Community

General discussion

Locked

Community redesign coming...

By sMoRTy71 ·
OK, I figure now is a great time to post some of the comps from our upcoming community revamp/redesign.

Not going to go into a ton of explanation about these comps. I want to get everyone's reaction without any prompting about how things might work.

So here goes:
Start a thread / Ask a question
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tr/community_demo/redesign/ask_start.gif

View a discussion post
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tr/community_demo/redesign/view_post.gif

Unified Discussions/Tech Q&A door
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tr/community_demo/redesign/community_door.gif

View a TQ&A question
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tr/community_demo/redesign/view_question.gif

Please let us know your thoughts. BTW, I didn't make these comps, so you can't hurt my feelings (don't you love a challenge?).

sm

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Closing member accounts

by stargazerr In reply to hmmmmm

Due to bounced emails .... thats a bit Harsh ..

]:)

Collapse -

not really

by apotheon In reply to Closing member accounts

If they use a fake email address, screw 'em.

Collapse -

Depending on the reason for the bounce, ...

by deepsand In reply to Closing member accounts

one could condition the response accordingly.

If the bounce was owing to a bad recipient address, then a viable option would be to restrict account access to that required for the purpose of providing a good address only, pending verification of the new address.

For other reasons, such as storage quota (s)exceeded, any one of many possible communications errors, etc., one might bar access to the specific function(s) to which the bounced e-mail pertained.

Collapse -

Is'nt that a bit draconian?

by deepsand In reply to With the 1 question limit ...

While I do fully understand the problems and frustration caused by those who abuse the Q&A forum, there needs to be a balance that both curbs such abuse while accomodating the needs of those who play by the rules.

Perhaps you might consider a system whereby the number of questions that one may have open at any point in time is dependent on a measure of their compliance with the desired behavior.

For example, the sooner one rates responses, the more questions allowed. The longer that questions remains open after the most recent response(s), the fewer allowed.

Collapse -

a modification..

by Jaqui In reply to Is'nt that a bit draconia ...

make it 5 questions, closed automatically after 30 days. most questions will be answered, correctly, within 3 days, at 30 days they have been forgotten.

Collapse -

Getting close

by jardinier In reply to a modification..

To have five open questions, you would have to be having a run of bad luck.

However I note that you concur with my observation that a question not satisfactorily answered within 3 days, will be forgotten, and that questions should be auto-closed after 30 days.

As I suggested earlier, I think a person should be sent a warning email, say three days (or a week) before auto-closure.

Keep this going everyone. We are moving towards a consensus. If Smorty cannot agree with a majority opinion of TR insiders, then why are our views being sought?

Collapse -

creating work

by rob mekel In reply to Is'nt that a bit draconia ...

This looks like getting the TR-staff being busy :)with laziness of the TR-members .

Alltho automated, it still has to be programmed and watched for correctness. But on it self I like the idea. :)

Rob

Collapse -

It's their job.

by deepsand In reply to creating work

Yes, it means a bit more work up front, but then so do most things if they're being done right.

The most simple solution is not necessarily the best.

Collapse -

Question Types & Discussion Background

by Wayne M. In reply to Community redesign coming ...

I would just make two recommendations, one for the ask_start page and one for the view_post page.

I find it a little redundant to have three button selects (question, discussion, blog) immediately followed by two radio buttons (question, discussion). You could probably drop one or the other. One thing to ponder is, are the differences in the three types really worth the effort for maintaining all three? Could questions, discussions, and blogs be merged into a single type? I will also concur on a previous poster's recommendation to have a select list of tags. Restricting the range of possible tags would increase the hope of actually finding something.

On the view_post, I find the bars behind the responses to be distracting. Visually, the pattern seems to hide the different groupings and indentation levels. I would recommend losing the bars.

Good luck tomorrow!

Collapse -

A vote for the bars

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Question Types & Discussi ...

Please keep the bars. Compared to the current use of "gray vs. blue" lettering, they make it much easier to tell which post you are reading.

Related Discussions

Related Forums