UKBouldering.com
the site => suggestions, requests, support => Topic started by: ukb on April 23, 2012, 11:32:00 am
-
Another request for feedback, for no particular reason posted a couple of months earlier than last year. Is there anything about UKB you'd like us to add/ remove/ enhance/ censor/ sanitise ...?
-
Image hosting would be nice. It's a ballache having to uplaod pics elsewhere and then link to.
-
Could dramatically increase server/bandwidth costs though.
Perhaps that could be a paid for service though, e.g. donate £X/year for premium account and get Y/Gb of storage space (although that would only cover hosting, rather than the increased bandwidth of sending that to each computer that views a page).
:-\
Greater use of the Wiki would be good, but thats down to users have the inclination to write things up.
-
Option to somehow ignore threads (unless this is there already?) I normally browse ukb by using the unread posts link, but am never going to be interested in certain threads for example the football one, at the moment I just don't open them then mark all as read but would be nice if I could mark some so they didn't come up?
-
I'd like to be able to vote for more than one thing when a vote comes up.
I think it's great, apart from the pervading smell of piss and sour milk, but I think that's because someone needs a bath
-
UKB is a never-ending source of delight.
I too think the wiki could be better maintained - I've seen a few times on threads that people just don't know where it is.
I know it's one of the tabs on the homepage but that only clicks through to the highlights. Perhaps that could be better used as a wiki contents page? Just my 2p?
-
I posted the same query in the wiki upgrades thread a while back. Should be an obvious link to the wiki homepage.
There's also no way to edit the highlights, so the wiki looks as though it hasn't been updated for years.
-
I'd like to be able to vote for more than one thing when a vote comes up.
Just checked and thats down to the person setting up the polls. When setting one up there is the "Poll Options" section after you enter the possible responses and the first field is "Maximum votes per user:" which defaults to one. So the functionality exists in the forum software, its just not used very often (if at all).
-
First re image hosting.. the Tapatalk app does image hosting for you.. (if you use in on your iOS/Andriod device..) works really well.
My tuppence - which I've been thinking about for a while.... and possibly looking at a bigger picture for the UKB future..
3-4 years ago, when I first started posting my dribble on this wonderful site - it was the best/most easy/dominant/there form of social media for climbing/bouldering chat/hookups/beta etc... Now, I know a load of folk from here on twitter and on faceache.. so I find that when arranging trips to the crag or piss ups etc.. then twitter is used - and to catch up with gossip - news, first ascent, new videos etc.. then faceache is often the first place I see/find out about things. So UKB's role within my climbing life has shifted a little. Twitter and faceache (which I hate, but abide btw..) are no replacement - but some of what I did/could do on UKB is now carried out on there... so I use UKB less...
Now the twitter side of things (meet ups - banter etc.. whats the weather like in sheff questiosn) does not detract from UKB usage much - but the snippets of news etc.. on FB does...
So I think that UKB may need to catch up a little and work on some sort of FB/Twitter integration. Quite how you do that I dont know - and I would loathe/hate it to move lock stock to FB (I dont think it could/would) but some sort of canny linkage thing to drive traffic back to this site from FB so UKB becomes more of a hub (again).
In summary, because of this I tend to check/dip into UKB a few times a day rather than just leave it on.... (though it depends of course on how much of a lazy skiving bastard I'm being at work!)....
All just my views etc...
TT
-
I'd like to be able to vote for more than one thing when a vote comes up.
Just checked and thats down to the person setting up the polls. When setting one up there is the "Poll Options" section after you enter the possible responses and the first field is "Maximum votes per user:" which defaults to one. So the functionality exists in the forum software, its just not used very often (if at all).
Fuck me, it was an attempt at being humorous.
-
Despite your footer...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4c/Lost_in_Translation_poster.jpg/220px-Lost_in_Translation_poster.jpg)
-
Image hosting would be nice. It's a ballache having to uplaod pics elsewhere and then link to.
Just had a quick look at the SMF forums, and this thread (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=25947.0) is a few years old, but shows how the forum can be configured to allow users to upload pictures from the forum, but they are actually hosted at ImageShack (last post in the thread was 2010 and suggests it worked then).
-
I like the current mix. Some threads have been a real help in times of need.
-
I like the current mix. Some threads have been a real help in times of need.
Like DFBWGC ;D
-
The power of UKB, it's enormous. It dictates my entire existence.
