Forum Feedback

overscan (PaulMM)

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
27 December 2005
Messages
16,676
Reaction score
20,126
so what do people think of the forum software? OK to use?

How about the categories- what's missing?
 
One thing I could complain about is that it is difficult to scroll large attached or linked images as the forum software creates separate scroll bars for them. Thus I have a vertical scroll bar on the browser and vertical/horizontal scroll bars on the image(s). The problem is that all three aren't visible all the time and I have to move each one repeatedly to see all parts of the image. This can be a little frustrating.

However I don't know if there's anything you could do about it without changing the whole forum software.
 
Lately it looks that when I get an alert and try the link it doesn't really take me to the specific post in question the way it previously used to.
 
Same here. Just had three posts deleted from the 'M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS Developments' for supposedly being off topic and I can't even tell at the moment which ones they were.
 
@overscan (PaulMM)

For some reason, yesterday all my private messages, and a host of other forum features, such as access to the Senior Members Only section has disappeared for me.

Nothing on my side has been changed.

Edit: I even get this following message, in red, when posting this post

"This message is awaiting moderator approval, and is invisible to normal visitors."

And my access is now "Unclassified" instead of "Senior Member"
 
"Kaiser Bill" (registered March 27, 2006) isn't your correct account.

kaiserbill (one word, lower case, registered Jun 7, 2006) is the correct account. You've accidentally logged into an older account you registered before.
 
I picked that up afterwards, but couldn't delete the message.
I have no idea why I was logged out, as this forum is one I always stay logged in on.
Thanks Paul.
That other redundant account can be deleted, as I never used it.

It is nice to know though that I have been on this brilliant forum for almost 20 years. :)
It really is an outstanding piece of work from you.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
"Kaiser Bill" (registered March 27, 2006) isn't your correct account.

kaiserbill (one word, lower case, registered Jun 7, 2006) is the correct account. You've accidentally logged into an older account you registered before.
Click to expand...

O RLY ? didn't knew such things were possible. The Internet is full of surprises...
 
A question on appropriate section(s) in which to post threads on small arms.

This relates to both the Secret Missile, Bomb and Gun Projects and Secret Army Projects. The latter says "Unbuilt and cancelled tanks, APCs etc." The former says "Unbuilt and cancelled projects of missiles, bombs, guns, and other weapons."

I read the 'Gun' in "Secret Missile, Bomb and Gun Projects" as referring to aircraft cannon armaments? Was that the original intention ... or just my idiosyncratic take?

I ask primarily because we have threads on infantry small arms projects appearing in both Secret Army Projects and Secret Missile, Bomb and Gun Projects. Is one of these sections more appropriate for such subjects? Or is either section acceptable?
 
I didn't really think that use case through.

The intention behind Secret Army Projects was to cover tanks, APCs, etc. Vehicles, really. It was established along with Secret Naval Projects when people wanted to discuss tanks and ships, neither of which fit the existing forums.

The intention behind Secret Missile, Bomb and Gun Projects was indeed intially intended to cover airborne weapons, but then extended to cover e.g. naval guns, tank guns, SAMs, ATGMs etc.

I don't find small arms at all interesting, so haven't ever placed much thought in where they should go. My feeling is Secret Missile, Bomb and Gun Projects makes most sense, as they definitely aren't vehicles. However, what about towed artillery versus self-propelled artillery?

Open to other ideas?
 
I keep getting this error trying an answer a question in Chinese airborne radars
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0081.png
    IMG_0081.png
    214.5 KB · Views: 23
The link has a Chinese character in it - might be causing issues?

Delete everything after and including the &, its not needed for the link to work (its just there to tell Google what you searched for to get to the link).
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
The link has a Chinese character in it - might be causing issues?

Delete everything after and including the &, its not needed for the link to work (its just there to tell Google what you searched for to get to the link).
Click to expand...
No dice but I really appreciate you responding. I just posted the books isbn and some information.
 
Works fine on Chrome / Windows 11, but the pasted URL magically replaces the Chinese characters with unicode escape codes like %E4%B8%80%E8%B7%AF%E5%89%8D%E8%A1%8C
 
Hi,

Thread

Flight JAL516 incident - Haneda airport 02 January 2024​

Should have the type of airplane mentioned in the title. This is important as we have here the first major accident with a full CFRP airframe (I started myself discussing the accident inside the JAL Airbus A350 thread for that very same reason).
I understand the bias with Airbus etc... But we are missing here an important information that makes an aviation forum meaningless otherwise when it come to news discussion.

Best,

TViP
 
You don't understand that some moderators here are systematically applying positive moderation to alter all comments that does not fit a certain narrative on French industry (which is fun in my case when you read my resume)?

This is an aerospace dedicated forum and we can't have the model name of the plane associated with a crashed airframe, 1 week after the incident. That's was the point of my post.
 
The title of the topic was chosen by the original poster, who is Japanese.

I'm not sure who you think has a motive for a pro-French bias or how this relates to the topic. We don't even have any French moderators. All moderator actions are logged and can be checked.

The specific model doesn't seem to be terribly relevant to discussion of the crash, as it seems to be no fault of the A350 design, though I guess maybe the specific properties of carbon-fibre might be relevant to the fire?
 
TomcatViP said:
I understand the bias with Airbus etc...
Click to expand...
Pots, kettles, black...
In case you are not aware, I feel that you personally come across as having a very strong, and emotional, bias against Airbus. It is fully your right, ofc, especially if you are aware of it.

Otherwise, it is just that anybody's systematically negative bias doesn't improve the perception of quality on the forum.
 
dan_inbox said:
Pots, kettles, black...
In case you are not aware, I feel that you personally come across as having a very strong, and emotional, bias against Airbus. It is fully your right, ofc, especially if you are aware of it.

Otherwise, it is just that anybody's systematically negative bias doesn't improve the perception of quality on the forum.
Click to expand...
I don't have much consideration for your opinion and that of the relentless cohort that comes with the same language toward my postings. You know, constantly pointing at an angle that I am that and that, when it's nonsensical, in effect, doesn't make a post like this something very valuable for the conversation.
 
You didn't have a problem with claiming the entire moderation team are pro-Airbus and silencing any criticisms of said company without presenting any evidence for it. I'm still waiting for some examples.
 
TomcatViP said:
You don't understand that some moderators here are systematically applying positive moderation to alter all comments that does not fit a certain narrative on French industry (which is fun in my case when you read my resume)?
Click to expand...
Now you've done it. Stepped on the national pride of citizens of the founder nations of Airbus (besides France) - Germany, UK, Italy. And the newcomers - Canada, Poland, Brazil and some others I've forgotten so possibly I'm treading on long toes as well.

You do realize Airbus is a multinational affair?
 
I don't think this topic is worth pursuing in public. If anyone has real concerns about moderator bias, please just message me about it.
 
Here is how that goes:

1718784581565.png

I have no idea what post it was, as it´s an old contributions. I do not remember what was in it and the post is not even appropriately referenced in the notification.
It´s not the first occasion. Old post are targeted (it´s the third of fourth post deleted similarly by admins in roughly the last 7 days) and no copy of the deleted post is shared. It doesn´t seem quite fair as a whole. I understand that Admin work is laborious but some standards need to be there also in the deletion of contribution.

And what is that Anti-Airbus sentiment? Could that be more defined that we understand your take? Are now critics to Airbus products or way of doing things reprehensible? Is that something declined for all major contractors?

For example, do I am identically an Anti-Boeing guy when I post critics on them? An Anti McDonnel Douglas when I suggest the Phantom has a place in the Ugly airplane thread (and the Gods of aerodynamics knows it does)?
Did that particular post was deleted?

What is usually reprehensible is depicting individuals under a certain blend of flavor according to their expressed opinion in commentary here and there. I do not like neither being targeted by a judgmental idiom or see this website resorting to a new kind of inquisition by who God´s knows.

I would suggest you generally flag the post to the author in order to be edited according to your remarks. For example, ask a post to be edited arguing "we do not like you saying this or that in that commentary. We ask you to make the appropriate modifications or see your post removed".
Hacking contributions and derogatively plastering users behavior is not something we should see here. The Secret Projects forum knows better.
 
TomcatViP said:
Here is how that goes:

View attachment 732254

I have no idea what post it was, as it´s an old contributions. I do not remember what was in it and the post is not even appropriately referenced in the notification.
Click to expand...

This is your post from Monday. Trying to understand what it has to do with KF-21.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240619_130750_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20240619_130750_Chrome.jpg
    265.9 KB · Views: 10
Understood. I was trying to poke some fun at the KFX twin seater illustration with my comment. Fun that seems to have been shared with others. There is absolutely nothing "against" Airbus here (or even KAI). It could have been any company like Lear or Republic if they had made such dubious proposal.
I understand that this post could be deemed as not really necessary. That yes.

I do appreciate your detailed reply. Thank you.
 
This post might be fine in the context of discussion and lighthearted fun. It could also be taken as yet another dig at Airbus, which wouldn't be unusual for you.

Totally off-topic posts can be split off into new topics if they are worth keeping. Admins may leave off-topic posts in place for a while they play out, get reacted to etc, but subsequently they can be moved or deleted.

As has been stated for the last 19 years, this is both a discussion forum and a reference database. Off topic digressions usually get purged or moved somewhere more suitable eventually. Some moderators pay attention to their favourite topics or sections more than others.

It's a huge task though, and never ends.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom