Faos Etc

[EcclesCake]

I've lost track of where this discussion has got to but is there any kind of plan to have a category for FAOs. It will almost certainly be abused but it is becoming a little tedious.

There are frequently threads directed to 'the experts' which don't take account of the expertise of others and are therefore self limiting. Particularly when there is a poster with more recent and pertinent experience.

And then there are the FAOs along the lines of 'Thanks Chumbawamba I've fixed it'

Not to mention the 'FAO Eric, are you about?'

Yes, you can avoid them but sometimes it is difficult to especially when they are in a specialist category rather than Chatterbank!

Please either a tightening/reminder of the rules or a 'Calling your Name' category.

[AB Editor]

"Given the drop if in regular and well established contributors I would say that acquiring and keeping new members is pretty damn important."

I would be interested in why you have this impression?

[ummmm]

I don't want tight control. What on earth gave you that idea?

[DTCwordfan]

So then define precisely what you do want.....that may be a good starting position from one of the 'senior' ABers in terms of time on here and volume of messages.

Your pretty strong position on the two said threads over the last 36 hours or so does give this impression, ummmm, rightly or wrongly so.

[Mamyalynne]

I suppose everyone uses the site their own way - for me it is like a magazine I may pick up. I turn a page and may sigh 'oh not that' so flick over and see what's next, the next page may grab my attention, who knows.

[DTCwordfan]

A good analogy, Mamya.....

[cazzz1975]

Im in favour of cutting down the "FAO" posts, The FAO can then become a question that is open to all and there is probably a good chance the recipient of the FAO would reply on it anyway.

[mccfluff]

i can think of a few long term users who have left the site, not ones who posted just in cb but posters whose expertise was invaluable

[carrust]

I sometimes use this site as a magazine. The only problem with that is some of the pages are stuck together;-)

[AB Editor]

Mccfluff - Me too, but there was a more general impression I got from Eccles post which seemed to suggest it was a bigger problem.

[mazie]

That's how I use AB as well Mamya. We have a choice to read or not to read. I can think of a few members that have joined via Q&P over the past 12 months and they have been made welcome and joined in across several Topics. I have been guilty of the dreaded FAO threads on a couple of occasions when I have been worried about a health problem. I addressed my post to Sqad but got some very helpful answers from other members, who never seem put off that people are asking sqad. Can't see the problem myself.

[Mamyalynne]

It would be sad to think that posters such as you describe Fluff have left over something like FAO posts or so called 'In' threads.

[bednobs]

haven't users always come and gone though? Has anyone noticed it's more recently and know it's because of fao posts?
my opinion is thus (not that anyone cares!)
1) people have always come and gone and i haven't noticed it especially more at the moment
2) ed could trial an fao section, and get rid of it if it's no good?

[cazzz1975]

I dont think FAO posts are deterring users

[EcclesCake]

Cazz, thank you for your 14.14 post.

ABEd, I don't wish to shy away from your query or my statement but I am not comfortable naming those who have disappeared or tapered off in their posting. It would be unfair as some have disappeared entirely and others have simply adjusted their style of posting.

[ummmm]

Nor do I Cazzzz. It's nothing to do with FAO imo...

[shoota]

Perhaps one solution would be to fit a 'no thank you' button in the title box so that if you click on a question that irks/upsets you you may click on the button and stop it appearing in your latest post list again.

It would be very useful for AOG's threads......

[mccfluff]

ok this is what i did last night (look away if you are sensitive)

i opened up to have a nose through the AB mag (great analogy mamya)

got to the thread in cb, wondered what it was about, read a few pages thought, i have no idea what this is about, i'm going to go do something else. Sometimes I go nose round in F&D or media/news other times i just go surfing elsewhere, as i did last night

that's just me and i've been around yonks and i'm not particularly interested or bothered about what other people natter about, so how does it come across to newbies?

[DTCwordfan]

ouch ^

[Mamyalynne]

Well if those posters have disappeared for other reasons it is their right, I know of a few and the reasons are absolutely nothing to do with AB - rather something much deeper within their lives.

[China Doll]

For me there is one 'group' in CB that chat alot and mainly inanane and fairly exclusive rubbish a lot of the time. Then there is another 'group' who dislike this and point it out a lot in an inanne and fairly predictable way which ends up just looking like tit for tat - Ummmm and DTCrossword have kindly provided an excellent example on this thread - you can read these and you know exactly who's going to wade in where with their size 10's. The second group are not immune to doing threads which feel exclusive either. A few users straddle both groups and try to keep the peace. I find all this this even more boring than the FAO threads.

FAO threads are exclusive by their nature. That said, if I ever had a law question, while I wouldn't do an FAO there would be about five users who I'd really hope would answer - I might not say it but it's there in the back of my mind.

Ultimately I think CB is a small chunk of the site which is fortunate, because I'm finding the fairly constant backbiting tedious so at least there are other sections to go to.

Also, while I'm on my high horse, I was peed off Eccles had an answer removed recently which I thought was pertinant to the thread. I know this has nothing to do with anything but it's one of the few times this site has bugged me and as I'm on my soap box, I thought I might as well throw that in too. :c)