Which rules were made to be broken?

Discuss Christopher Ward watches
User avatar
PaulJS
Forumgod
Forumgod
Posts: 803
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:31 am
CW-watches: 6
Location: North Devon

Re: Which rules were made to be broken?

Post by PaulJS »

Thanks Neil, I think I would row back from my initial position of removing the qualifying posts completely and be in accord with welshlad's idea of making it a minimum of 5 to keep it in line with the point at which posts can be made without moderation.

Or how about making it visible and able to buy after 5 but not able to post for sale until a few more posts have been notched up? Not sure if it is technically possible to set this automatically but it might make people feel more included a bit earlier in the qualifying process.

Paul
The older I get the better I used to be

Trident Pro White / Blue
C4
Omega Speedmaster II LE
Omega Speedmaster II original-ish
Trident Pro Black/Blue
C70 VW4
C65 LE
C7 MK 1
Scurfa Diver One

Steinhart Ocean One 39
User avatar
TheBeatles
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 2603
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:36 am
CW-watches: 6
Location: England

Re: Which rules were made to be broken?

Post by TheBeatles »

I think Paul makes some good points about Sales Corner and my thanks to Kip for explaining the rationale behind the 30 post limit. Actually makes very good sense when written down.

Viewing is probably the way to go after 5 posts. Not sure about number for selling. But as has been mentioned somewhere, I think we would all set our own rules about who we buy from. As Paul also states, many members are happy to transfer thousands of pounds across the globe without any fear of disappointment due to Garys well earned excellent reputation. This would not be the case for someone with few posts.

Indeed, speaking personally, there have been some nice watches for sale from members with less than 100 posts and I have not taken the plunge. Nor am I likely too. But, as I said, that is my own opinion.
Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night. Be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels, Frank Sinatra

All You Need Is Love, The Beatles

Too much of anything is bad. But too much of good whiskey is barely enough, Mark Twain
User avatar
PaulJS
Forumgod
Forumgod
Posts: 803
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:31 am
CW-watches: 6
Location: North Devon

Re: Which rules were made to be broken?

Post by PaulJS »

Just some observation on Kip's analysis of who has posted what, about what, when and what it means etc...

Clearly quite a bit of work has gone into crunching these numbers, but I am not convinced that it isn't a self defeating exercise when the general theme is the overall lack of interest shown by people in posting new material: If people are demotivated to take part in general then why would they be motivated to make the effort to contribute to this, or even know that the discussion is underway if they have switched off from the forum?

If we take the 600 recently active members (does this mean posted or just logged in?) then why haven't there been 584 comments saying 'it's all fab, leave well alone'?

I know there is always a risk of ignoring the silent majority and letting the vocal minority influence things, but it is not as if it has been a witch hunt or even any derogatory comments. To me it has looked like a genuinely well meaning 'discussion' where people have shared their views, taken others' opinions on board and modified positions in light of others' contributions.

In fact it seems to have distilled itself down to some pretty modest but possibly meaningful suggestions for change.

My take on things was that, as well as making things 'better' for existing members, we were looking at potential changes to try to encourage new members to get and stay active. By definition these people haven't joined yet!

It seems to be accepted wisdom when a relatively small contingent say this is a great place, so I feel that it needs to be viewed in the same way when a relatively few people point out areas for possible improvement.

I don't think any of us believe we have definitive answers as to why things have tailed off, or nailed on fixes to inject some life into things: all we can do is make suggestions based upon what potentially switches us off from the forum and put these forward for consideration.

I also don't think that wholesale change is needed - things could be tried on a controlled and / or trial basis to see what, if anything, stimulates more, and more interesting, activity.

Equally, if a change results in undesirable activity or content it can be reversed.

If we have a starting position of trying to justify the status quo then I fear that the forum will be the worse for it and it may end up with a very small core of contributors plus new members who mostly fleetingly join and then quickly fade away......

Paul
The older I get the better I used to be

Trident Pro White / Blue
C4
Omega Speedmaster II LE
Omega Speedmaster II original-ish
Trident Pro Black/Blue
C70 VW4
C65 LE
C7 MK 1
Scurfa Diver One

Steinhart Ocean One 39
sproughton
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1793
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:59 pm
CW-watches: 4
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Which rules were made to be broken?

Post by sproughton »

Kip wrote: Starting with the 30 post rule for the Sales Corner. It has been mentioned a few times that the 30 post rule inhibits growth. I don’t see it. At the time the rule was implemented we had 3657 members. this translated to 1.67 members per day in just over 6 years from the forum launch. Since that time, through the time of this post, we now have 11798 members which means we have had an additional 8141 members join in just over 6 years since the posting of the rule. This translates to 3.59 members per day.
Sorry Kip but that's a huge leap of faith / complete nonsense. The company is much bigger than it used to be which is much more likely to be the reason for the change in new members. Plus people may not know the 30 post rule prior to signing up, so it's posting rates post sign up that are more interesting (though still not conclusive).

Whether the rule is removed or not, there is no way of knowing whether the rule itself is stifling conversation.
User avatar
Caller
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 2124
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:44 pm
CW-watches: 2
Location: Hua Hin, Thailand

Re: Which rules were made to be broken?

Post by Caller »

PaulJS wrote:Clearly quite a bit of work has gone into crunching these numbers, but I am not convinced that it isn't a self defeating exercise when the general theme is the overall lack of interest shown by people in posting new material
Agreed, this isn't about statistical data and how that could be interpreted, when what we're really discussing is about the heart and soul of the forum and how it can be improved.
'Tis me
User avatar
Dancematt
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 7817
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:15 am
Location: Top secret hollow Volcano. Kent UK

Re: Which rules were made to be broken?

Post by Dancematt »

That said, It is a perk for our members. The intent was never to have a broad range of exposure over the internet. The 30 post rule was to provide..
A layer of legal protection for Hans, now CW, that we are making an effort to guard our membership.
Provide an outlet for members to buy and sell within a relatively secure area and deal with potentially more trusted people so as not to have a plethora of dodgy listings and buyers. In other words, confidence and ease of use.
To ensure orderly listings without the distraction of comments or discussions. Bumps can be unlimited and done by the seller.
To prevent people from circumventing Ebay fees and using this forum for selling purposes only.
To prevent dealers from listing and remain exclusive for members.
None of this explains why we stop people with less than 30 posts from viewing the sales posts. Just let them view.
I miss all the great things that may never be.
User avatar
gaf1958
Trusted Seller
Trusted Seller
Posts: 12431
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:24 am
CW-watches: 24
Location: ɐᴉlɐɹʇsn∀ 'ʇsɐoƆ ǝuᴉɥsunS

Re: Which rules were made to be broken?

Post by gaf1958 »

I have to agree. Let people VIEW sales centre. Selling... different matter, but I think it’s fairly much self policing.

One of the reasons behind the 30 rule, was to stop bots from splattering the sales all over the net. That’s incidentally a good idea. Can the same be managed simply by requiring membership to view SC?

Currently anyone can post a link to a SC post anywhere, but if you don’t qualify for access, you don’t see it. Can membership simply qualify someone for viewing SC, while still maintaining a degree of protection from bots, or should we go with Welshlad’s suggestion of 5 moderated posts? Not saying either one is the definite answer, just asking a question about the realities of either path...
CW C1+2xC3+6xC6/60K+C7+C11+3xC60T+2xC65+C90+2xC600
Omega Ω 11xSpeedy+14xSeamaster+4xConnie+DeVille
Cartier+2xPanerai+2xFarer+2xOris+Sinn+11xSeiko+ManyVintage
B&R+Halios+5xVisitor+TagH+6xTissot+2xZelos+4xCertina+more
Family12xCW+2xΩ+Cartier
User avatar
Kip
The Administrator
The Administrator
Posts: 35171
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:45 pm
CW-watches: 150
LE-one: yes
LE-two: yes
LE-three: yes
LE-foura: yes
LE-fourb: yes
LE-five: yes
LE-six: yes
LESeven: yes
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Which rules were made to be broken?

Post by Kip »

sproughton wrote:
Kip wrote: Starting with the 30 post rule for the Sales Corner. It has been mentioned a few times that the 30 post rule inhibits growth. I don’t see it. At the time the rule was implemented we had 3657 members. this translated to 1.67 members per day in just over 6 years from the forum launch. Since that time, through the time of this post, we now have 11798 members which means we have had an additional 8141 members join in just over 6 years since the posting of the rule. This translates to 3.59 members per day.
Sorry Kip but that's a huge leap of faith / complete nonsense. The company is much bigger than it used to be which is much more likely to be the reason for the change in new members. Plus people may not know the 30 post rule prior to signing up, so it's posting rates post sign up that are more interesting (though still not conclusive).

Whether the rule is removed or not, there is no way of knowing whether the rule itself is stifling conversation.
I think you missed my point here. I was addressing the question that several members have brought up about the possibility of the 30 post thatrule was off putting to new registrations. Therefore, potentially, new contributing members may not be jumping in. The comparison of new registrations per day is the only thing I could look at to address that specifically. This was part of the exercise I went through for our Admin Team discussions. The posting rates of new members is far more difficult to disseminate accurately, other than ones who have registered and not posted.

My numbers here are only a small part of our discussions. Your quote of mine (above) that you have posted also left out the last paragraph. You will note in the last line (below) that I am fully aware that there are many other factors that have contributed to the growth of the forum.
The overall average I came up with was 2.64 members per day. I then compared to the board stats to check my numbers and it states 2.63 members per day overall. Pretty close...so I think the numbers prove that the rule has in no way affected new registrations. Yes there are many other factors that have contributed to growth, but I am not seeing the 30 Post Rule as a major factor here.
Kip

"Asylum Administrator"


Visit the CWArchives for everything CW. Historical, specs, manuals and resale. It is all there.
User avatar
Kip
The Administrator
The Administrator
Posts: 35171
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:45 pm
CW-watches: 150
LE-one: yes
LE-two: yes
LE-three: yes
LE-foura: yes
LE-fourb: yes
LE-five: yes
LE-six: yes
LESeven: yes
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Which rules were made to be broken?

Post by Kip »

Dancematt wrote:
That said, It is a perk for our members. The intent was never to have a broad range of exposure over the internet. The 30 post rule was to provide..
A layer of legal protection for Hans, now CW, that we are making an effort to guard our membership.
Provide an outlet for members to buy and sell within a relatively secure area and deal with potentially more trusted people so as not to have a plethora of dodgy listings and buyers. In other words, confidence and ease of use.
To ensure orderly listings without the distraction of comments or discussions. Bumps can be unlimited and done by the seller.
To prevent people from circumventing Ebay fees and using this forum for selling purposes only.
To prevent dealers from listing and remain exclusive for members.
None of this explains why we stop people with less than 30 posts from viewing the sales posts. Just let them view.
I disagree. The reasons are there in the first 2 lines. in particular the one about providing a "relatively secure area.....". These guidelines were, and have been, sufficient to meet the needs of forum ownership and its members.

The question now under discussion by the Admin Team is can we alter the guidelines and still provide sufficient security for CW and the members while enhancing the overall effectiveness of the Sales Corner for sellers. When we reach a conclusion it will be posted.

In the meantime we will be continuing our evaluations and analysis of the Rules and Guidelines. It is our hope that discussions will continue here regarding these.
Kip

"Asylum Administrator"


Visit the CWArchives for everything CW. Historical, specs, manuals and resale. It is all there.
sproughton
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1793
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:59 pm
CW-watches: 4
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Which rules were made to be broken?

Post by sproughton »

Kip,

Don't think I missed your point, just felt it necessary to make clear that the average new user rate could never be used in any way shape or form to support or otherwise the 30 post rule impact.
User avatar
Thermexman
Trusted Seller
Trusted Seller
Posts: 6225
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:40 am
CW-watches: 4
Location: South West UK

Re: Which rules were made to be broken?

Post by Thermexman »

This constant talk about the sales corner and access to it, is beginning to feel like the SC is the only purpose to the Forum and the only reason some people want to join. If your acquaintances only wanted to visit you for the contents of your fridge and got a bit stroppy if you didn’t lead them straight to it, you’re not going to become friends, I’d wager! I thought that the SC was a “perk” for contributing members. Not a destination to head straight for, take a look around, maybe buy something and then stick around if you feel like it. Do we want the Forum to just become a destination for buying and selling if the mood takes? I thought that was Ebay’s remit? Just my thruppence ha’penny.
Steve.
User avatar
golfjunky
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 6842
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:32 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Which rules were made to be broken?

Post by golfjunky »

How many people get to 30 then b<gger off?
Current collection = Omega Seamaster 2225.80.00, Omega Speedmaster 'Moonphase' 3576.50.00, Breitling Aerospace Evo, Vintage Azur, Vintage Seiko Sprtsman, Grand Seiko SBGX059, Omega SMP NTTD 210.92.42.20.01.001, Casioak Milkyway, Casioak Tiffany Sky.
User avatar
Thermexman
Trusted Seller
Trusted Seller
Posts: 6225
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:40 am
CW-watches: 4
Location: South West UK

Re: Which rules were made to be broken?

Post by Thermexman »

golfjunky wrote:How many people get to 30 then b<gger off?
At least they’ve had to make an effort, however banal their posts may be. Making access easier, will just mean more footfall of passing window shoppers, who never actually pop in and say hi!
Steve.
Arbor22
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 512
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:26 pm
CW-watches: 1
Location: W Yorks

Re: Which rules were made to be broken?

Post by Arbor22 »

Thermexman wrote:This constant talk about the sales corner and access to it, is beginning to feel like the SC is the only purpose to the Forum and the only reason some people want to join. If your acquaintances only wanted to visit you for the contents of your fridge and got a bit stroppy if you didn’t lead them straight to it, you’re not going to become friends, I’d wager! I thought that the SC was a “perk” for contributing members. Not a destination to head straight for, take a look around, maybe buy something and then stick around if you feel like it. Do we want the Forum to just become a destination for buying and selling if the mood takes? I thought that was Ebay’s remit? Just my thruppence ha’penny.
:thumbup:
User avatar
DISJT
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:54 pm
CW-watches: 5
Location: Plymouth, England, UK

Re: Which rules were made to be broken?

Post by DISJT »

Seems like all our input falls on deaf ears.

The best / funniest thread for ages gets locked down and posts get deleted without discussion or warning.

We are not naughty school children and I object to being treated like one!


* Having had communication from a forum Moderator, I shall concede, that whilst our input may of seemed like it has fallen on deaf ears, they do appear to be listening to our views and have reached out to me to discuss the matter further. Change appears to be being actively discussed and may take some time to reach a conclusion / implementation. So I apologise for any offence may insinuation may of caused. *
CHRIS
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post