Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

is it unreasonable of me to expect mods might read/reply to pms? who are we supposed to contact about things that shouldnt be posted publicly?

I wouldnt say no, however...

When ive been busy with work, non-SAU life and a quite annoying illness which doesnt let me do much over the past month... (on top of the 40-50PM's im averaging a week, some of which are a month old now without reply) it happens.

I've now replied.

thanks...i had contacted the for sale moderators (buster had full pm box, neil and blitz never replied) without result so was wondering if id missed some sticky that says "dont pm mods, you should instead submit requests 'here'" or something to that effect. all good, thanks

  • 2 weeks later...

Oops should of read this before posting my topic, sorry, I can see why you would implement this new system however I think a lot of people would miss the ability to edit their posts, at first I thought this might have been phpBB where I've had little experience in however I noticed your using Invision IP Board where I have even less experience in however I think you can add the ability that any deleted text in an edit post, instead of removing it it just strikes it out just an idea I wanted to swing by the mods, and I guess for extra security you could program it to add a time stamp of the change?

  • 1 month later...

Having read most of this thread I can understand why the editing rules exist.

Perhaps a more permanent editing function could only became active for users with 200+ posts. I know that won't remove the risk altogether and that some people who don't post very regularly could be disadvantaged but surely it will remove scammers who join, post items for sale, take peoples money and then bail. Just a suggestion (I hope it wasn't made in the thread already).

  • 2 months later...

When is this problem going to be addressed? I've tried to have posts in the for sale section edited by reporting the post but the mods don't take any notice.

Not being able to edit posts is VERY VERY GAY! Fix it!!!

  • 3 months later...
  • 6 months later...
Oops should of read this before posting my topic, sorry, I can see why you would implement this new system however I think a lot of people would miss the ability to edit their posts, at first I thought this might have been phpBB where I've had little experience in however I noticed your using Invision IP Board where I have even less experience in however I think you can add the ability that any deleted text in an edit post, instead of removing it it just strikes it out just an idea I wanted to swing by the mods, and I guess for extra security you could program it to add a time stamp of the change?

This is a fantastic idea. What do you think of this mods? Dodgy traders will be obvious from attempting to edit out their posts along with other users being able to edit their threads!

Another great idea mentioned earlier would be after you have say 200-300 posts that you get a proper edit function. Dodgy traders aren't going to bother making 300 posts just so they can edit their posts.

If both of these ideas were implemented we would solve the problem at hand AND fix the BIGGER problem of everyone sending 1000 reports/PMs clogging up admins inbox's because they want their posts edited.

edit: (Lol) I only noticed this thread after this feature seemingly working on and off (didn't realise the 2 hour thing) for the past month thinking it was a bug so I went searching. Perhaps it should be made a sticky and the first post updated to give clear concise reasons why this has been done, that would stop users skimming the thread and posting in here asking the same questions multiple times.

Edited by Rolls

IPB 3.0 is coming - so there won't be anymore Dev work on the current version. It is due Q1 2010 hopefully.

So... SAU 3.0 will give us a LOT more flexibility to do things we simply cannot.

As part of the test setup all the Admins will be getting thier hands dirty, some probably will just fall asleep, but either way it's something we will look into.

Oh and as for thread edits. I've not had ONE in over 2 weeks. So it is hardly as big of a problem as people make out. I'm hardly getting 1000 PM's about it :blink:

Ah but touche...

We have less than 1% of users complaining about it. ;)

In the overall scheme if it protects the other 99% of people, that is a win for SAU and the majority.

Mothers minority group's won't win here - this aint parliament ;)

Ah but touche...

We have less than 1% of users complaining about it. ;)

In the overall scheme if it protects the other 99% of people, that is a win for SAU and the majority.

Mothers minority group's won't win here - this aint parliament ;)

You could just enable post editing for users that have lots of posts and clearly aren't dodgy traders ?

Sometimes I get the impression you like being difficult to get a reaction.

Current forum version does not allow this. It requires me to manually setup a group, manually add people. That would mean weeks of work to add all the users who would want to be added. If not months.

Bigger picture is all im trying to get some people to see here, there are more pros than there are cons for this issue.

How you say?

Dodgy trader complaints have virtually disappeared since this was implemented along with the PM restrictions.

Those two changes alone has enabled SAU to go from having 1-2 dodgy people a month, to a now 2 or 3 dodgy traders in over 12 months.

Honestly - i cannot see how users are against these changes.

Yes it is a pain, yes its annoying... but it is undoubtably working better than we could have imagined.

SAU goes above and beyond most other forums with regards to user protection from online trading where we are honestly not required too.

We do this for the good of the community as a whole. SAU 3.0 will see even further tightening and enhancements to the process (i promise these will be nicer and no where near as annoying, they will actually benefit user experience)

Whilst not every change is as well received as we would hope...we make these changes within the current resitrctions. Restrictions in this case is forum code itself.

It does not allow much flexibility without "hacking" it up, something that takes a lot of time and often brings us more problems than it fixes.

Honestly - i cannot see how users are against these changes.

Nobody is against changes that result in less trading scams, they are just against not being able to edit their posts. Perhaps you could start that group and only add users when they make a request or annoy you in this thread (like me ;)).

Only take you a minute to start that group and put me on that list ;)

Pros and cons.

Pros, I get to edit my posts and you don't have to listen to me complain anymore! Cons, no one else's problem is fixed. Seems fair to me!

Edited by Rolls

if mods are actually editing posts when people report them with required edits then thats good enough (i know for quite a while it was useless reporting them because no one was doing the edits for reported posts requiring edit)

There have been a number of changes in the Mod & Admin team recently. ;)

Everything in For Sale will be actioned, i give you my word as i now run it with Blitz.

About 2 months ago we removed approx 15 General mods, and 3-5 Admins due to inactivity as part of the ongoing improvements we have been doing over the past couple of months.

Most of the changes at the moment surround business traders, we will get to the members based things soon enough. We gotta keep the site running, so businesses take the priority as we want to make changes to hosting, that costs money ;)

We still have mods for every section, and far as i know they are doing it. If not then feel free to escalate to an Admin if you've reported for edit.

Admin will then check - if the mod is not doing the job - out they go :)

We will be appointing new mods once i finish going through what area's need extra help based on volume... not as simple of a task as i envisaged it would be

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...