Suggestion‏

boristbear

Mariner13 wrote: »

Why is "if it ain't broke don't fix it" defeatist. Changes are only good if they change things for the better. Imo (and the opinion of many others who have contributed to this thread) the changes TT proposes wont make things better.

This forum die It seems more popular than ever to me. I see no evidence of it dieing whatsoever.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and i respect yours and TT's, however the post you made earlier, and even the one quoted above, seem to be looking at things from just your perspective. This forum is not about you, and should not adjust itself to suit you. Ideally it should be as the majority want it, however even then it's Martin's forum so he can arrange it as he sees fit. People (myself included) can either like it or lump it.

I agree it's always good to look at ways of improving things, but making changes for changes sake isn't always the best. I don't think i've been defensive in any way, and neither have others such as MK or NichStuff - we've just given our opinions the same as you. It would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything.

I mentioned the Will Hill Bogof thread earlier, and the points you make are valid. However TT's suggestion wouldn't change that thread at all. The thread is an "offers" thread - it alerts people to the prospect of making money, however like you said it is littered with pointless (in some peoples opinion) chat. I believe that even TT doesn't expect BGs to weed out the chatty posts from the thread. He stated that as long as the original post contained an offer, then that thread would remain on his "offers board", and he would expect discussion of said offer - TT if that is not accurate then please correct me and explain exactly how the changes you propose would affect that specific thread.

Final point - you mention "wading through 2-3 pages" - does it really take that long ? - I just hold down my left mouse button on the slider thing on my window and move very quickly up and down the page. Takes next to no time really. In fact, ironically, i reckon i could have skimmed through the last couple of pages in every thread on pages1 and 2 in the time i've spent typing this post:rolleyes:

I agree with most of what you say other than your actual opinion re. TT suggestion. For me it would be good. That's all I'm saying. I know the forum is not just about me but my opinion should be as valid as anybody else's. I would be grateful if you could refrain from the patronising 'this forum is not just about you' comments as there is no need and I find them offensive.

I think there is a real danger of you and a few others bulldozing your views about this sort of thing. You just do not come across as open to ideas or discussion. I hope I am wrong but I believe there may be people not wanting to disagree with you 'old timers' and therefore not posting their true opinions.

My comments re. the willhill BOGOF threat were proceeded by 'Off Topic' as they were entirely unrelated to the thread - just a comment re. the willhill thread being an example of how the board is working well.

Mariner13

Well it appears we agree on a couple of points at least TT

The rest i'm more than happy to agree to disagree with you.

:beer:

Mariner13

boristbear wrote: »

I agree with most of what you say other than your actual opinion re. TT suggestion. For me it would be good. That's all I'm saying. I know the forum is not just about me but my opinion should be as valid as anybody else's. I would be grateful if you could refrain from the patronising 'this forum is not just about you' comments as there is no need and I find them offensive.

I think there is a real danger of you and a few others bulldozing your views about this sort of thing. You just do not come across as open to ideas or discussion. I hope I am wrong but I believe there may be people not wanting to disagree with you 'old timers' and therefore not posting their true opinions.

My comments re. the willhill BOGOF threat were proceeded by 'Off Topic' as they were entirely unrelated to the thread - just a comment re. the willhill thread being an example of how the board is working well.

Fair enough, it is a bit of a pet hate of mine, people using the expression "I want" - I'm also more than happy for people to post their opinions, regardless of whether they are the same of mine, but i do get annoyed sometimes when they state them as fact, rather than as just their opinion.

I don't accept that the example of the will hill bogof topic is OT. If you read TT's original post, you will see his aim is to separate the majority of "chat" from offers. I don't believe this can be done, and the above thread is an example of this. Other threads that spring to mind where this cant be done are the Fair and Square thread., the Beat Victor thread and the WinUtd thread.

