Please bring back old "Talk" forum format
 

Am I the only one that prefers the old Fodor's "Talk" format? It seems like the previous message board was much user friendly and easier to use. I seem to get lost on this new way of reading and responding to messages. I don't like it!

When they came out with automatic dishwashers, many people thought they were too complicated and preferred to wash dishes by hand. Many of us fought the idea of even getting a computer or doing email when it all first started -- it was so much easier to pick up a phone and call instead of all that email procedure. Get the point?

The other format was only more "user friendly" because you were used to it. If you follow the longer threads about the new forums, you'll learn how to use it and discover a lot of things that you can actually do more easily than before. Of course if your mind is made up that you don't want to learn anything new -- then of course, no one can change your mind.

I agree w/ NeoPatrick. There are TONS of threads (on every forum) discussing the good/bad/confusing bits. The new format has been up 10 days and there have already been several changes/improvements.

If you have specific questions - other than just "I don't like it" - try posting in the Forums Help board. Or you can send Katie an e-mail directly w/ your questions.

Maybe, by reading some of the threads over there, you'll figure out how to make the site work better for you.

And it was interesting for me to note that for al the incredible complaining earlier on, on Friday by 1PM, I counted more than 100 threads active for the day just in the Europe Forum. That's pretty much up to speed I think. (Though I did have to count them rather than look for the now -missing thread number--a small concern to me.)

I still don't care for the formats, AT ALL, but when I want good information and/or help this is one of my favorite places to turn so I guess out of desperation alone, I will keep returning.

I respectfully disagree that the other format was more user friendly just because we were used to it. There are definitely some significant improvements here: profiles, tagged trip reports, better search capability. But there are also some definite disadvantages that are NOT as user friendly - and not just because I was used to the old way. The archives section is not user friendly. I often like to go back more than the list displayed in recent activity. Now I NEVER do because it's so awkward. If I click on the previous day in archives, the titles come up in the text section rather than the left title section. So it's impossible to browse through them. Every time I select one to read it, I lose the title list - because what's in the left title column reverts to recent activity rather than the list I selected. Katie has explained that it's not possible (currently) to put the list of titles you've selected (by date) in the left column - but it's definitely not as user friendly. If I wanted to see the list of recent titles, I wouldn't have chosen to go back to the archives. It's frustrating when people assume because we might have complaints (and yes, I've submitted feedback on this) that we're merely being resistant to change and don't want a new dishwasher. I can assure you that is not the case, at least for me. I have no problem with change that brings improvements. And I see some improvements here. But other "features" are a step backward.

althom, forgive my ignorance, but that situation you described now is so much more terrible than the previous format where every time you posted a reply the list returned to the first 50 posts? How is it so much different or worse -- that feature always drove me nuts -- but I was USED to it? Same with the situation you describe.

In other words, unless I'm mistaken, in the past if you ever chose to post a reply to anything in the archives, it then reverted to a previous page, very much the same as it does now.

I agree with Patrick, but also with Ellenem. I would LOVE to have the topics numbered again. It helped me keep my place!

The bottom line is that the old talk format was using obsolete technology, so it can't be brought back. The best we can hope for is to give as much input as possible into the new design so that it works as well as possible for as many users as possible. The good news is that the web site designers have shown a willingness to change and have already incorporated many suggestions from the members of the community.

No two of us are going to agree 100% on all points. I thought the numbering was very confusing because it kept changing - and when I was a new user, I imagined that if my question was #23 it would always be #23.

I kind of wish the pink panel, with the queries, wouldn't go back up to the top every time I click on a new answer, but there are other features I like more - like having the tags and OP noted with every query-title - so it's a wash.

I'm at a point in my life where I'm really tired of change, but these changes are minor compared to stuff going on in "real" life. So time to shrug and go on, take what comes.

schoolmarm, Lots of different opinions, and thread on this topic on every forum, but there's no going back so it doesn't really matter.

I also found the old forum structure easier to use, easier to read and keep track of where I was. I won't bore you with the details but

my point, neo, was to respond to your comment that the only reason some of us don't like the changes is because we were used to the old way. that's not the case, and is insulting to boot. i have specific things i liked about the old version and specific things i like about the new version. i never once in my post said i liked anything about the old version because i was used to it. you seemed to be blasting anyone who has criticisms of the new forums as simply being adverse to change.

many, many people have complained about the change from the separate frames for titles and text and the fact that the pink column always goes back to the top, and even though I understand and appreciate why they had to change it, that doesn't mean i think that aspect is more user friendly. i don't. and not because i was "used to" how it was before.

and the archives are definitely not more user friendly - katie has acknowledged there are problems with them. it used to be that "next 50" brought up a list of 50 more titles. now it brings up a list of days (who cares about which day something was posted?). and when you click on a day, the titles show up in the text area and then each time you click on one of the titles you lose that list and have to click on that day again. at least with the previous version, the list of titles stayed put in the title area while you were browsing. for the way I use the forums, that was more user friendly - it has nothing to do with the fact that i was used to it.
and all that said, I DO like a number of things about the new forums, as i mentioned.

...ooops see I keep getting kicked out and losing my place. I do find this format much more cumbersome. And no it's not just because it's different, I learn new softwares without issue all the time at my office.

"you seemed to be blasting anyone who has criticisms of the new forums as simply being adverse to change."

Wow. One thing hasn't changed with the new forums. Some people's negativity still reigns surpreme. Althom, if you really read my response and interpreted my "forgive my ignorance" (because I readily admit my own ignorance of how these things work) and also call my asking a simple question, of how one thing is worse than the other -- as "blasting anyone" then I really can't help you. I was NOT blasting anyone -- I was trying to be helpful in discussion and asking what the difference was, in part because I've already forgotten exactly how some features of the old system worked. I am really sorry you can't see that. It seems to me that you are the one blasting ANYONE who tries to make sense of it all. Go ahead and blast away -- but don't accuse me of doing that.

And I'm sorry that you don't agree that ANYONE finds something they're used to as being easier to follow than an entire new format. I wasn't trying to be "insulting" as you suggest. I'm just surprised that you or anyone else would not find that to be true. You are indeed unique if you find a whole new format EASIER to use than something you are used to. That was ALL I was suggesting with that comment. If you wanted to twist my comments to suggest that is the ONLY reason someone doesn't like the format -- then again, I really can't help you.

In the future must I keep in mind that if I offer one suggestion or possible reason, I will be interpreted as having stated that is the ONLY possible reason or suggestion? Wow!

All I know is that on no other travel forum, including the old version of Fodor's, do I get "lost" so often as I do here now.

I was responding to this:

"The other format was only more "user friendly" because you were used to it. If you follow the longer threads about the new forums, you'll learn how to use it and discover a lot of things that you can actually do more easily than before. Of course if your mind is made up that you don't want to learn anything new -- then of course, no one can change your mind."

You didn't suggest you were offering one possible reason. Reread it. You stated it as a fact.

I was explaining that I find certain things about the new format less user friendly and NOT because I was used to it. And it's not that my mind is made up and I don't want to learn anything new. I found your comments to be a judgment - like it's black and white. You either like the new format or you don't. And if you don't, it's because you don't want to learn anything new. That's how I read it. If you didn't mean it that way, ok, my apologies. But my interpretation was valid. And your later reference to "excuse my ignorance" was acknowledgement that you realized it could be taken as sarcasm - which is exactly how I interpreted it. Again, if that's now how you meant it, ok. But that's how I felt when I read it. And if you'll read my other posts, you'll see that I'm not generally negative.
I thought your remarks were negative and judgmental, not mine. I was trying to explain that, for ME, I didn't find the other format more user friendly because I was used to it. I was simply voicing my opinion on some of the features of the new forums, not judging others for their opinions, which appeared to me to be what you were doing.
I do agree that there are probably some (in fact, many) who find something they're used to as easier than something new. I was just pointing out that the the something new may NOT always be better and that there might be valid reasons for not liking certain things about something new. Your post didn't seem to allow for that. It was a black and white: the other format was more user friendly because you were used to it. I begged to differ. That was all.

Thanks to everyone for replying to my original complaint. I will keep familiarizing myself with the forum format, and maybe I'll get the hang of it. I value this travel community's input. Contrary to my screenname, I'm really no Luddite.

althom, this is beyond silly, but the word "you" directed to one poster who has asked a question, refers to that person. If you read the original post and read my response, you should be able to figure that out. If you interpreted my direct comment to "you" being the original poster -- who seems more open minded than some others here -- as meaning "everyone in the entire world -- well, once again, I really can't help you. If someone asks about activities in a particular city and I respond "you will find these to your liking", it would take a very misguided poster to assume that I am saying EVERYONE in the world would fine those to their liking.

My comments were NOT insulting nor unfriendly. If you interpreted them as being so, then I really sorry for your attitude that you must seek out such negativity when none was meant. Good day! I do have one GOOD suggestion for you though, Althom -- I suggest in the future you never read my comments. Clearly I am not able to express myself to your satisfaction or to your comprehension.

Oh, wow, a fight. I haven't seen a good fight on a website since some years ago on the AOL France board.

This is not a fight. At least not on my part. I merely responded politely to a poster here and since then have been caught up in trying to re-explain what my intentions were to someone who totally took offense when none was intended and has twisted my words as being meant as absolutes.

We're exchanging a Model T Ford for a brand new Ferrari - well, maybe, not a Ferrari - just get used to driving something different.

I am liking the new format and this liking increases with increased usage. Lots ot like about the new format.

Let's just call the point mute, because I'm sure that Fodors will not be ditching the new design that I'm sure took them months and months of hard work to accomplish.

Let's even give them some thanks for all their hard work. I'm sure their intent was not to confuse and alienate, but to improve.

They took so much time and energy for this, let's repay them by giving it some work on our part to use it and get used to it.

I've found that using the back arrow helps me from getting lost, took a while to figure that out and I sometimes forget anyway. Still getting used to a new system takes time.

It's funny - I just saw a piece on the Today show a few days ago about how apologizing. One of the ways they said NOT to apologize was to say "I'm sorry for YOUR attitude." They said it makes it clear that the apologizer is not sorry in the least and is blaming the other person. I was not seeking out negativity - it just jumped out at me. If you want to apologize for yourself or how you came across, ok. But please don't apologize for my interpretation. Ahem, I think that's my prerogative.

I do realize now that your comments were not MEANT as insulting or unfriendly, but that's how they came across to me ("get the point?"). The unfortunate thing about the written word is that the tone is not always clear to the reader. It seemed to me you were assuming that the OP just didn't like change. I was offering a viewpoint that some (myself, for one) may dislike certain aspects of the new format because they really are less user friendly - not just because they're new - and your comments didn't seem to allow for that as an option.

I agree this has gone too far. Rather than apologize for your attitude, though, I'll apologize for my own. Like yourself, my intent was just to offer my own perspective on the forums.

And as I've said several times, I like a lot of the new features -I agree there's much to like. I was simply commenting on one aspect I don't like. New dishwasher or not, it ain't perfect.
And neo, you don't need to re-explain your intentions. I understand that you did not intend to come across the way I interpreted it. I hope you'll grant me the same graciousness.

easytraveler we're exchanging the Model T for a Ford Pinto
;-) that's the problem.

I hate the new style!!!

When I want to read a thread I right click on it and open it in a new window. That way I have my original list and can work my way down. I even did that on the old format.
Getting lost on these boards is one of my favorite activities.

See what I mean about your misinterpreting what I say, althom? I'm assuming you are speaking to me about apologizing. Why, I have no idea! You misunderstood me once again. I was NOT apologizing, nor even attempting to do so. I didn't do anything to apologize for in my book, so you're right -- I'm NOT sorry for that in the least. But I did sort of suggest that I felt "sorry" for you if you only can see negative when people are trying to be positive. There are other uses for the word sorry besides apologies.

I have no qualms with what you say or what you think -- except when you argue that the example I give isn't the "ONLY" thought or opinion (of course it isn't), or try to suggest that I was indicating it was.

But we agree on one thing. Let's move on.

That's OK NP, I haven't understood half of what Althom is on about.

"<i>And neo, you don't need to re-explain your intentions. I understand that you did not intend to come across the way I interpreted it. I hope you'll grant me the same graciousness.</i>" -- talk about passive/aggressive . . . .

Althom: You say <i>The archives section is not user friendly</i>" That is a declarative sentence w/ no room for debate. However it is just your opinion. In my opinion, since they added the "View all of today's activity" on each forum, it has actually become easier to go back and read lots of threads w/o having to page back every 50 entries like before. On an active forum like Europe or the Lounge, one used to have to page back 4 or 5 or 6 times just to see all the current activity. Now it is one mouse click.

Between that and the much better search function (heck, ANY search function) it is a lot easier to find old threads as well as active ones.

Some of the new features are silly IMO - like the "Recent Popular Topics" or "New Topics" -- but they are really just window dressing. The guts of the site/forums are working much better. It will take most of us some time to get used to all the new whistles and bells - and we'll end up using/ignoring the ones we like/don't like.

But activity is already up a bit over what it was on the old platform, so <i>some</i> people must be happy . . . . .

I disliked the new format at first and I told them so. After getting over my initial displeasure, I made several suggestions - most of which they adopted and now I like it at least as well as the old format and perhaps a little better

janisj: I never said I was not happy with the new forum. I said I was not happy with a couple of features. I thought I made it clear that I LIKE many of the new features. Sorry (yes, an apology) I didn't make myself clear. I find the archives section frustrating. I've seen numerous comments along the same lines in other forums. Katie has acknowledged that the archives need work. So it's not just MY opinion. You're right that on an active board, fewer clicks are required, but on a less active forum, such as Latin America, and certain tagged sections in Asia and Middle East/Africa, it requires many, many clicks to go back multiple days because there are often only a very few posts in a day. It is extremely cumbersome (my opinion - but also that of many other posters). I love these forums - spend much time here - and don't generally participate in any disagreements. I was just commenting on what I thought was an assumption on neo's part that because someone didn't like the new boards (or even specific features) it was solely because they weren't open to change, rather than that there might be anything at all wrong with the change.

I agree the new format works better on the US and Europe board that have more daily postings, over Latin America which is a quieter forum and does in fact take lost more 'clicks' and scrolling to find your way around.

I like the new format, especially the user profiles. It helps me remember who's who.

Boy, this new format is really screwed up. There are no posts for Feb. 29, 30, or 31. Jeesh.

sobster: LOL! Good one!

suze: it's not really that bad! :)

And it's probably not the editors' fault, but the fault of the new software. Just think of how many versions of Windows you've gotten and the different revisions.

moot, not mute
I like the new format. I find it easy to use and like the new features. The changes don't bother me, especially when the editors add back in things that we have asked for. I learned on this board that makes me a "Fodor's Apologist". Who knew? :-)
LOL, sobster! That damn new format!!!

Oh starrs you are so right. It is spelled moot. I was pronouncing it moot in my head, but my fingers typed it mute. I hate it when people say mute point. Alas, no edit button!

I hadn't been here for a while, until a couple days ago and the new layout took me completely by surprise. I hate it.

And, not to resurrect anything or fan the flames, but my first thought on reading your initial reply, NP, was that it came on awfully strong and a bit obnoxious - I know you've been around here for years and years and are a valuable contributor, so I was surprised. Just a matter of 'tone,' I suppose that wasn't intended to come off as it did.

But as for the whole new look of this forum and trying to navigate it....I still hate it!

Gee, tuckerdc, did my post come off as "strong and a bit obnoxious" as yours just did? I found your post terribly offensive to be honest. Maybe that too was the 'tone'.

No problem, kb.
Love your screen name BTW :-)