing the same exact things that were discussed in the past. This thread would force users to come up with new arguments or explain why their argument was newly relevant.

Examples:
Get rid of the filter (here's why we won't get rid of it, here's the technical reason why an opt-out isn't viable now - if that situation has changed, it's reason to post a thread)
Raise the rep limit (here are previous threads, explain why your argument is more compelling than other ones)
Add features to Donator (this is the fansite rule, and we can't get around it - if you have extenuating circumstances then feel free to discuss it)
Hiring Procedures (Management will not discuss the process of hiring an individual, but may discuss the procedures used to hire staff in general)

etc. etc.

The tech caveat does apply to several things that are brought up time and time again, to be explained as "we can't do them for reason x, y, and z." If a user found a way that avoided the need for x, y, or z, then they know right away that their situation is different. Though I'm only remembering the filter right now, I know that there are multiple issues that commonly come up that aren't feasible for technical reasons.
You would still get people posting because of A) They've read the thread and have a point to make about a reason which may not be valid or B) They've not read the thread because they're so easily overlooked. You've not joined a forum to just read a thread afterall, you've come to discuss or read discussions :P

It's an interesting idea, but it would drag management away from being personable and approachable by the members, an issue that is interestingly brought up time and time again too :P Provided the management team make a clear and precise argument pointing out why it won't work e.g. "Security issues with a mod", then members would understand. I've noticed members tend to back down if the management are honest and point out that some things require not-so-secure modifications. When someone is clearly not being honest, you tend to get arguments and it does happen quite often - like change in argument and point :P

[nvrspk4]

You would still get people posting because of A) They've read the thread and have a point to make about a reason which may not be valid or B) They've not read the thread because they're so easily overlooked. You've not joined a forum to just read a thread afterall, you've come to discuss or read discussions :P

It's an interesting idea, but it would drag management away from being personable and approachable by the members, an issue that is interestingly brought up time and time again too :P Provided the management team make a clear and precise argument pointing out why it won't work e.g. "Security issues with a mod", then members would understand. I've noticed members tend to back down if the management are honest and point out that some things require not-so-secure modifications. When someone is clearly not being honest, you tend to get arguments and it does happen quite often - like change in argument and point :P

A) is fine in my view. The thread is not meant to cut off discussion completely but try to avoid rehashing the same exact argument. If they come up with a reason that is invalid, it can be explained why that reason is invalid.

B) not the best outcome, but it's going to happen. Oh well. I don't support enforcing reading of the thread through a rule, because I think by making it a rule you do run the risk of stifling discussion. If it's just a guideline, and members know that they won't actually be punished for posting the thread, instead knowing the only possible consequence would be everyone saying "read the thread this has been talked about", its not a huge problem IMO.

The reason this thread would be useful as well is that sometimes the "simple" threads get a page of member responses before a member of GM has the time to reply. In this case, discussion keeps flowing on the same things over and over because the management member's reply got lost. If there is a centralized location for at least the very commonly discussed issues, it allows any member to quickly reference that thread, and summarize the response from the start, before you start hitting multiple pages where replies get overlooked. That's just my experience with the situation though.

[Inseriousity.]

I think it'd be a dangerous route to go down really with management dictating discussion of the feedback forum. While I know you've said that you wouldn't want this thread to completely shut off discussion, I do think that it would. This is after all just a fansite not a business and a thread with a list of commonly discussed topics such as swearing filter etc sounds very intimidating to me especially if I was a new user giving feedback.

It is not as if these threads are so frequent (every month or so, it's normally about 3) to really worry about it too much.

[Sharon]

Yes and now, it would kill 1/2 of what happens in Feedback, sometimes it is good to rediscuss ideas too.

[AgnesIO]

To be fair, I don't think that many threads come up again and again regularly to make this worth the fuss.

You have to remember, despite every time an idea is suggested again, quite often something useful does come up in the feedback discussion

[Eoin247]

Seems like an alright idea. Only if management don't start closing threads and redirecting people here. I don't mind if you bring in some "feedback faqs" as long as this doesn't create a barrier to feedback discussion.