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

    • LOL.... a good amount of people (not all) on that continent seem to know everything and like to measure things in bananas, football fields, statue of liberties instead of the metric system lol.
    • I assume the modules are similar enough, so if you've had no issues I don't see why I would. I have tried to find a wiring diagram for the FPCM / fuel pump circuit, but I can't find it anywhere. Otherwise, I would just do some wire cutting and joining at the FPCM and give the 12 V supplied to the FPCM directly to the pump instead. If you know anyone that could help with wiring diagrams, I'd be very happy  
    • If it dies, then bypass. The task isn't difficult. I have one running on a standard R32 FPCM. That's after nearly 20 years of it running an 040, which pull substantially more current than the Walbro. They're not the same module, but I'd hope it indicates that the R33 one should be man enough for the job. I think people kill them when putting proper sized pumps on them, not these little toy pumps we're talking about here.
    • Silicone spray won't hurt anything. And if it does, that's an opportunity to put some solid steel spherical bushings in, so you can really learn what suspension noise sounds like, If you're going to try it, just spray one bush at a time, so you can work out which one is actually noisy. My best guess is that if the noise started only since putting the coilovers in, then it is just noise being transmitted up through the top mounts of the struts, and not necessarily "new" noise from bushes. But it's almost impossible to know.
    • Are you saying the 34 is SUV height, and not that we're talking about an SUV here? (because if we're talking about an SUV, you don't fix them. You just replace them when something breaks. Not worth establishing sufficient emotional connection with an SUV to warrant doing any work on one). I wouldn't jack my car up on a short little loop of 10mm steel rod poking out through a hole in the bumper bar, front or rear end. I realise that we're probably not talking about that type of loop at the front, being the one under/behind the bar on a Skyline.... but even for that one, trying to jack up on what amounts to a thin piece of steel, designed purely for withstanding a horizontal tension force, not a vertical compressive force (and so would be prone to buckling/crushing) and, my most particular bitch about it - located RIGHT AT THE EXTREME FRONT OF THE CAR, applying a load up through the radiator support panel, etc, with almost the entire mass of the car cantilevered between there and the rear wheels? Nope. Not doing that. Not on the regular. That structure out there in front of the front crossmember is not designed to carry load in the vertical direction. Not really designed to carry any load at all, really. The chassis rail that the tow point is connected to would be fine loaded in tension, as per towing. Not intended to carry the mass of the whole car, especially loaded all on one rail, with twisting and all sorts of shitty load distribution going on. No, I will happily drive up on some pieces of wood, thanks. That can only happen on driven wheels, and they are at the other end of the car, and this problem does not exist at that end of the car. And even then, I have been known to drive up on at least 1x piece of 2x8 each side at the rear, simply to reduce the amount of jack pumping necessary to get the car up high enough for the jack stands. What really really shits me about Skylines is the lack of decent places for chassis stands at either end of the car. You'd think they'd be designed into the crossmembers.
×
×
  • Create New...