I intend to bow out of this thread now, as i've said all can (more than once!) and my opinion wont change. I do think it would be interesting to have a vote, on the subject, but even if that happens i feel that the proposed changes would be unlikely to happen even if the vote supported them - that's just my opinion based on the knowledge of how mse works during my time here. As an example, when Vetfred set up the Greatwood charity thing, many of us (including myself and a majority of posters imo) wanted the thread stickied. The powers that be decided otherwise, much to my disappointment, but like i said earlier it's like it or lump it.

tartantipster

tomwakefield wrote: »

Paraphrased (SNIPPETS AGAIN)
Idea: Split into two forums - GIOL offers and GIOL chat
Problem: GIOL is cluttered with chat

Is this all? What else did I say?

Reason: Keep only offers on first page and chat out the way

Did I say only on first page? Or on a separate Forum? Did I say 'out the way'? Pffff...

Benefit 1: "those not in need of, or wanting to avoid wading through pages of meaningless banter, could just get straight down to business"

What else? That's only the OP.

Benefit 2: making it easier too for Newcomers / Beginners / Amateur Match-Bettors to source the information that they require

What else? That's only the OP.

Still only two benefits listed

See above.

Not word for word, but essentially the same, without missing out any key points.

It is not the same, it leaves it open to interpretation, and must always be quoted word for word.

At least you've quoted the whole thing, rather than snippets, so we can see how many we can truly count, whilst keeping it all in complete context. And how many more ideas will/can stem from the ones in the OP?

...and don't forget:

tartantipster wrote: »

I agree, members will not decide, MSE will, but MSE will listen to opinion & logic before making a final decision.

The reasons I give for change most certainly do not rely on "it would make it easier not having to wade through chat to find the offers". The OP and my thread replies are testimony to that.

The entire thread needs to be gone through post by post, as I have done.

Well, whether it's adequate or not is not absolutely measurable, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Not sure what help isn't provided by the newbie question thread.

It is no where near adequately covered by the stickies, and my suggestion would outstrip the current set-up by a country mile. My concept is far tidier, superior, more uniform, and seemless.

Minor point - threads like this would get less attention if it was hidden away in a subforum.

I don't want it hidden away, I want the feedback.

This is just a mish-mash of snippets, crudely put, paragraphed, worded, quoted, and responded to. The voice of a man too low on patience to put in a proper response. Please start it all again, and come back to me with a dignified post worthy of a reply. Thank you.

tartantipster

boristbear wrote: »

I agree with most of what you say other than your actual opinion re. TT suggestion. For me it would be good. That's all I'm saying. I know the forum is not just about me but my opinion should be as valid as anybody else's. I would be grateful if you could refrain from the patronising 'this forum is not just about you' comments as there is no need and I find them offensive.

I think there is a real danger of you and a few others bulldozing your views about this sort of thing. You just do not come across as open to ideas or discussion. I hope I am wrong but I believe there may be people not wanting to disagree with you 'old timers' and therefore not posting their true opinions.

My comments re. the willhill BOGOF threat were proceeded by 'Off Topic' as they were entirely unrelated to the thread - just a comment re. the willhill thread being an example of how the board is working well.

Many thanks boristbear, and well said!!!:beer:

tartantipster

Mariner13 wrote: »

Well it appears we agree on a couple of points at least TT

The rest i'm more than happy to agree to disagree with you.

:beer:

OK Mariner13 matey, cheers!:beer:

tartantipster

Mariner13 wrote: »

Fair enough, it is a bit of a pet hate of mine, people using the expression "I want" - I'm also more than happy for people to post their opinions, regardless of whether they are the same of mine, but i do get annoyed sometimes when they state them as fact, rather than as just their opinion.

Glad you softened a bit on that, it was only his opinion

I don't accept that the example of the will hill bogof topic is OT. If you read TT's original post, you will see his aim is to separate the majority of "chat" from offers. I don't believe this can be done, and the above thread is an example of this. Other threads that spring to mind where this cant be done are the Fair and Square thread., the Beat Victor thread and the WinUtd thread.

