Courier ‘Network’ Chat

Good or bad?

A) Is it informative, helpful, a useful tool to establish relationships with other members (please DON’T Mike & Kate) and one of the main things that differentiates ‘Network’ from the other exchange sites. Or..

B) Is it a destructive and disruptive forum that encourages ‘Witch-hunts’, ‘Naming & Shaming’, cliques, petty vendettas and wastes both our time reading and contributing and ‘Network”s time monitoring and Big Brothering?

Posted under Courier and Freight Exchanges

Posted by Alec at 5:16 pm, February 14, 2007

10 Comments so far

  1. That’s my opinion as well Jerry, at the moment anyway.

    Now let’s imagine that ‘policing’ the Chat page is a huge drain on ‘Network”s resources. Would the site become less useful without the Chat? How many of us would cancel our memberships if Chat was removed? I certainly think the site would lose some of it’s character; maybe it would be a good thing if it became more ‘professional’ though? I don’t know.

    There are certainly businesses that have been ruined by comments on ‘Network’ Chat – often deservedly, but not always. There are other businesses that people normally wouldn’t do business with but through their reputations, gained largely from comments on here, have got away with all sorts.

    What would our courier ‘Network’ be like without the Chat?

  2. Do you mean a separate page for crap, or to separate the Chat pages from the main site Jerry?

    Whichever, it doesn’t solve the problem with the amount of effort ‘Network’ have to put in to police the chat pages; but which did you mean?

  3. “The easy option for ‘Network’ would be to set up an ezboard, and select a few trusted/sensible people to moderate it.”

    “Ding”. I was reaching that conclusion myself and I was about to nominate you for the job. I don’t agree with the ezboard factor though – it would have to be done within the ‘Network’ site otherwise it becomes a bit detached like MTV**’s forum. I’m seriously impressed with the ‘moderating’ on Link4 (except that Admin guy when he gets a nark on). if people really want to talk complete bollocks and have a pop at each other on here it should be user-moderated. Why should ‘Network’ pay for the hassle of it? More importantly why should WE all pay for THEM to moderate it – because that’s what’s happening.

  4. I wasn’t making any reference to the drivel – that’s harmless enough, although a bit tedious for those not involved! It’s the ‘moderation’ or ‘Big Brothering’ of contentious topics that was concerning me.

    I can quite easily imagine that at least 10% of ‘Network”s staffing costs arise from policing this forum. At the end of the day WE pay for that and none of us are happy with the way it’s done.

    If there was a proper, ebay-style, rating system of course this wouldn’t be an issue. Member A could front up and make a comment about a job done by Member B and Member B could either respond (and be judged by their response) or not respond (and be judged by their lack of response). ‘Policing’ issues then melt into nothingness – apart from the odd bucket of water that needs throwing over certain members (double entendre not intended – but realised).

  5. Mike, I’ve already made it clear that I wasn’t referring to your smutfest. You’re one of the more quick-witted people on here – so read my comments the way they’re intended.

  6. Well I’ve been tempted to tell you to “get a room” recently – but that’s none of my business. Anyway I wouldn’t want to be the one that deprives an old man of his last chance of a bit of fun….

    I know from what some other members have said that some of Fred’s/Gail’s/Debbie’s/Kate’s/Alison’s/your/etc comments aren’t unanimously appreciated – but I’m sure most people don’t mind and it’s not that that seems to cause ‘Network’ the problems.

    I was trying to open a debate about how we could maybe enjoy the full benefits of these Chat pages without causing ‘Network’ a problem.

  7. I thought you were arguing against trivialising important threads Fred?

  8. You’re missing MY point Fred. I’ve got no objection at all to the trivial threads (although maybe ‘Network’ could allow you to add [shite warning] to the subject line).
    My point was the amount of time/money/effort that must be expended in ensuring that our posts don’t breach the ‘acceptable use guidelines’ – or whatever they were called (they seem to have vanished from the site anyway as it happens) – must surely be balanced by the benefit of ‘Chat’ to our courier ‘Network’ as a whole.

    If it’s costing them £50k pa just to police the chat page – at no tangible benefit to ‘Network’ – then maybe they might start to think that the Chat is not worth continuing as as service? Maybe it would be more valid, to both the users and to the ‘Network’, if the ‘moderation’ of the Chat pages was managed by the members rather than by the ‘Network’?

    I’m playing devil’s advocate on this because I can see potential problems arising – which is why I want to encourage a broad exchange of views without trivialising the matter.

  9. And that was the point Fred -looking at things from their point of view.

    The ‘Network’ is a business and has to balance its costs and revenues the way we all do. Checking for contentious issues on Chat must be a full time job for at least one person and it’s US that pay for it in the long run – unless ‘Network’ becomes X% less viable as a business.

    If it came to the crunch – is the courier ‘Network’ viable without a Chat forum or is there a more viable way of providing the Chat pages?

  10. And Fred, for the record – I don’t actually give a toss how much ‘drivel’ you post. I find your womanising techniques most informative and I’m looking forward to your “how to be an attractive forty-something” lessons over the next few years.

Leave a Comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Comments

Comments

Next Post: