778 réponses à ce sujet

[Nessa Surana]

Jessica

Can we please get a timetable estimate for how long before these functions are 'phased out'?

[luna1124]

I do understand about the spam albums. There are currently 33,411 "albums" which about 90% are spam (and growing every day at an alarming rate). I would beg that you let the registered users keep their albums and just don't allow unregistered users to create albums (and delete all that spam).

[AresKeith]

ElitePinecone wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Or it's the obvious fact that are being removed as a cost cutting measure, but instead of saying that they claim it to be "feedback" from the community

They're spending time and money developing a new site, it says right there in the first post. 

And what is the issue exactly with cost-cutting when it involves expensive, bandwidth-heavy features that few people actually use? They're not a charity, after all, and there's no obligation to provide a service for what is essentially a small minority of the BSN's total userbase. 

I understand if it's due to cost-cutting, the problem is the sugercoat and claim its due to feedback

From the reactions you can see that

[AutumnWitch]

Dear Old BSN,

[giftfish]

luna1124 wrote...

I do understand about the spam albums. There are currently 33,411 "albums" which about 90% are spam (and growing every day at an alarming rate). I would beg that you let the registered users keep their albums and just don't allow unregistered users to create albums (and delete all that spam).

Now this sounds exceedingly logical.

[Angrywolves]

harsher moderation ?
That would apply to EVERYONE.
shrugs.
Ignore, blocking features, someone hired to be an actual mod who devoted time to it, merging duplicate threads, those steps would have fixed 90% of the issues imo.

[CynicalShep]

So when are you guise shutting down the forum?

[Cainhurst Crow]

CynicalShep wrote...

So when are you guise shutting down the forum?

I give it a year.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Morocco Mole wrote...

If anything is chasing people away its the toxicity brought on by inconsistent moderation and incredibly hostile forum members who never seem to get more than a slap on the wrist.

[CynicalShep]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

So when are you guise shutting down the forum?

I give it a year.

I think it depends on the new DA game.

[Ravensword]

luna1124 wrote...

I do understand about the spam albums. There are currently 33,411 "albums" which about 90% are spam (and growing every day at an alarming rate). I would beg that you let the registered users keep their albums and just don't allow unregistered users to create albums (and delete all that spam).

Spam is a big problem w/ the albums and the blogs. However, EA's solution is to throw out the baby w/ the bath water. Though, I do see that the latter is much easier to do and at the same time allows EA to do away w/ these features in order to cut costs.

[Dova]

Morocco Mole wrote...

I suspect BSN will be shutdown at some point in the near future too. Or revamped into an unrecognizable state.

I suspect this also. I don't think BSN turned out the way they imagined/thought it would and now they don't want it.
I think the changes are ways for groups of people too leave and then when not enough active users they'll close it down.

[Ravensword]

Dovaaa wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

I suspect BSN will be shutdown at some point in the near future too. Or revamped into an unrecognizable state.

I suspect this also. I don't think BSN turned out the way they imagined/thought it would and now they don't want it.
I think the changes are ways for groups of people too leave and then when not enough active users they'll close it down.

It'll be like when the old BW site becme the BSN. The thing is whether they'll replace the BSN w/ another forum or not.

[ElitePinecone]

Dovaaa wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

I suspect BSN will be shutdown at some point in the near future too. Or revamped into an unrecognizable state.

I suspect this also. I don't think BSN turned out the way they imagined/thought it would and now they don't want it.
I think the changes are ways for groups of people too leave and then when not enough active users they'll close it down.

Your tinfoil hat is showing.

[Allan Schumacher]

If anything is chasing people away its the toxicity brought on by
inconsistent moderation and incredibly hostile forum members who never
seem to get more than a slap on the wrist.

I've been getting an awful lot of this lately.

Here's the problem.  Said poster(s) that you're concerned about, I may not interact with as much (based on thread topics) and when I do, I see someone that more frequently does NOT take the bait compared to the groups of individuals that literally troll said person(s) in an attempt to get a rise out of the poster(s).

Here's a fact: virtually every time I ban someone I get some sob story about how I'm obviously not banning those other posters, when the reality is you're letting yourself get SO irate in your crusade against said poster that you basically walk around with "Please ban me because I'm on a mission and think I'm sneaky about it."  When frequently many friends jump into the thread to try to illustrate how evil said poster(s) are being, you end up actually coming across like the bullies yourself AND there's a plethora of opportunities to ban a SINGLE poster when 5+ people are railing on a thread vs the single target you're targeting.

And I don't make public alerts when moderating people, so you're unlikely to hear about "Person you hate" being moderated, while you're overly exposed to "person you like" getting moderated because it becomes a status update and at times even celebrated.

Chashan wrote...

And introducing a toggle for individual users bothered this way to block PMs by anyone who is not a mutual friend of theirs wouldn't have been the more reasonable step here?

No need to answer in detail, Mr Schumacher, you did point out that you are not with the maintenance-crew for the site.

If it was easy to make that change, it would've probably been done.  How complicated said change is, however, would depend on the underlying infrastructure (which isn't something I'm familiar with, like UBB or something like that).

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 19 novembre 2013 - 09:13 .

[Dova]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Dovaaa wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

I suspect BSN will be shutdown at some point in the near future too. Or revamped into an unrecognizable state.

I suspect this also. I don't think BSN turned out the way they imagined/thought it would and now they don't want it.
I think the changes are ways for groups of people too leave and then when not enough active users they'll close it down.

Your tinfoil hat is showing.

Or I could just be being sarcastic. Who knows. 
I was being legit on that BSN turned out diferently then intended though. I think Mr.Priestly made that pretty clear with the OT and such.

[OdanUrr]

Could we know a bit more of what features are being incorporated?

[Jessica Merizan]

Angrywolves wrote...

harsher moderation ?
That would apply to EVERYONE.
shrugs.
Ignore, blocking features, someone hired to be an actual mod who devoted time to it, merging duplicate threads, those steps would have fixed 90% of the issues imo.

We have full time moderators actually. They came on this past May. The BioMod#'s. 

The Read Only transition is happening today. We are NOT making Projects read only due to valid and incredibly well stated reasoning brought up by stakeholders of that feature in this tread. Unlike some people have stated, I don't believe the majority is always right.

For those of you interested, we started gathering feedback on a future BioWare Community site last September. This thread was posted in each of the major subforums:
http://social.biowar...14081744-1.html

We also posted it to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and external gaming sites. The feedback we got from that survey as well as our own market research and my work in community management guided our judgements. We also use robust telemetry/analytics data that gives us a lot of feedback. That's how I know that less than 2% of our total registered users (not time spent which some people have interpreted and argued that it takes little time but actual users) are interacting with the features that we will be making Read Only. Again, you will still be able to see what has already been posted, just not create new content. 

Some changes of course are due to our technical limitations in the short term, from which Jesse and I are not planning on walking away. We hope to have in place a better PM solution for the future for instance.

I will endeavor to be as transparent as possible, but again, most of the cloak and dagger language isn't PR writing copy for me (they'd probably have done a better job lol) or us trying to save money and not wanting to tell you, but rather that the development cycle is fluid and fragile. Until things are 100% locked, it's difficult to speak about. 

In some cases, however, as with Projects, when you don't like a decision we have made and you can articulate it rationally and with support, we're happy to see if there are any adjustments we can make. 

[2Pac]

I just hope nothing happens to the groups.

Modifié par alliance commander, 19 novembre 2013 - 06:04 .

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I would have liked to have seen the existing functions preserved, and I am sad to see them go, but I'm quite happy too see that projects will, for now, be spared.

Projects are actually the one feature that I don't personally use, but I'm confident that of the four, Projects is the most important one, and should definitely be given special consideration.

[SlottsMachine]

TipsLeFedora wrote...

Chashan wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I always found the PM harassment weird since I was under the impression that you could simply block the user which would block any incoming PMs. In fact, I thought that was basically the only thing the block feature did. If people were using multiple user profiles to do this then, then yeah. That's more understandable.

Alt account circumvention to blocking was a huge issue not too long ago.

And introducing a toggle for individual users bothered this way to block PMs by anyone who is not a mutual friend of theirs wouldn't have been the more reasonable step here?

No need to answer in detail, Mr Schumacher, you did point out that you are not with the maintenance-crew for the site.

That word!

Toggle?

[Zjarcal]

Jessica Merizan wrote...

We are NOT making Projects read only due to valid and incredibly well stated reasoning brought up by stakeholders of that feature in this tread.

***

In some cases, however, as with Projects, when you don't like a decision we have made and you can articulate it rationally and with support, we're happy to see if there are any adjustments we can make. 

I'm really glad to read this, good to know you were able to see the merit in keeping the Projects section up.