It can and will work with just 1% of the right, and positive attitude. We need to be open to improvement & change. All round this will be a super time saver for us money saving experts! See previous comment & explanation on this

I intend to bow out of this thread now, as i've said all can (more than once!) and my opinion wont change. I do think it would be interesting to have a vote, on the subject, but even if that happens i feel that the proposed changes would be unlikely to happen even if the vote supported them - that's just my opinion based on the knowledge of how mse works during my time here. As an example, when Vetfred set up the Greatwood charity thing, many of us (including myself and a majority of posters imo) wanted the thread stickied. The powers that be decided otherwise, much to my disappointment, but like i said earlier it's like it or lump it.

Thanks for your input, cheers!:beer:

:beer::beer:

boristbear

Mariner13 wrote: »

Fair enough, it is a bit of a pet hate of mine, people using the expression "I want" - I'm also more than happy for people to post their opinions, regardless of whether they are the same of mine, but i do get annoyed sometimes when they state them as fact, rather than as just their opinion.

I don't accept that the example of the will hill bogof topic is OT. If you read TT's original post, you will see his aim is to separate the majority of "chat" from offers. I don't believe this can be done, and the above thread is an example of this. Other threads that spring to mind where this cant be done are the Fair and Square thread., the Beat Victor thread and the WinUtd thread.

I intend to bow out of this thread now, as i've said all can (more than once!) and my opinion wont change. I do think it would be interesting to have a vote, on the subject, but even if that happens i feel that the proposed changes would be unlikely to happen even if the vote supported them - that's just my opinion based on the knowledge of how mse works during my time here. As an example, when Vetfred set up the Greatwood charity thing, many of us (including myself and a majority of posters imo) wanted the thread stickied. The powers that be decided otherwise, much to my disappointment, but like i said earlier it's like it or lump it.

If the willhill BOGOF is not OT please do not bow out Mariner as I think that in it's own right is worthy of discussion. If TT's suggestion does not solve the problem (I think we agree that there is a problem) perhaps we could find a solution that does. (btw my understanding of TT's OP would solve the problem as there would be a thread with only offers but moving on). My suggestion re. the BOGOF thread - as I have said before - is a new thread for each individual offer. Maybe as a general posting rule we could start including a date in the OP with the offer details. I know this has idea has been rubbished many times before but, at least for the willhill situation, I can't see the problem with having many threads as they would just sink once the event past.

tomwakefield

tartantipster wrote: »

I don't want it hidden away, I want the feedback.

The problem is, with your forum, threads like these will go into the 'chat' subforum, where people only interested in the offers will not see them and therefore not be able to respond to them.

And with that, like Mariner13, I'm going to bow out. I'm not intending to get into a slanging match with someone who contributes to this forum, I've stated my disagreement and why I don't think it's a good idea. I've tried to do it in as clear a manner and addressing the points - maybe prose isn't my strong point - but from TT's responses it appears that I am simply coming across as obtuse.

tartantipster

boristbear wrote: »

If the willhill BOGOF is not OT please do not bow out Mariner as I think that in it's own right is worthy of discussion. If TT's suggestion does not solve the problem (I think we agree that there is a problem) perhaps we could find a solution that does. (btw my understanding of TT's OP would solve the problem as there would be a thread (Forum)with only offers but moving on). My suggestion re. the BOGOF thread - as I have said before - is a new thread for each individual offer. Maybe as a general posting rule we could start including a date in the OP with the offer details. I know this has idea has been rubbished many times before but, at least for the willhill situation, I can't see the problem with having many threads as they would just sink once the event past.

Forum No.1 (Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes) should be exclusively: Introductory Offers/Freebets/Reloads/Cashbacks/Promotions/Bonuses/Incentives/Competitions THREADS, ONLY (and discussion about those same THREAD OP's)

Forum No.2 (Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes - Chat & Questions) should be exclusively: other general chat & questions - See OP.

If it drifts a bit well OK, but as long as it starts out (the OP) as above with each THREAD in that Forum. I.E. The starting OP's THREADS in Forum No.1 (Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes) should be exclusively exclusively: Introductory Offers/Freebets/Reloads/Cashbacks/Promotions/Bonuses/Incentives/Competitions. The starting OP's THREADS in Forum 2 (Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes - Chat & Questions) should be exclusively for that, just chat & Q's

:beer: