Please bring back old "Talk" forum format
Feb 28th, 2009, 06:38 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Feb 28th, 2009, 06:54 PM
#2
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Feb 28th, 2009, 07:01 PM
#3
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.
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.
Feb 28th, 2009, 08:28 PM
#4
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.)
Mar 1st, 2009, 04:41 AM
#6
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.
Mar 1st, 2009, 05:30 AM
#7
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Mar 1st, 2009, 06:22 AM
#9
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.
Mar 1st, 2009, 06:23 AM
#10
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Mar 1st, 2009, 08:29 AM
#11
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
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
Mar 1st, 2009, 08:30 AM
#12
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.
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.
Mar 1st, 2009, 08:30 AM
#13
...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.
Mar 1st, 2009, 09:21 AM
#14
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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!
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!
Mar 1st, 2009, 09:40 AM
#16
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.
"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.
Mar 1st, 2009, 09:43 AM
#17
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Mar 1st, 2009, 09:52 AM
#18
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Mar 1st, 2009, 10:39 AM
#20
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
