This is my first foray into the mist of CIPD online discussions and I have to admit to being a bit disappointed with the quality of some discussion for debate.
Not to say that the items listed are not relevant but I think it would be better to have an 'advice section' for those individuals who have simple questions about practice to be answered?
Then the space for discussions can be recogised and valued more as one where real debate will occur.
I really appreciate the communities, and have certainly increased my own knowledge as a result of reading others' posts. As I'm responsible for a very small HR department, it is very reassuring to know that there are people who have the same questions and dilemmas as me. Sure, I get irritated by some of the posts... HR to employee ratios spring to mind! Maybe an FAQ section would help - but then I guess that people who don't choose to search perhaps wouldn't check out FAQs either. Or perhaps we need to get better at tagging our posts!
I like the idea of a "like" button or something similar - I also often don't post because someone has got there before that has said basically what I would have done. And personally I like to be really confident of what I'm saying before I say it - and am sometimes not quite confident enough.
Overall, I think the communities are pretty good and do achieve a reasonable balance of quick questions versus debates.
Rachel
Amanda, 1090 reads and 41 responses at the time I type this. Did you ever expect such a response? Well done for stimulating our thoughts!
Steve,
please look to the quality, depth and insight in your own profile before reminding others
http://www.cipd.co.uk/community/profile.aspx?UserID=6842
Love your 'troll'
Mark,
At least Steve's says something!
One of the things I like about "Communities" is the fact that the site is monitored with a light hand which does not interfere with discussions unless they become offensive or seriously stray from the general context of HR practice.
This obviously means, however, that the degree to which the site monitors can respond to threads on their own behalf, involving themselves in discussions etc. is limited, since they must, by definition, remain impartial and unbiased so far as possible.
Fortunately this does not apply to the rest of us, who can feel free to express their disquiet and disgust at members who chose to snipe at those who, in effect, are unable to reply in any but the most moderate terms: Including both less experienced contributors and the site monitors.
This thread has been started by a new contributor, involved many others both regular and infrequent, and perhaps for those reasons (and its topic) should, of all threads, have been one in which unevidenced innuendo and carping criticism, levelled both at individuals and our organisation, was avoided.
I profoundly disagree with some of your remarks in this thread Mark, and I further consider your manner of presenting them both offensive to those who, from their position, cannot adequately respond and well below the standard of professionalism I would expect of you from our previous exchanges; however I am pleased to do you the courtesy of inviting you to support your criticism of the site monitors and scathing sarcasm regarding suggestions made to improve responses to the site with any sort of tangible argument, evidence or alternative constructive suggestions to prove me wrong in my opinion.
At which point I will either sincerely apologise or be pleased to engage in a professional debate of the issues you have raised, or both.
Peter
Knowing how many people agree or disagree with a particular view point really is not the reason for me being involved in these discussions.
Like others, I don't contribute if the answer/point I would have been made is reflected in many of the wise words here. It seems to me that what matters is that whatever experience, status, grade, etc etc a person has, they must know they can ask for help - either advice, reassurance, or guidance, or opinion, here and someone will be prepared to take the time to respond.
Peter,
it was Steve who turned his focus on me and this focus is now being magnified by yourself. I merely responded. We are all bound by the Community Guidelines, thus I disagree with your statement that a different set of Guidelines applies to those employed by the CIPD.
Megan expresses my point about worth and value of popularity buttons.
As far as I am aware there is no pressing requirement to provide constructive suggestions or solutions to the original poster, it was neither asked for not provided by the original poster, she expressed her disappointment, something which we are all entitled to do without being pointed up by moderators. Nevertheless I did say "I do think there is some merit in separating the thoughtful from the transactional."
How to get the most value from the Community:
Do enjoy the diversityWe're a community of many
different experiences and competencies of people, who have the right to
feel comfortable and who may not think the way that you think, or
express themselves in the same way.
An apology isn't necessary.
Hi Megan. In my mind, an "agree" button allows the original poster and others experiencing similar issues is very useful. It adds weight to the validity of someone's response, but should, of course, be looked at in the context of how many views the thread has had. e.g. 1000 views, 1 agree, could decide to treat with caution. 1000 views, 100 agree, some validity to this point. Those who disagree should then be encouraged to explain why. This adds to everyone's understanding and helps to turn the thread in to a debate and hopefully maintain a professional level.
Voting & buttons - maybe we need two then..
1) "yes I agree and would say the same"
2) useful thanks
Two very different communication messages, both light touch, both encouraging contributions. "Like" is not the same as "support/ agree".
The concept being for readers to have an understanding of the extent to which the view of one person is or is not supported in a given area.
If deployed all readers need to be able to see WHO has ticked the box - not anon like many other systems - a bit like a comment form on a blog
Julia - if there are lots of 'views' we need to be careful - as one person can count up lots of views - do a page refresh and watch the number increase...
an alternative is to have a "rating" button that needs to be completed before leaving any page.. but that would get very messy... (no please don't add this feature! it has killed some forums)
PROFILE
On the issues of profile - maybe it should be a requirement that both bio and photo should be a requirement if this is a "community". Linking the bio to either a current LinkedIn profile or the current CIPD data for a job title could be a way forward.
