Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Fisher1949, Aug 7, 2011.
I would prefer that they stay "over there" & work harder, maybe even put in some overtime.
Look, while you're all mad at the FT mods, and for a justifiably good reason... don't abandon there entirely.
Their community and visibility in the marketplace is a bit larger than here, given the years and years of head start they have. If all the TSA Disparigers leave there, and come here, then the message gets hurt because all we're doing is preaching to the choir.
I'd submit that those who've been w/ TUG since the beginning aren't mad at all, only those who continued their full involvement "over there". From my standpoint the mods "over there" are some of our best recruiters.
60% of TUG's traffic already comes from referrals & search engines. TUG has >1100 pages indexed in Google already.
I haven't abandoned the other site obviously, but the mods are doing some heavy handed moderating. Their responses have not been adequate to the issues either. But I will continue to use both sites, fairly evenly, since both are good sites for discussion. This one just happens to allow for more free discussion(something many consider a right) and details, which the other site is sorely lacking.
Not mad at the FT Mods at all. They have been a big recruiter for TUG.
I'm still participating at FT but I don't like being told I can't ask questions about moderation and such. Guess FT has something to hide.
It occurred to me on the drive in to work that I should see how much of that 60% is referrals from the "other place". That would put it in perspective better.
I'm saying you shouldn't be happy about it, but lets face it people coming here are already on our side. Which doesn't do much in terms of keeping the problems visible in the larger public eye.
Some people are finding TUG without benefit of FT but I would agree most are coming over from FT and likely have some of the same opinions about FT that others here feel.
I'm not really sure how to keep the problem visible at FT since they just delete comments and if a person speaks out gets banned or just disappears.
<18% of our traffic comes from the "other place". It was important to us early on, in that we made a deliberate effort to recruit their higher volume posters, but as as time passes & TUG grows, its importance decreases.
We don't worry about it. We will be more than willing to recruit their disenchanted members, but we should not work to create that disenchantment.
"Preaching to the choir" has been a concern that I have had as I invite people over from FT but I'm encouraged by Mike's stats. As well, I agree that as time goes on our recruiting effort becomes less critical.
I would, however, like to see more debate here. It bothers me that those who view the TSA in a different light don't seem to be subject to the heavy-handed moderation that goes on at FT and hence they aren't likely to venture over here.
One who came over from the other side apparently couldn't take the heat and has not been heard from in a few weeks. He is still posting at TS/S where he is protected by the mods.
I really want this site to succeed and agree we need more users and debate. It needs critical mass to become really "sticky."
Perhaps I'll post a suggestion list in the appropriate forum, but I think cleaning up the interface here will help with recruitment. I profoundly applaud Mike and the crew for the wonderful site and good open philosophy but the site looks a bit "myspace-y" and very distracting, with too many TSA subforums which splits the updates and makes each forum less visited. For instance there should not be separate photos and video forums perhaps, and perhaps also a new TravelUnderground logo at the top (it looks very 8-bit dithered ) I'll try to make a good list in the suggestions. I wish I had some coding / admin experience to help with the effort.
Part of the lack of debate is that at least one guy from TSA (SATTSO) couldn't take the heat here in a less restrained environment. However, he did provide us with some precious & revealing moments while he was here.
The logo was a very quick & dirty effort to get something to replace the default XenForo logo. To see just how ugly it is, enter something in the search box & look at the landing page.
The videos vs. photos forums serve very different purposes. I'd be more open to eliminating the "photos" forum for lack of use than merging them. Most user videos will almost certainly be loaded into YouTube first & then linked here, so a section on user videos is unneeded (plus there is no way to embed a local video file). From a legal standpoint, videos are better than photos because YouTube clearly is hosting them (hence no copyright liability issues for us) yet there are facilities for embedding them within posts; an embedded photo immediately becomes a potential copyright issue if it was not taken by the poster.
No site is going to succeed in two months, nor is any site who premise is how bad another site it, which is why I strongly discourage making "that other place" the subject of posts here. We have to keep doing what we're doing over a much longer time and build up our own loyal membership.
Major changes in appearance require the purchase or commissioning of a "skin", which is not out of the question. Revenue from the ads we are inflicting on non-registered users is on a pace to fund that.
I agree about the photos forum - it's seen precious little use so far. I would like to see some kind of link list remain, though, for videos (and even the occasional photo) because that kind of evidence is crucial to have within arm's reach. The random video at the bottom is good but I'd rather people had a way to pick out a specific video if/when they need it.
The video forum will remain.
The distinctions between the photo & video forums aren't just the type of image but whether they are personal vs. published. Two of the four possible combinations, published photos & personal videos, are unworkable -- published photos because of copyright problems and personal videos because they hardly exist -- 99% of those that are to be shared will be published in YouTube.
That leave us with:
1. The forum for personal photos (not getting much use)
2. The forum for videos, predominately YouTube (> 50 posts)
Published videos are workable because they are hosted elsewhere (which takes care of the copyright issue), yet they provide controls that can be integrated into a post to play the video from within the post.
Additionally, the random video at the bottom of each TUG page is integrated with the video forum: Click on the "Discuss This Video" link & you will be taken to the appropriate thread in the video forum.
As patterns of use become apparent, I'll probably reorganize some stuff, but building content is the most important thing right now, e.g. don't just throw out a link but discuss the link. That's the type of content that gets attention from search engines. If you see an anemic post, try to add something to the thread that will build up the thread's searchable content. Use the full names of people, organizations, places, etc., in the discussions as long as it doesn't get too stilted.
This point is important for the Google bots. I've also been consciously trying not to use abbreviations, spelling out Explosive Trace Detection instead of ETD, for example. This probably makes it easier on the casual reader as well.
Another thing that makes it hard for the search engines is the use of nicknames and slang like Nappy. At least Pistole is a name that's easy to type out on a regular basis.
Guilty as charged, I shall try to do better.
I am editing all of my posts from day 1:
Nappy --> Reichsminister Janet NapolitanoPissy --> Reichskommissar John Pistole
I'll do my part to put the complete names out there.
I appreciate the link in the FT thread and that redirected me here. The moderation in TS&S over there is getting awful. In retrospect, I should have joined over here back in June when I was originally invited....
Separate names with a comma.