Suggestions

Thanks Scozzie.


IGP, as far as I am concerned, it is not a matter of saying that one 'must not' post on an old thread - it is a matter of advising those who do, that they are unlikely to get a response because the original poster may not be looking for replies any more.


You must have seen the number of times I, and others have posted a message similar to this over the years:


Hello ********* and welcome to the Community Boards.


You have added to a very old thread and ****** may not be looking for replies any more.

You can try clicking on their name and sending your message that way. If they still have the same email address, they will be notified.

It may be worthwhile putting the names you are researching into the Search Trees box to see if anyone else has them in their tree. If you find a connection, you can contact the tree owner.

Also, if you would like help with your research, why not start a thread of your own? There are many experienced members willing to help you. Take a look at the Help Clinic - above left - for further advice.




I then send the new member a friendly PM to advise them how to find the advice.



That is not telling anyone what to do IGP, it is trying to help new folk so that they aren't disappointed if they don't hear anything back.



According to a post on FB last week, GR are considering adding guidance about replying to old posts to the Help Section.


I have just received a grateful PM re this post from yesterday and, fortunately, the gentleman GB and I advised has found the thread and posted on it.

http://www.genesreunited.co.za/boards.page/board/ancestors/millard/thread/344579



Cx.

So am I right in saying:-

1: Unless there has been a contravention of the guidelines and / or T's and C's, no member has any right to tell another member what they should or should not post,

2. There is nothing in the guidelines to say that members must not post on 'old' (whatever that means) threads.

"1: Unless there has been a contravention of the guidelines and / or T's and C's, no member has any right to tell another member what they should or should not post, "

It is not a question of that at all. Members simply offer advice that the thread is not current and perhaps they should contact the poster direct.

What is wrong with that !!

What do you do IGP when you see a member post on a lookup thread that is dated 2009 and is obviously not current?

Well I post that fact on the thread and suggest they start their own one and that way they will get help as more members will see it. I also pm that person and inform them they are unlikely to get help on an old thread which is not being used.

Oh come on IGP, you know the answers to all of your questions.


GB is right......what is wrong with giving members advice to help them along?


It may be of course, you are referring to the fact that not all advice is given in the same manner.


As my mother used to say......


It's not what you say, it's the way that you say it!

hello
after reading all the posts about this topic

cynthia has hit the nail on the head :-D

sally w

Hi everyone,
thanks for all your feedback regarding our new link to the Community on our homepage. We are sorry that some of you feel that we shouldn't be posting links to old threads.
The aim of this new Community section is to show members posts they may not have seen yet. For some, it may even be the first time they have visited our message boards. We can see from some of the posts on our message boards that some of you have already had some success with this and come across information that you were previously unaware of.
Whilst some of these posts were added a while ago, it doesn't mean that these people aren't still members of the site. It could just be that they haven't used the message boards for a while. And we are aware that you may not receive a reply for each post you make or message you send. However, by simply reading a post about your name you may see a snippet of information on the thread you previously didn't know about your family. And we feel that this is invaluable.
Many of you are experienced family historians, and you’ll all be aware that you’re going to come across many brick walls in your research. If you see 30 posts about 1 name and just 1 of those posts breaks down that brick wall, I am sure you’ll agree with us that it would be worth seeing all the other 29 posts first.

Kind regards,

Estelle

"Whilst some of these posts were added a while ago, it doesn't mean that these people aren't still members of the site."

- true. However, one original poster offering a look ups thread had left the site and that particular thread was removed after I had pointed this out to GR Support. This could be the case in other instances and, for that reason, I was glad that GR agreed to put a sticky on http://www.genesreunited.co.za/boards.page/board/ancestors/thread/1298341

Hi Joy, usually a thread should be removed when someone leaves the site. If this isn't the case then please let us know and we can get this corrected.

Kind regards,

Estelle

Estelle.
Many of these posts are over 5 years old.
Rather more than a while ago I think.
The search tool might be more useful if the age of the posts was restricted to say, the last 2 years & were not referred to as "discussions".
It´s very misleading to people who don´t entirely understand how the boards work.
There are often new members who are under the impression that queries are answered by Genes employees, rather than fellow members.

There are a fair number of threads like this where the members joining date is Jan 0001...the poster cannot be contacted why are they still on the site?

http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards.page/board/ancestors/scobie/thread/500883

That used to be the case, Estelle.

Hi Jax, we're going to see what we can do here with regards to posts added by deleted members. I'll get back to you when I have more information.
Kind regards,

Estelle

It would make more sense to get rid of the'discussions', but, of course, it's GR's 'new idea' and that won't happen.

It would be much more beneficial to steer people in the direction of the 'search trees' tag.

And also, of course, to put right everything that is currently wrong with this site. A list which grows longer by the day

Estelle

"Hi Joy, usually a thread should be removed when someone leaves the site. If this isn't the case then please let us know and we can get this corrected."

How are we to know when someone 'leaves the site'?

Hello Estelle,

I'm very sorry to see that GR is not listening to those experienced members without whom, the site would be a poorer place.


Any success that GR proudly advertises about, is almost always due to the expert help people have received on these boards.


If we cease to advise the new members that the post they have replied to is very old and that they are unlikely to get a response and that it's better to send a pm, then I can foresee a lot of very disappointed people.


Personally, I will now be concentrating on contacting those who have not returned to their own thread rather than contacting those who have responded to old posts.


Cx

There is one thread on this page where the poster has left the site and account deleted, but do we want ex members helpful posts deleted??

Maybe change their board names to "No longer a member"

If someone does come accross a "helpful" thread with replies on, it would make sense to see the whole thread without bits missing with people talking to themselves :-)

"There are more than 1000 discussions containing information about the Ball family name"
50 pages and many of them not even about the surname Ball but the noun ball and from chat. I would find that very confusing as a new member.

Why do you not remove the feature and give some fuller instructions how to use the search facility instead. Give a warning that the original poster may no longer be a member but the thread may contain pertinent information. :-)

Estelle



One member posted last week that he had received the following notification ................


"there are more than 1000 discussions containing information about the Rellie family name"


someone else has reported getting notification of threads for the name "Private"


The mind boggles!




I do not agree that members with threads started in 2009 are necessarily no longer on the site


But I really do wonder at threads started from 2001 through to 2005 or 2006, and with the member showing as having 0 to 3 or 4 posts


GR wasn't even in operation in 2001, was it?????






Do you realise how often GR staffers ask US, the members, to let them know about something or other .............. usually things that we should have no right in knowing.


As Reggie has said ....... how on earth would we know that someone has left the site?




sylvia

In full disclosure ......................


I was the one who posted that message to Scozzie about .............

"So .......... the best bet is for YOU to stop posting on here, and let US all get on with our suggestions for improving the site .........."


It was posted in pure frustration at the end of a series of exchanges AND at the end of a long post by me trying to explain once again why so many people were not happy with Discussions.

It seemed that Scozzie could not or would not understand why we were unhappy when she was so happy ...................... and was herself getting more and more upset because we would not or could not understand why she was happy, and was against what we were saying about Discussions.

Plus the fact that she seemed to have this idea that she had been well and truly told off for posting on an old thread .................. which was far from the case.


It just seemed to me that she and everyone else would be happier if we agreed to disagree, and that she would be better to no longer wind herself up.




Unfortunately, she and everyone else has taken it the wrong way ................... and of course, this is why IGP has been asking questions this morning abut whether any member has the right to tell anyone else not to post.

Of course, they don't .............. and I was wrong to express my frustration in that way.


I'm sorry that Cynthia got caught in the middle ...................... she most certainly would never have said anything to upset anyone, and it was wrong for Scozzie to put C into the position of having to defend herself.




sylvia