-
The power of UKB, it's enormous. It dictates my entire existence.
:lol: :2thumbsup:
-
The power of UKB, it's enormous. It dictates my entire existence.
Amen...
-
I voted VCS but i'm pretty fucked off you've abandoned the pinks
:worms:
-
Good topic! According to Google Analytics, UKB's "unique visitor" numbers are flattish 2012 vs 2011, having risen sharply 2011 vs 2010. And average time spent on the site has declined slightly. That may reflect the Twitter/ FB impact you describe. Obviously there are "solutions" like a more active UKB presence on FB and Twitter , with some underlying aim like trying to point people back to threads on the forum. But is that really useful to anyone or would it just be adding yet more link-spam to the internet? It seems like UKB has (hopefully not: had) some genuine identity as a community. Shouldn't it live or die on that basis alone?
:-\
I've been thinking about this alot...
Interesting on the stats/figures.. I'd kind of suspected this had happened..
As I first kind of suggested I think a FB only way would be an option (as in possibility) but one I would hate to see happen...
But you need to draw some traffic back to UKB. Suggestions are...
1. Get a twitter name and twitter feed box on the front page (piss to do - twitter even set up the code for oyu etc..). This can either/both display UKB's tweets (e.g. look at this new story!! woo woo.. or Ned does something bastard hard etc..) and probablty more important, get it do display every message with the hashtag #ukb. That way UKB-ers who tweet can easily post something relevant to UKB by dropping in the hashtag...
2. Add a tweet this - or facebook this button to the left of the reply to link.. OK, this clutters up the page a bit - BUT - if someone see's a good video/story etc.. then they can easily insert the story in their FB/T timeline etc.. If someone posts something in their timeline - then 100-200 (probably mainly) non UKB people will see it through that persons time-line.. thats some marketing...
3. Get a UKB faceache page (its easy to do but does feel like selling your soul to satan..). I'm involved with a charity (with c.200 members) that set up a faceache page. We got 100 friends/followers etc... after settign up the faceache page - this means the charity popped up to 20 000 people via time-lines etc.. everytime someone liked something on the page - all their friends saw it too.. thats powerful marketing. Imagine UKB gets the first video clip of Ondra breakdancing.. easy way to make him doing the worm viral... ;)
4. Do some work owners!... Someones got to keep it updated to drive traffic back to your site. Whether this be updating the faceboook page/twitter feed or front page - if you want to keep people here and drive some traffic back then you have to make somethign for people to see.. The best social media feeds for businesses have regular but not too obviously commercial updates - so people are drawn back to have a look. This has to be c. every day IMHO...
Why do you need to do this? Well, this AM - in my FB time line, is a video of Ned flashing requiem for a dream, taken by a regular UKB'er and been posted up on vimeo - thats also been tagged/flagged by another regular UKB lurker - and liked by another two UKB very regular users.. Its not on UKB first... It'll make it here at some point, but really it should appear here first? I wish it did instead of on facewank...
I dont want to see UKB become some mega commercial horror site - but equally part of its healthy continuation is to keep drawing new people in, and to retain existing regular users.. Otherwise will it become the internet equivalent of an old working mans club where the only regulars left are a couple of old giffers still talking about whether the other dabbed on his flash of xyz :)
-
Why do you need to do this? Well, this AM - in my FB time line, is a video of Ned flashing requiem for a dream, taken by a regular UKB'er and been posted up on vimeo - thats also been tagged/flagged by another regular UKB lurker - and liked by another two UKB very regular users.. Its not on UKB first... It'll make it here at some point, but really it should appear here first? I wish it did instead of on facewank...
I saw it in Quality Vids last night... posted by Willackers
edit
and Thesiger beat me to reporting this
-
Yeah, but where did I find out about it first!
(despite being on ukb then..)
-
but it was nicely embedded on UKB
oh yes it was!
he's behind you!
etc.
and besides, it's the version using heels on that video, so you might as well have waited till it appeared on FUKC
-
There already is a Ukb faceache page and a twitter feed and an Rss...
They haven't been updated for a year or so (except the "is it greasy" twit).
I can pull down those feeds through Flipboard on iOS. Some sort of share function would be good.
I do share the odd thing in FB, but it's a ball ache copying and pasting urls and switching between apps.
You should be able to feed the site into flipboard in a similar way to taptalk?
-
Why do you need to do this? Well, this AM - in my FB time line, is a video of Ned flashing requiem for a dream, taken by a regular UKB'er and been posted up on vimeo - thats also been tagged/flagged by another regular UKB lurker - and liked by another two UKB very regular users.. Its not on UKB first... It'll make it here at some point, but really it should appear here first? I wish it did instead of on facewank...
Surely thats down to your usage of websites, in so much as you go and check Farcebook before UKB (and I'd hazard thats because it aggregates several different things in one place).
Perhaps the key, particularly with Vimeo, would be to get the people who make and post the videos to add them to the Vimeo UKBouldering Group (https://vimeo.com/groups/ukbouldering) as part of uploading it. But again that comes down to user behaviour and if the first thing they do once its uploaded is to embed/post it on Farcebook rather than add it to that group then you can't change that.
Perhaps setting up an RSS feed to suck the latest additions to the Vimeo group into a Video thread a la the blogpile would get the videos here quicker, but it won't have the same distinction between Quality/Non-Quality that currently exists.
The @isitgreasy (https://twitter.com/#!/isitgreasy) twitter account exists on twitter and sucks in posts on conditions. I'm not sure having all posts tweeted to an account would garner many followers (beyond bots/spammers). There is certainly too much activity here for me to add it to my Twitter followers (although I could silence it add it to a list and then look at that list as and when I want to, but then thats not much different from coming here and looking at "Unread Posts"). Perhaps you could increase traffic by having a (convoluted) Vimeo Group -> RSS feed sucked into UKB -> Updates to UKB Vimeo thread posted to @ukbvideo account on twitter .
Not trying to be down on the idea of increasing traffic to the site, just my take on how/why things happen the way they currently do.
On the Wiki front, I don't think it needs a 'maintainer', at least not at the moment, for the simple reason that it really needs content before it can be maintained. Collating all the advice that is repeatedly posted in the forum in response to questions/posts on injuries (Pulley Injuries (http://ukbouldering.com/wiki/index.php/Pulley_Injuries_:_The_Science) and Elbow (http://ukbouldering.com/wiki/index.php/Elbow_Injuries_:_The_Science)1), training (http://ukbouldering.com/wiki/index.php/Training_:_The_Science), people's knowledge and experience of venues (http://ukbouldering.com/wiki/index.php/Venues), into these wiki pages would mean that there is then content that needs maintaining (e.g. updating links, removing dead ones, ensuring consistent formatting/style across pages). Adding content isn't the responsibility of Wiki maintainers because that comes from users adding stuff. But most people would, quite rightly, rather be out bouldering/climbing than writing wiki pages.
-
Why do you need to do this? Well, this AM - in my FB time line, is a video of Ned flashing requiem for a dream, taken by a regular UKB'er and been posted up on vimeo - thats also been tagged/flagged by another regular UKB lurker - and liked by another two UKB very regular users.. Its not on UKB first... It'll make it here at some point, but really it should appear here first? I wish it did instead of on facewank...
Surely thats down to your usage of websites, in so much as you go and check Farcebook before UKB (and I'd hazard thats because it aggregates several different things in one place).
Grr.... (not at you Slackers - in general at being misunderstood)...
typical - you post a thread to try and add something constructive and get pulled apart by using a weak example.. ;)
But in the way the internet is I feel compelled to explain/give my excuses.,. I'd been on UKB last night (after 10) and before lookign at FB this morning! Not the best example to post - but there have been others.. Still, Stallioni and PaulB both liked it on FB and not sure they've commented on the vid thread here...
I guess part of my point was that UKB should be the place that aggregates things into one place - as faceache's not called boulderbook! I missed that video on UKB - and found it on FB this AM...
-
Yes that would seem a bit crap, but if (for example) After Will posted up his vid here he pressed a link to fb button then fb users would be directed to ukb then Vimeo etc... Same with twitter..
-
Why do you need to do this? Well, this AM - in my FB time line, is a video of Ned flashing requiem for a dream, taken by a regular UKB'er and been posted up on vimeo - thats also been tagged/flagged by another regular UKB lurker - and liked by another two UKB very regular users.. Its not on UKB first... It'll make it here at some point, but really it should appear here first? I wish it did instead of on facewank...
Surely thats down to your usage of websites, in so much as you go and check Farcebook before UKB (and I'd hazard thats because it aggregates several different things in one place).
I guess part of my point was that UKB should be the place that aggregates things into one place - as faceache's not called boulderbook! I missed that video on UKB - and found it on FB this AM...
Ok, and apologies for misunderstanding, but at the moment aggregation on both FB and here boils down to user input. So I guess it comes down to how do you encourage uploaders and others when they find a video they think is worth sharing to post it here before Farcebook. Personally I link/embed videos here because...
1) I think its a place where others who are interested in them will find them.
2) I don't go to the UKB Vimeo group page very often (there is no equivalent on YouTube at the moment as far as I'm aware).
3) I'm not registered on Farcebook.
So how do I find videos, firstly here! I also subscribe via RSS (using feedly) and Google+ to things like BD Journal, DMM, WildCountry or One Bouldering Video a Day (http://oneboulderingvideoaday.tumblr.com/), which I organise into groups to give one quick easy place to find things, at my leisure.
I can't offer any solution to this, because I don't think there is one, each person uses the vast array of websites and aggregaters in their own preferred way which works for them. There is no right or wrong.
To make UKB the first place to have a video/news report would likely require someone dedicating a fair amount of time following all these things and other news sites (e.g. Alpinist, ClimbingNarc, etc.) and as soon as a report is made getting it here so that UKB is seen as having news quick and fast, and perhaps most importantly well written, researched and referenced.
-
I don't see any point/benefit to boulderers, in UKB trying to poach traffic off FB and twitter. Both of which are here to stay and already clogged up with cross site spam. Most regulars probably already look at all three sites so why the fuck do they want to see the same content three times.
As far as developing UKB goes I’d love to see UKB beg, borrow, or buy peakbouldering.info, tidy it up and integrate it into the site. I think both sites would benefit from it immeasurably.
Look at how UKC has been boosted by its logbook function. There’s no reason why something built on the basis of pb.info couldn’t expand over time into a full UK bouldering database.
-
Sounds like a masterplan to me.
-
1. like BJ said, buy pb.info, would be great. Could be a great site but seems gareth is pretty busy so not much is moving there
2. TT's ideas sound good. esp a share button for good posts etc
-
1. like BJ said, buy pb.info, would be great. Could be a great site but seems gareth is pretty busy so not much is moving there
Would need to buy his time (or someone else with the technical knowledge) to continue development of features. The rest (registering ascents, scoring style of problems, quality and grades) is down to users.
-
Its an interesting thought.
The only reason I don't use pbi much is cos of the UI - its much better on UKC logbook. (That's neither a criticism of pbi nor an admission of anything else BTW)
-
1. like BJ said, buy pb.info, would be great. Could be a great site but seems gareth is pretty busy so not much is moving there
Would need to buy his time (or someone else with the technical knowledge) to continue development of features. The rest (registering ascents, scoring style of problems, quality and grades) is down to users.
True, but any worthwhile development of UKB is going to require time, expert imput and some amount of money. I reckon the bouldering community and the sites involved would get a lot for a little in this case.
I think an impoved UI and the bigger profile generated by being part of UKB would easily generate the required increase in user input.
Obviously this is all highly speculative as I've no idea whether PB or UKB would go for the idea.
-
As far as developing UKB goes I’d love to see UKB beg, borrow, or buy peakbouldering.info, tidy it up and integrate it into the site. I think both sites would benefit from it immeasurably.
Look at how UKC has been boosted by its logbook function. There’s no reason why something built on the basis of pb.info couldn’t expand over time into a full UK bouldering database.
This is a great idea. the UKC logbook in itself was an absolute stroke of genius, a self-editing, self-expanding database that runs in parallel to a guide publishing company!
Personally I also like the idea of an "ignore this thread permanently" button. The blogpile is still expanding and I use a much better (no borking image code), much more mobile solution. Of course there are workarounds... but still :shit:
-
I'd agree that the UKB+PB.info idea is fantastic, especially if there was a link to the Beta section of the forum where applicable.
-
how long before the borg assimilate and kill pb.info...
-
especially if there was a link to the Beta section of the forum where applicable.
The Beta section as a whole, or specific threads on specific problems? Later could be tricky to automate and would otherwise require someone to add the links.
Alternatively an additional feature of the pb.info site could be to have a (hideable?) 'beta' section, regardless of ownership.
how long before the borg assimilate and kill pb.info...
Guess it depends on whether its for sale, the asking price and how much is being offered. :devangel:
Although UKC use their own 'bespoke' system for the database which includes boulder problems at many venues, written, maintained and updated by I believe Nick Smith (there was a thread the other week about improving the database). Integrating this with Gareth's pb.info may not be straight-forward, and would require some work at least to make the compatible/integrated.
-
The UKC logbook coverage of bouldering is weak and there is definately space/demand for sites like pb.info and yorkshiregrit.com. Boulderers don't want to have to wade through pages of route info to find problems. The logbook system would have to change quite radically to surplant these sites. I can't really see them wanting the hideous job of transferring all the info on such sites into a format compatible with the current logbook set-up. Not in the short term anyway, I imagine they have other priorities. UKB has the advantage of no pre-existing structure so it only needs to improve on what already exists and somehow integrate into the UKB site in an attractive user friendly way.
-
On the other hand like it or hate it 8a.spew already has a perfectly fine bouldering logbook which isn't limited to certain areas. Why reinvent the wheel?
-
I think there are extras that could be added to UKBouldering to improve it.
However I think what is here is great already, I can't see problems that need to be fixed.
Incidentally there are two shagging smileys in the selection above: :shag: and :lets_do_it_wild:
-
Whether UKB makes a pitch for PB.info or not, the success of dedicated bouldering sites to my mind hinge at a bare minimum on covering server costs.
How are these met by the different sites at present? To take three examples....
Yorkshiregrit.com (http://www.yorkshiregrit.com/) - Self-funded & donations, comes and goes intermittently with the site owners enthusiasm.
Peakbouldering.info (http://peakbouldering.info/) - Self-funded, no options for donations.
bleau.info (http://bleau.info/) - Less clear, but has a shop section selling guide books and other stuff (commission based click-throughs), copyright indicates association/ownership by a netherlands company.
UKB persists through sponsors these days which more or less cover server costs.
To integrate either peakbouldering.info or yourshiregrit.com into the site, wouldn't be that hard, but I'd imagine remuneration for the work done to date would be expected (who's going to cough up for that), and there would be a cost associated with incorporating all of the feedback as to improvements people would like to see. If these can't be met by some form of advertising, or association with clothing companies or guidebook publishers it won't happen unless someone with deep(-ish) pockets (or at least cash and/or time to spare) does it solely for the love of it (in which case improvements come as and when they've the time and inclination to do them).
-
Dave - 8a.nu is the loggest log I've ever come across. If they've invented the wheel on this then it's a got a flat tyre, several missing spokes and could do with a good dose of re-inventing. It only functions (barely) as a piece of digital (toilet) paper on which to list what things a user has climbed (probably at Anston).
Slackline - The fact that funding is tight and an ongoing problem for such sites is likely to make any sort of offer an attractive prospect I'd have thought. Essentially you get to keep your labour of love without having to perpetually find ways to pay for it. Plus they get to see the site expand and prosper. What's the downside? Obviously there'd be conditions of transfer to protect against resale or change of function etc.
-
It only functions (barely) as a piece of digital (toilet) paper on which to list what things a user has climbed (probably at Anston).
:lol:
Not entirely true though. I get loads of info from it. Mostly this is for Euro sport (what times of year look ok for each venue, what routes are good, what are good for the onsight etc) but there's some useful stuff on uk boulders hidden in there too. Unfortunately though it can take some searching to dig it out.
-
8a.nu is absolutely fine as a logbook. You go on, you say what you did and when, which is what a logbook is.
-
I could do a poo in a dictionary, that would also fit the strictest definition of a logbook.
-
fucking genius
-
A really shit laptop could be described as a logbook.
-
(http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg82/scaled.php?server=82&filename=woodbook0033552543de4.jpg&res=landing)
-
(http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg82/scaled.php?server=82&filename=woodbook0033552543de4.jpg&res=landing)
The inspirational front cover for the new rockfax peak limestone guide?
-
Here's our recently-outed previously-secret Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/UKbouldering/162644607134957) :-[
Like us if you like. Then we can get our own URL. :bounce:
-
I could do a poo in a dictionary, that would also fit the strictest definition of a logbook.
If a post ever deserved a wad point...... duly wadded!
-
Slackline - The fact that funding is tight and an ongoing problem for such sites is likely to make any sort of offer an attractive prospect I'd have thought. Essentially you get to keep your labour of love without having to perpetually find ways to pay for it. Plus they get to see the site expand and prosper. What's the downside? Obviously there'd be conditions of transfer to protect against resale or change of function etc.
Set in that context then from the sellers perspective I can't think of one, for the buyer though there is raising the initial capital and taking the financial risk with relatively little known about the likely return on investment (be it through donations/adbanners/click-throughs).
I'm not saying its a bad idea, it would actually be good to see such sites grow and prosper, but someone somewhere has to cover the costs and would no doubt like to at least cover these through advertising, sales or other means so they're not paying out of their own pocket. Some of these costs are mitigated by using external video and image hosting as it helps keep server costs down because they're not hosted by Rose Hosting where each time someone views a forum the server would have to transmit them to the device viewing the site, which ups bandwidth usage and costs money.
But those decisions lie with the insect overlords (or others with deep pockets willing to throw some money in the virtual kitty).
-
From what I gather (from Gareth), the costs of peakbouldering.info, are not all that substantial. All the videos are hosted elsewhere etc as linux tells us.
I think time is the limiting function in its growth but thats just a guess from brief conversations whilst badgering him about functionality (usually he's belaying for a solid 45mins so can't get away).
-
Here's our recently-outed previously-secret Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/UKbouldering/162644607134957) :-[
Like us if you like. Then we can get our own URL. :bounce:
Of course, as I was driving I realised; using the FB page through your own FB account; circumvents the anonymity of your UKB user name...
Unless you use your UKB name on FB?
-
Slackline - The fact that funding is tight and an ongoing problem for such sites is likely to make any sort of offer an attractive prospect I'd have thought. Essentially you get to keep your labour of love without having to perpetually find ways to pay for it. Plus they get to see the site expand and prosper. What's the downside? Obviously there'd be conditions of transfer to protect against resale or change of function etc.
Set in that context then from the sellers perspective I can't think of one, for the buyer though there is raising the initial capital and taking the financial risk with relatively little known about the likely return on investment (be it through donations/adbanners/click-throughs).
I'm not saying its a bad idea, it would actually be good to see such sites grow and prosper, but someone somewhere has to cover the costs and would no doubt like to at least cover these through advertising, sales or other means so they're not paying out of their own pocket. Some of these costs are mitigated by using external video and image hosting as it helps keep server costs down because they're not hosted by Rose Hosting where each time someone views a forum the server would have to transmit them to the device viewing the site, which ups bandwidth usage and costs money.
But those decisions lie with the insect overlords (or others with deep pockets willing to throw some money in the virtual kitty).
Hmm,
You would be buying the good bits (data, functionality etc) without a significant increase in your overhead (it would not need an increase in bandwidth etc). The sites themselves would disappear to become pages on UKB. There would be a high likelihood of bringing the other sites users (excluding overlap) across...
Bringing extra data and functionality into the existing site, giving an other hook to draw advertisers in.
Not exactly a detailed business plan, but it covers the basics; the only unknown is the outlay on acquisition.
I would not object to a little more advertising (as long as it's not for some PPI recovery shite) and I think if the insect overlords found they were making a bit on the side; well, good.
That might keep the site going longer and give incentive to keep the content fresh.
Disclaimer.
Having read the above, remember, I just stopped for coffee in Bristol, having driven from Sheerness and only 4 hrs sleep and cannot be held responsible for my own drivel...,
-
Here's our recently-outed previously-secret Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/UKbouldering/162644607134957) :-[
Like us if you like. Then we can get our own URL. :bounce:
http://www.facebook.com/UKbouldering (http://www.facebook.com/UKbouldering)
And, er, now what?
-
Actually...
I was merely pointing out that the page existed as someone mentioned it before.
I was wondering about the possibility of a "share" button to twitter or FB, from the forum.
I've often read things, or seen pictures/vids etc etc on here that I wanted to share.
So I copy the URL of the page and post that. This directs to the page not the object, so requires an explanation on the post and so on.
The flipboard app (is there an android version?) is a little like taptalk, but allows you to suck in FB, twitter, news channels, forums, magazines etc etc into a single chaptered magazine format on a tablet.
In truth, the forum (on taptalk) is the first place I go in the morning, then check my mail, then the BBC news site, then FB and twitter. By which time I've finished my coffee and it's time to start the day.
So the current format suits me fine.
Sharing a few choice items to the FB page might just draw in a few newbies and that can't be a bad thing, can it?
A headline or two?
Edit..
Anyone can post a URL onto the FB page, if you think a topic might attract outside interest.
No, YBY, not that.
-
I don't see any ads on ukb due to the adblocker thingy on my firefox. Does this mean I'm not supporting ukb? There's prob some way I can make an exception for a site. maybe. As if i know. The ukb ads weren't annoying before, and were sometimes entertaining. I used to click on them out of loyalty, but I'm too tight to pay for owt.
-
a block user function would be welcomed
-
Personally, I think UKB would benefit a great deal if it was integrated into a proper website platform. By that I mean, the site is currently a forum endeavouring to be a website, which would be fine if that was all it was. However, as things like reviews, articles etc. have appeared I think the site would have a lot more worth (particularly over time) if it had some kind of CMS database platform managing these types of content - to help with site searches and prevent article type content becoming bogged down and lost in a continuum of normal forum banter. It would also help manage/aggregate all the other exterior levels of UKB (i.e. the Vimeo FB pages etc.) into one focal point, so you could categorise videos, topos etc.
Still think it is a useful medium as it is, just think this fundamental change would add masses of value to the site.
-
I'd agree with that Greg.
-
Had been planning to reply at some stage but may have left it a bit late :-[
Lots of useful stuff here - thanks.
I guess we have three generic responses to the various points raised: 1. we agree and are doing something about it; 2. we agree and would like to do something about it but lack time and resources at the moment; 3. we don't agree. Mostly it's 2s.
Generally we are procrastinating on anything that requires a proper software solution. Once you commit to a certain direction - free package vs commercial package vs bespoke solution - it's tough to change course. So we are tending to stand back at the moment. If we do move forward it may be that we address lots of stuff simultaneously. There's a related philosophical issue as to how commercial we/ you really want to be? Serious investment in the site probably only makes sense if we also intend to chase income more aggressively ... which might spoil the place.
Basically it's still :-\ mode for now.
-
Serious investment in the site probably only makes sense if we also intend to chase income more aggressively ... which might spoil the place.
By which I assume what - some kinda subscription service?
I know that my gut reaction would be against it, but thinking about it logically I get so much from this site (news, beta, videos, partners) for free then I'd be happy to pay a monthly fee to use. But then again I'm a pretty prolific user.
So, that's a can of worms open. :worms:
-
Nobody's going to pay a subscription unless a site is offering a shit load of unique A+ content, I suspect it'd just mean more adverts/sponsored posts/etc
-
Serious investment in the site probably only makes sense if we also intend to chase income more aggressively ... which might spoil the place.
By which I assume what - some kinda subscription service?
No, we have not considered that at all.
Chasing income means pursuing advertisers more energetically. Which might or might not require some editorial change.
-
Personally, I think UKB would benefit a great deal if it was integrated into a proper website platform. By that I mean, the site is currently a forum endeavouring to be a website, which would be fine if that was all it was. However, as things like reviews, articles etc. have appeared I think the site would have a lot more worth (particularly over time) if it had some kind of CMS database platform managing these types of content - to help with site searches and prevent article type content becoming bogged down and lost in a continuum of normal forum banter. It would also help manage/aggregate all the other exterior levels of UKB (i.e. the Vimeo FB pages etc.) into one focal point, so you could categorise videos, topos etc.
Still think it is a useful medium as it is, just think this fundamental change would add masses of value to the site.
I'm in total agreement and looked into this many times before (and since in role of advisor) the site sale. However, the site has historically been built on a feature-rich forum and I've yet to find a good CMS that offers anything more than very basic forum functionality in comparison. I don't the userbase would be happy being suddenly limited to the rather poor offerings that come as part of most CMS solutions.
-
Chasing income means pursuing advertisers more energetically. Which might or might not require some editorial change.
Is mick ryan at a loose end?, he would be ace. :whistle:
-
Serious investment in the site probably only makes sense if we also intend to chase income more aggressively ... which might spoil the place.
By which I assume what - some kinda subscription service?
No, we have not considered that at all.
Chasing income means pursuing advertisers more energetically. Which might or might not require some editorial change.
That's good to know - I was just saying that personally I'd have no issues with a nominal fee.
