Sick of it - Forum Improvements

kepetersen · Jan 24, 2009

Re: Sick of it

mikewegener said:
Everything is fine the way it is. Don't change nothing.

I couldn't agree more. Ron does a brilliant job and I love this site the way it is – don't change nuthin'.

Kim

Pantera1889 · Jan 24, 2009

Re: Sick of it

Ron Earp said:
Another thread seemingly gone off track and bad again.

Maybe there is a common denominator?????
Not very hard to see.

Jim Downard · Jan 24, 2009

Re: Sick of it

O.K. I'm going to let the cat out of the bag. When you see three ghosts on a thread at one time, it's "ME, MYSELF, and I". And just so everyone knows, I'm not as crazy as I think I are.

ChrisMartino · Jan 25, 2009

Re: Sick of it

Back to "sick of it" - I only speak for myself but I am sure most MDA owners, being a very small group are tired of these kinds of threads started by other parties that have nothing invested and come off like the lords savior to protect the market. I have been in constant contact with most MDA owners who are in the build stages that participate on another forum to discuss ALL matters relating to MDA. I do not have specific details to MDA's plans for 2009 but to my knowledge and recent contact with Mark is that he is still trading and is working with MDA owners to supply parts to fill the orders. I have stood beside those who have had to wait for parts for whatever reason for too long (as I did) because in times like that the brotherhood support feels good.

If you don't own an MDA then you have nothing invested, which means you have nothing to worry about.

Chris
$50,000 invested so far, I have a right to comment.

Amazing how my rep power went to zero so quickly?

Ron Earp · Jan 25, 2009

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format

ther; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Verdana; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1593833729 1073750107 16 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} span.EmailStyle15 {mso-style-type

ersonal; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Verdana; mso-hansi-font-family:Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; color:windowtext;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> I’ve done a lot of thinking about the forum whilst away for a week. One of the complaints that I’ve heard from some parties is that the forum quality isn’t what it used to be with respect to technical matters. I pondered this complaint, recalling many threads I’ve been reading over the last weeks that are quite rich in technical matters. I came to the conclusion that the forum might have just as many, or more, tech rich threads as it used to have. <o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
I had a look at the statistics from 2003/2004/2005 and it supports my hypotheses. But what has happened to the forum is while the tech threads have remained pretty much constant at say X, the number of “crap threads” has increased dramatically since 2005. So the percentage of "technical threads" on the forum has dropped although their absolute value has been constant or increased. I feel the increases in "crap threads" can be directly attributed to:<o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
1) More vendor involvement, vendor forums, and friction from said vendors, more aggressive vendor tactics on the forum<o

></o

>
2) More open partisanship about brands of GT40s, more “pot stirring” from members<o

></o

>
3) Formation of a few non-GT40 forums for related cars/topics<o

></o

>
4) Dramatic increase in membership – in 2005 we had roughly 2500 members with a large percentage inactive. We’ve got almost four times that now with a smaller percentage inactive. More people means more diversity in posts.<o

></o

>
5) Formation of the paddock (didn’t exist before 2003 but in 2005/2006 really took off with respect to percentage of posts on GT40s.com)<o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
So I’m going to think about these points, and points that folks bring up that stem from this discussion, and see what we can do to actively reduce the number of “crap threads” or digressions on the forum. Ideas and suggestions are welcome.<o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
Ron<o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>

monkeyboy · Jan 25, 2009

i am confussed...my name is james rudland and my username is monkeyboy....am i doing something wrong!!!!!!!!!..... i think this site is amazing and such a mass of helpful information.....it is where i found john who is helping build my car.... i say keep up the good work???? my only worry was the amount of slagging of between companies, that was using the site as a soap box??????

Jay Cushman · Jan 25, 2009

Scott and Ron;

Is it possible that the 2 lines on the box you were talking about on the bottom of the page listing the viewers and the numbers are not both in real time and 1 has a delay which keeps both totals from matching?

