Over 4 years, David :)

Who else has been around since Jan 1st 2004? (I know a few of you).

Steve

ps

apt utterance too, by the late Mr Eliot, maybe:-

Here is a place of disaffection
Time before and time after
In a dim light: neither daylight
Investing form with lucid stillness
Turning shadow into transient beauty
Wtih slow rotation suggesting permanence
Nor darkness to purify the soul
Emptying the sensual with deprivation
Cleansing affection from the temporal.
Neither plentitude nor vacancy..........

David

There is hope for the world (and the quality of Communities discussions) when someone who has spent their working life struggling with the problems of Starlings on blast-furnaces and the like can so readily quote literature so relevant to (various) subject threads.

'A fonte puro pura defluit aqua': Truely a fountain of knowledge.

P :-)

Methinks probably not.

It started well but not, I feel, our most focussed debate.

Blame me; most people do :-)

P

I think the quality of the posts on the communities is always likely to be subjective and difficult to measure.

I like others on here regularly read the threads but don't always post a response as in many cases Peter G, Peter C, Mike, Julia or David have already replied fully and therefore I would not really add anything other than saying "Yep! I agree". 

I would like to think that when I have responded to other peoples threads that I have been able to add something even if it just a different point of view. 

I have also started a few threads of my own normally around topis where I have limited experience and I am looking to gain a better understanding.  An example would be a topic I started about the National Agreement for the Engineering and Construction Industry to which David responded and helped me to gain an insight into the weighty document that I had been presented with.

I must admit that I do tend to skip some of the questions based around exam questions or coursework but I have no problem with them.  I myself did a distance learning course (Non-CIPD qualification) and it would have been nice to have a forum such as this to exchange ideas on or seek other viewpoints.

I don't think that the communities need many changes but I do like the idea of an "i agree" button or something similar which may be useful as a guide to the support a response receives but I would not say that it is an indicator of accuracy.  I am sure we all know that employment law can be very grey at times which is the reason solicitors can make a lot of money!

Juan

One of the original criticisms was the "Quality" of the posts here. 
With some experience of other diverse forums I regularily visit - An international mountaineering one , A canoeing one and a wildlife one plus  the odd
other ones when I've time or inclination, I can say that the quality of
the discussions here is as professional as I would expect given the questions
asked. 

If anything the quality element is emphasised by a focused anaylisis of the poster's issue and an, explanation of the answer at suffecient level for the poster to understand (I assume?). A hallmark of a good explanation I think?

I would however like the moderators to insist that you must have a profile before posting.

  This would help me knowing where people are coming from as I don't know whether some people are self employed, employed by a little charity of twenty staff or working for HM Government or simply, wondering-out-aloud.

I do find it somewhat annoying and impolite, that the original poster has, since the  7th of March not chosen to justify her remarks, clarify what she meant or contributed in anyway towards the  discussions, (or otherwise), since posting.  A word has been coined for people who do this on forums!

Voting buttons?

Not sure on this.  Six of one, half dozen of the other perhaps?.  Votes for favourite answer could end up being like some TV quiz show as has been said where people simply agree with what someone else has said without saying why - which is the important bit.  But on the other hand it can support what otherwise might just be a one post answer if people are busy off-screen or off-line.

Disagree button?  definitely a no, no otherwise no added comments means no one will no why folk disagree.

Anyway I'm not sure buttons add to the quality here.  Perhaps we should ask Amanda as she posed the original post?

Dave P

Just read this thread and got to the end – phew quite a read. So here’s the abridged version if anyone hasn’t got the time to spare:

Amanda: “Sheesh! Quality of discussion eh?!”

Steve: “Well Amanda, yes and no…”

Julia: “Different strokes – horses for courses.”

David B: “Loads of good stuff on here!”

Julia: “I’m in my bathrobe.”

Peter C: “Here are a few theories, but in essence…welcome to the bearpit!”

Mike: “We reflect who we are…”

Mark: “I don’t think so…”

Anna: “I do.”

Mark “!”

Amanda: “Blimey! Hello everyone!”

Nick: “Stick around Amanda and check it out.”

Julia: “Absolutely Amanda – and post some more!”

Mike: “Linkedin have something going…”

Peter C: “Beware statistics, the silent majority, but more importantly beware Schroedinger’s Cat!

Anna: “Time for a poll?”

Ruth: “Bad Mark!”

Peter: “A quantum physicist walked into a bar…”

Mark: “Well Ruth…yes…but essentially no. Also 2 out of 10 cats might have died”

Steve: Feedback from the trenches is good!”

Peter C: “8 out of 10 cats, Roman Catholics, homosexuals and activists say “no comment” …unless someone opens the box!”

Peter G: “Lots of good stuff in here, but could we have ‘debate’ and ‘advice’ sections?”

Mark: “Deidre?”

Anna: “Don’t bring Deidre into this!”

Megan: “Live and let live folks.”

David P: “What’s the matter with a bit of ‘non-quality’ every now and then? Also, if quality is ‘fit for purpose; what is ‘fit’ and what is ‘purpose’?”

Peter C: “No exam cheating!”

David B: “But we are the community and we need to live!”

Emily: “And you never know how a discussion is going to develop.”

Jackie: “Wait for meee! …and ‘Action’!!

Jackie: “Oops, me again. I also find that someone has already said what I was about to say!

Maria: “Same here Jackie…Dammit!”

Steve: “God bless you Maria!”

Peter C: “Don’t mind us Maria!”

Fiona: “I don’t just ‘lurk’ inanely, I ‘lurk’ purposefully…and now I’ve posted – Huzzah!! Hello everyone!”

Steve: “Hello Fiona! And keep it coming folks!”

Peter C: “Hello Fiona!”

Mike: “What about 'vote' buttons?!"

Steve: “Like it!”

Mark: “Hmmm…”

Steve: “Wadja mean ‘hmmm’?!”

Rachel: “I love communities! Bring on the buttons!”

Julia: “Blimey O’Riley Amanda! Look what you’ve started!”

Peter C: “Hello newbies!”

Mark: “Need to big up your profile Steve.”

Nick: “Mark!”

Peter: “ OK – That’s it!”

Megan: “It’s OK not to contribute.”

Mark: “Yeh but, no but…let’s enjoy the experience though.”

Julia: “But, back to that ‘button’ thing…”

Mike: “Absolutely! Lots of buttontastic possibilities here!”

David B: “Yep, buttons…”

Julia: “Make buttons easy though…”

Peter C: “OK Mark, a, b, c and d…QED!...but buttons…now there’s a thing…”

…Now everyone tends to join in with a ‘buttonic’ discussion fest until…

Megan: “Nooooooo!”

Julia: “Well not entirely ‘no’, in fact in some cases definitely ‘yes’!”

Johanna: “We love our threads! Thanks everyone!”

David B: “When I were a lad…”

Steve: Anyone else as old as David?”

David B: “We wandered lonely as a bunch of clouds…”

Peter C: Quality Dave son! Lovely Jubbly!”

Sue: “Amanda? You still there?”

Peter C: “Oops! I think we went off on a tangent…was it me?!”

Juan: "What I want to say I find is already there. If I could type faster I would probably post more!...would love a button though!"

David P: “Amanda…?”

Stephen, that's fantastic - you had me howling with laughter first thing this morning!

Jackie

Consummate condensation concerning complete cornucopial commentary: celebrated contributor compares completely  to cartload of  commodious cans containing   Campells Consomme !

Stephen you've turned summarising into an art form!