I assume the advertising benefit would come from the traffic that comes here which I guess would be reduced if it was a paid site.
-
Nobody's going to pay a subscription unless a site is offering a shit load of unique A+ content, I suspect it'd just mean more adverts/sponsored posts/etc
NSFWDFBWGC?
:worms:
jus kiddin...
-
Personally, I think UKB would benefit a great deal if it was integrated into a proper website platform.
I'd agree with that Greg.
Has Jon hacked into your account?
-
Funny you should mention that, I do know of a web design company...
-
More Tshirts with amusing in jokes and slogans to make us seem even more smug and superior.
Not in black.
-
Some in black,
Please.
-
Personally, I think UKB would benefit a great deal if it was integrated into a proper website platform. By that I mean, the site is currently a forum endeavouring to be a website, which would be fine if that was all it was. However, as things like reviews, articles etc. have appeared I think the site would have a lot more worth (particularly over time) if it had some kind of CMS database platform managing these types of content - to help with site searches and prevent article type content becoming bogged down and lost in a continuum of normal forum banter. It would also help manage/aggregate all the other exterior levels of UKB (i.e. the Vimeo FB pages etc.) into one focal point, so you could categorise videos, topos etc.
Still think it is a useful medium as it is, just think this fundamental change would add masses of value to the site.
I'm in total agreement and looked into this many times before (and since in role of advisor) the site sale. However, the site has historically been built on a feature-rich forum and I've yet to find a good CMS that offers anything more than very basic forum functionality in comparison. I don't the userbase would be happy being suddenly limited to the rather poor offerings that come as part of most CMS solutions.
I didn't mean get rid of the SMF forum, I meant integrate it into a CMS (or the like) website, thus allowing better categorisation of 'real' content - content on the site, forum stuff in the forum. The line between real content and forum banter on this site is hazy and ambiguous at best (not meant as a criticism just the way I see it), and I think you have to be a VERY regular user to be able to find much of the often very useful info which appears. I often miss/can't find stuff, and I generally have a look 3-4 times a week... although this may be because I am a simple minded dullard.
From a commercial point of view, and speaking as someone who looks after the advertising of a potential UKB customer, I wouldn't advertise on here until it gets more structure - i.e. becomes a proper website. Obviously reading through what the overlords have said, they are not necessarily interested in making it a more commercial venture at present, in which case non of this matters. However, if at some point improving the financial gain does become a serious consideration, I would have thought other potential advertising customers may have a similar view to my own. As an aside, Google has had its algorithm altered a few times in the last few years to decrease the importance of "traditional forum content" within a search, thus this may also effect the site's worth over time.
-
Fair enough.
-
Sorry if this is obvious, but would it need integrating? Skin it so that it appears the same and run them side by side? I understand that runs the risk of the forum (or the content) looking like something tagged on.
-
Greg; yes have been looking at integrating the existing SMF forums into a CMS - there have been various possibilities but when investigated nothing has been really robust enough to pursue - e.g. they've only been partially functional, no longer supported, etc. Part of the problem has been the SMF licence agreement; there was a proper SMF / Joomla bridge but because the chosen licenses became incompatible it was shelved.
Of course sticking with SMF isn't set in stone and recently we've been evaluating alternative forum software which may open the way to better CMS integration.
Sorry if this is obvious, but would it need integrating? Skin it so that it appears the same and run them side by side? I understand that runs the risk of the forum (or the content) looking like something tagged on.
I think it would really - can you imagine needing one login/password for the forum, then another if you wanted to comment on an article, photo or vote on a problem database grade, etc? It'd be a right pain.
-
Sorry if this is obvious, but would it need integrating? Skin it so that it appears the same and run them side by side? I understand that runs the risk of the forum (or the content) looking like something tagged on.
I think it would really - can you imagine needing one login/password for the forum, then another if you wanted to comment on an article, photo or vote on a problem database grade, etc? It'd be a right pain.
Login's are already concurrent between the Forum and the Wiki though (accepting that it may not be possible with software other than SMF/Wikimedia combo used there).
-
That's a case of good luck really that some nice person had written a working bridge that has stayed working with newer version of mediawiki/smf - it's really hard to find equivalents for most CMS.
There is a paid for CMS that claims full SMF integration but there's no demo and no showcase site so hard to justify the outlay.