Dlampe · Jan 25, 2009

Chris M., I agree with you. I have read the MDA stuff but I don't have a dog in that race so I will not comment. RCR has a similar problem. Every time there is a less favorable comment, this group of pot stirring "forum police" inject themselves into the conversation presumably for the good of the community. I think they just get a thrill when others are struggling. Thats sad. Oh yeah, if you think I am talking about you, I probably am. I think people know its wrong to behave that way but the INTERNET lets these weak little people hide behind their keyboards. I like the RCR forum because I have one and it is a great source of information. The vender's support this sight and their forums. They are for people who own or want to own there cars. If that isn't you then be nice when you visit their space on this forum.

jnielsen · Jan 25, 2009

Ron,
I think it is good for people to discuss difficulties they have with either a brand design or service. It helps to solve the problem. I think that everyone who deals with these kinds of cars realizes that they are a limited production and delays can happen for various reasons. In my research I found many different design, packages and levels of completion. All at different prices. There is many choices for buyers. Also location will have alot to do with that decision. If someone is smart the research the products to find the best for their needs and pocket book. I do feel that a manufacturer bashing another doesnt do them any good, as that view is obviously biased. All of the GT packages are of very high quality. Some lean more towards originality than others. But in the end they are all nice cars and this forum is a great place to learn about them. As I said in my research I didnt find one bad GT kit out there.
Keep the forum as it is Ron. There are alot of great people here. I have certianly enjoyed it and if I am ever out that way I will buy the first round.

Jim Nielsen

Mark Worthington · Jan 25, 2009

Ron, I agree with your conclusion that there is still a lot of good tech here, but that the denominator in the signal/noise ratio has been going up. I think there are a number of causes for this, including:

The Paddock (that's OK - that's where the "noise" is supposed to be).
The increasing popularity of turnkey cars like SPF and many of RCR's cars that people have built for them by others - these builders simply don't run into as many of the problems that require tech as scratch-builders or the traditional kit builders. Not much to be done about this.
Members who don't own a GT40 or any other custom car. Some of these guys bring the tech. Most don't.
Forum metrics such as post count and rep points that encourage people to post just to see their name in lights or to back up one of their buddies or to detract from a competing vendor, which adds almost nothing but noise.
The vendors and their forums. We've all seen the sniping that takes place. A lot of the posts can be summed up in one word - hucksterism. I personally think that much of what gets posted in the RCR forum has effectively dumbed down the site, if not overwhelmed the site. A number of people have told me that GT40s.com is no longer Ron Earp's's forum, it's Fran Hall's forum. Also consider the fact that the RCR posse not only includes Fran, but it now seems to include Chris Melia, Egiltom, Craig W., Gregg, Molleur and several others. Some of these guys have little checkered flags next to their user names, some don't. Some, like Craig W., use an avatar that clearly shows their affiliation with RCR, others don't. I note that Fran has been uncharacteristically less of a presence on the forum lately, as I guess he has business other than self promotion on gt40s.com to take care of, yet he has a lot of his crew doing his promotion for him. When self promotion brings tech to the table, then that's great. Usually, however, it's smiley-face emoticons and pictures of shiny aluminum and gelcoat.

I think it's too late to un-do much of this stuff, like the multiple sub-forums and the vendor forums, but here are my recommendations:

Eliminate post count. A user's post count has no correlation with the value of the content they bring to the forum, but a lot of users seem to think a high post count gives them increased credibility. If you get rid of it you eliminate one potential incentive to post useless drivel in the name of driving up post count.
Eliminate the rep system. See above. It's an even less reliable measure of what a user brings to the forum. It's like an out-of-control high-school popularity contest.
Promote better use of the search function (and make sure the search engine is properly tuned up). How many posts do we get on Audi transaxle codes, or Gulf paint color codes, or which is the best replica? The use of the search engine, when recommended, is done gently, so as not to offend anyone. I suggest a little less kndness be directed toward those who are too put-out to bother with the search engine.
Encourage people to think before they hit the submit button. Are they really adding value? Do they have any real downside now if they post something useless?
Put some teeth into how the forum is moderated, or accept the fact that the S/N ratio will continue to decrease. Ron, when you posted your hiatus thread the other week, there was an incident at about that time where a member was trying to sell DVDs in a forum other than the classifieds, and a copyright issue came up. This member has added absolutely nothing to this forum in terms of useful tech in the several years he has been in and out of here. Why is he back? Why is he still here? I suspect the reason is that you are too nice a guy to permanantly ban him.
Lastly, I think that any forum that accepts vendor sponsorship has set itself up for potential conflict of interest when that vendor's products or practices may be called into question. I have seen other forums go to crap because vendors came to dominate the forum, and quell any dissent. We're not there yet with tthis forum, but we're on our way. I would eliminate vendor sponsorships and vendor sub-forums. But that's easy for me to say because I don't pay the bills.

aladinsane · Jan 25, 2009

.....I would eliminate vendor sponsorships and vendor sub-forums....

Some good points Mark.

IMHO, this could very well be the key subject regarding s\n just by it's very nature. One on one all vendors have tremendous amounts to offer and I respect all of them but having them in a community as this there are bound to be issues like we have experienced now and then.

I, for one, would join others in additional contributions to offset the loss of vendors sponsorship.

Scott Calabro · Jan 25, 2009

That would be quite a bit of increased member support!

Just a quick total from public info posted on this site, funds coming in total approx $18900 USD.

MFG's & vendors account for $12,800 USD anually.

That would mean that annual members would have to pony up an extra $132 each year if supporting member levels stay the same.

Premier sponshorships are not included as they are one time contributions, and I only have access to what is shown on "View Forum Leaders" and "Support GT40's.com"

Here is the quick and dirty breakdown:

Gold, 33 @ 100 per year = 3300
Silver, 14 @ 75 per year = 1050
Bronze, 50 @ 35 = 1750
12 Supporting Vendors @ 400 yr = 4800
8 Banner Adverts @ 800yr = 8000
Total 18,900

My suggestion would be to have private MFG forums.

Anyone could view them but the MFG'S would be responsible to moderate and grant posting access to those members who met said MFG's individual requirements.

The other forums would be left up to the regular admin to deal with.

This accomplishes two things;

1). It retains the current level of income to the forum.

2). It formally separates competing interests.

p thompson · Jan 25, 2009

monkeyboy said:
i am confussed...my name is james rudland and my username is monkeyboy....am i doing something wrong!!!!!!!!!..... i think this site is amazing and such a mass of helpful information.....it is where i found john who is helping build my car.... i say keep up the good work???? my only worry was the amount of slagging of between companies, that was using the site as a soap box??????

Hi James - don't take it to heart as I think Ron was just picking a random name on the membership to explain his point about user verification and not aiming anything specifically at you..

His point being that it is not practical to check every user that registers to the forum. If they are spammers - it is pretty much obvious and as soon as I spot spam, I delete it, + all any other posts from that user, and ban the user/ip for life.. To those that report it via the admin message system, keep up the good work as I get these emails through to my iPhone and can act on them very quickly, even if not near a PC.

When a user registers, us (admins) confirming that the email address is valid means nothing as spammers can set up an email address that would test valid and still get through. We can't email all of them and calling them would be daft too, so for me the current system works. Also, username and realname may or may not be correct either. I AM Paul Thompson and I appear on here as p thompson. On numerous other forums my name is paul thompson but my username is Thommohawk, a throwback to me being nicknamed 'Thommo' as an apprentice and on a bike forum I frequent and everyone knows me as Thommo too. Of course, I don't particularly see the point of being for example BigBlock Chevy with a username of Chebby, but to an extent, does it really matter?? - I could have registered with the name of Richard Clark, username of Rich-C and it still wouldn't be my REAL name - see my point???

On another note, I'm posting this whilst being invisible, I set myself invisible a while back becuase, as like Ron, I noticed that I started getting more emails/pms when I was visibly online. As I regularly frequent this board, it's easier for me to keep an eye on things and delete spam etc without feeling I have to respond within a short time-frame, esp as I am often working elsewhere when I have this open in another window...

I also log in as a separate window as Administrator so I can check on other posts whilst having the facility to delete spam, check the odd dubious user id etc... This may make me appear on the listing at the bottom of the screen invisibly twice - I don't know for sure but as I could also log on as 'guest' and view all the same I'm not sure it really matters.

Re the advertising Vendors, Forums cost money to run, Ron adds upgrades and options where deemed appropriate but all things cost money. I still think the 'free user' option is a good idea, although it would be nice to think that anyone frequenting the forum regularly would consider it a service worth subscribing to to help cover those costs.

Vendors bring welcome revenue to the ongoing hosting / development costs I'm sure and in the main are very much a good idea in my opinion. It would be good to think that they consider it worthwhile to help promote their wares/services and Ron takes careful consideration in accepting their adverts, making sure that they would offer some worthwhile / appropriate services to the forum. I'm sure no-one wants to have 'Fred Bloggs Insurance' or 'Jimmy Jones Car Rentals' Banners across the top as whilst they would no doubt welcome the internet exposure, they would likely add little else to the forum.

Sponsored forum sections, not sure about that one as most of the issues recently have been associated with specific marques of one sort or another. On the positive side I think they are good in that they focus/collate posts about each sponsors product in that area so that someone interested in that marque can easily view related posts, without trawling through lots of others that are likely less relevant to them at that time. On the negative side it seems that there ends up a them and us attitude which then seems to promote rant's/raves/digs/sarcasm and general ill feeling between the various mfrs/vendors. For my part, sponsors get no different treatment than a general user, as a non-owner that has been blessed to have driven many I offer no favour to any specific marque, although much of my technical knowledge/experience has been primarily with GTDs.

Reputation points - yep, I too think this is probably less than helpful. You might think that it would work but again, inter-marque in-fighting / ganging up on persons does it no justice.. As an admin I can view the reputation system where users rate others, together with their comments when entered and sometimes it looks like its working and other times it doesnt. You can also spot the odd occasion where a particular user is having a general dig at multiple users. It is NOT something that I would ever consider moderating as there is already enough for the mods/admins to keep on top off so if it does not seem to be working - ignore it.

Post count I think is a useful inclusion and can work in poitive ways. People will guage a users 'forum experience' from it and treat them accordingly, so for example, give a warm welcome to new users and hopefully guide/help them in their quest for information. I would like to think that people don't post just to increase their post count - why bother?

I too think the notion of getting people to 'THINK BEFORE THEY HIT THE SUBMIT REPLY BUTTON' is the key to keeping a good s/n ratio. I have on occasion started a post or reply and then had second thought, hitting the delete key before ever submitting. Easy rule there, if you're not sure your post/reply will ADD to the thread or make sensible reading, then DON'T press that button.... If everyone did this, the forum would be a much better place!

Well that's all, I'm sure that Ron will consider all avenues in ensuring that the forum remains a friendly, fun and interesting place to be. Long may that continue..

EDIT: after typing the above, received another pm re spam - user store22 Nokia post..
Spam deleted and user/ip banned - thanks for the PM Johann...

ArnieSmith · Jan 25, 2009

Mark,
Why the poke at Fran Hall and RCR?

Chris Melia · Jan 25, 2009

To Mark Worthington
(as you brought my name up).

You have over 1800 posts and no rotating symbol next to your name?
The absence of the rotating symbol indicates that you make no financial contribution to the upkeep of the forum and yet you say so much about those that do contribute?
Do you not think its worth a financial contribution?
Is it an error that your revolving symbol is missing?
Do you think its ok to free load?

PS. I am not affiliated to RCR nor do I speak on their behalf.…

Regards
Chris.

Ron Earp · Jan 25, 2009

Paul, Mark, et. al,<o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
There are some extremely good points in these posts. There is some misinformation here too, such as how much income the forum brings in (I wish it brought in $18,000 a year, we’d have a 10 hr week programmer to run the place!). 2008 was one of the first years with a slight surplus, like $800-$1000 more than it cost to operate. I don't have the exact figures on this computer but I can get them later.
<o

> </o

>
Some random thoughts:<o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
*Rep system – probably not that useful. S-Can it.<o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
*Post count – could go either way here.<o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
*RCR site – I don’t agree here but if one were to simply look at New Posts you’ll see a lot of RCR specific posts in that forum that appear on the “New Posts” page. The cars are popular, lots of people have them If people have them they generate posts. Not so much different than in the RF 1 Heyday circa 2004/2005. I'll look into the RCR vendor situation to make sure they are all properly IDed but I thought they were.<o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
*Search engine – does need work and I need to optimize it.<o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
*Rules – we could use a clear re-statement of the rules and Paul and I can enforce heavily. Any particular rules we need that are not already on our rules list?<o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
*Registration – Paul called that one, we’re not going to an approved system for every user. Paul and I do this “for fun”, not as a job.<o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
*Vendors – we need advertisement revenue but I’d say most of the headache comes with the vendor specific forums and vendors “selling” on threads all over the forum. We could construct some rules that maybe outlawed vendors “selling” in any forum but the Manufacturer’s Annoucement forum or their own subforum. Or, we could eliminate sub forums all together. Banner ads are a good thing though. Brings folks products they might be interested in, allows manufactures a way to inexpensively advertise to a target audience.<o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
*Spam – spam is pretty well under control. Paul and I delete span every day but I would reckon *most* of you never see it, and thus don’t even know we do that. <o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
*Raise the average user intelligence? Not sure how to do that. But we can encourage behavior by acting out the behavior we wish to foster…..<o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
Got to go to do real work in a desert location. Discuss!<o

></o

>
<o

> </o

>
Ron<o

></o

>

Doug68 · Jan 25, 2009

Hi Ron,

Not wishing to make more work for Ron (maybe someone else will take the idea on?). On searching for information, on the site I feel that essentially however good the search engine is a news group is the wrong medium to store the data in.
What would be better would be a Wiki type area for this fixed type knowledge such as 'Audi transmission codes and gear ratios' or 'Gulf paint codes' etc.

On the other rules, I think vendors shouldn't be posting in other vendors forums or doing overt selling in parts of the forum other than their section.

The internet is a fantastic tool which used for good - evil or anything in between. One of the things it's particularly good at is making people look like dick heads when they say - do the wrong thing (I know I've done it). Maybe the answer would be introduced a "Dick Head" meter (Like the thumbs on YouTube). If 12 of your peers think you've just made an ass of yourself by a post then it disappears? Keep getting the thumbs down and you're suspended or off of the site?

Anyway, major respect to Ron for keeping the site going, I have a hard enough time just adding to my build blog now and again.

Jim C · Jan 26, 2009

Mark W some good points.
Doug not a bad idea the d/head meter.
We all could have used that at some stage.

If those are figures for paying members 33 gold, 14 silver, 50 bronze.
Seriously guys what a bunch of tight arse's.

Even at $35 a member will get way more info specific to the vehicles they are building off this site than any other I have seen.
How do I do this, were do I get that from ,how much is that worth TO YOU.
For the last 26years I have owned and run an Automotive workshop servicing and repairing cars here in Sydney, the biggest thing, INFORMATION.
In my industry I pay for info and I pay more than $35 a year.
Ron I think you should think about a minimum fee, they get one months grace then you pay if you like what you see.
These extra fees could go towards restructuring the site as you see fit.

Jim

jimbo · Jan 26, 2009

Good luck. As a moderator on another forum I have found that you can't legislate civility. You can encourage it, I think. People SHOULD think before they post; maybe this discussion will make them do so.

I do feel that if people have disagreements they should handle them privately. As in emails and PMs. I am tired of watching other people fight. If they want to do it between themselves, fine, but do we all have to read it?

iank2112 · Jan 26, 2009

Going to Google and typing in:

site:www.gt40s.com

in addition to your query/search terms will give you solid results.

Ian

Sick of it - Forum Improvements

Kim Petersen

Ron McCall

Jim Downard

Chris Martino

Ron Earp

james Rudland

Jay Cushman

Dean Lampe

Jim Nielsen

Mark Worthington

Tim Kay

Scott Calabro

Paul Thompson 'Hooligan'

ArnieSmith

Ron Earp

Doug Clark

Jim Cowden

Jim Rosenthal

Ian K