Forum Access Changes 2

[brian -r]

Gents the original thread has drifted too far into other realms of club issues to remain in open forum.

I have opened this thread in fairness to all registered  users /non TRR members to continue to have a voice

Brian

[RobH]

Since none of those affected can now read the original thread Brian, can I suggest that John's first post on that, which explained the change, is copied here  - otherwise anyone new will not know what this is all about.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2024 by RobH

[stuart]

18 minutes ago, RobH said:

Since none of those affected can now read the original thread Brian, can I suggest that John's first post on that, which explained the change, is copied here  - otherwise anyone new will not know what this is all about.

 

 

Here you go Rob

 

 

 

" Hi Folks,  

so I need to make you aware of some forum changes, being introduced along side the clubs' new website roll out.

 planned for early in the new Year.

Firstly, the biggest current complaint about the forum, is the need for a separate 'Sign on' closely followed by Spam attacks.

Secondly, habitual users of the forum, who post questions, sometimes over the years that number into the many hundreds, 

yet when contacted want nothing to do with joining our club. Frankly folk who will always take, but never put anything back and don't want to help with the costs.

Now I know, indeed have seen posts from folk who, found our forum and after some viewing, joined our club.

I have also heard the argument that unfettered access to our forum, means some folk will never see the need to join the TR Register, 

 

Where the nett benefit/loss to membership is, I don't know, but suspect that the latter is the case.

Having looked at the situation, re forums in other UK based car clubs,  they go from one extreme to the other.

From a club simply not having a forum, through read only, or technical only, right through to free unfettered access.

 

So what our management team have decided upon, together with the IT folk, is this;-

 

To keep our forum - acknowledging the great job it does.

 

To have a club single, one off 'Sign on' for everything including the forum, hopefully this will encourage paid up, 

TR Register Members, who never got round to looking and participating in the forum to be involved.

Simply put, the best of all worlds for TR Register Members.

 

So what about non-members? well, access to all our forum has, and will be in the future,  free for them to view and search via Google etc.

(Members areas excepted)

What non-members will no longer be able to do, is to post a question, or start a thread, UNLESS, they become a member of the club.

That said, in the future, they will be able to join our club, for a month at a time, at the princely sum of £4.99,

 they will be able to participate fully in the club and our forum, and we will

have the opportunity to show them just what we are about, that we are the club for Triumph TR folk, and encourage them to stay with us.

The perfect solution, well probably not, but a great compromise - yes.

This will put members first and foremost, make it simpler for them, especially those less IT types to get involved with our forum.

 

It will as far as is possible, eliminate spam.

It will leave the users, who take but won't put anything back a stark choice.

 

It will still allow any non members full use of our forum by joining the club for a sum of £4.99, these days less than the price of a pint, or indeed a coffee (nearly)

It is not an ideal solution, but we don't live in an ideal world, and it is a great step forward, that puts club members first, but still allows, access to, a 'Window' on our club, including participation in our forum, for non members, albeit at a cost, but that cost is less than a fiver.

I think it is a great compromise, and the MT and all involved should be congratulated.

John."

 

 

Not that I agree with it in any way shape or form let it be known.

Stuart.

Edited December 30, 2024 by stuart

[cp25616]

What? The TR Forum police have struck again! I give up Brian R. It had not drifted away from the original silly idea at all another “let’s just pull the thread and hope it goes away” .I have had enough I’m off!

Alan G

[BlueTR3A-5EKT]

Will my £4.99 for a month’s club access also mean I get, if timed correctly, IWE tickets at the members only reduced gate price?
   If so bring it on.   Drop the membership fee take and the gate income in one move.     That’ll see us out of pocket and allow the MT every reason to cancel that as well.

What about TR register member’s insurance?   Buy your £4.99 temporary membership and get the special service of TR insurance.

Not a smart idea.

To eliminate spam could a verification process be used as it is on many other sites to confirm you are human.?

[BlueTR3A-5EKT]

Let us scope the problem

 

Quick count up.  On the previous thread 

Of the 20 posts on the page 5 are from non TRR members.  
All contributors are of a mind that this is a free and welcoming area for technical and other help.   

So 20% are non fare paying passengers as far as the TRR MT perceive.   

How many of the TRR members contribute regularly here?   5-10% of the total membership?

How many of those non members contributing are members of TR clubs or other associations worldwide that are linked or affiliated with the TRR?
 ?Almost all?

That means the ‘free loaders’ are not even a drop in an ocean as being non members.   So not a relevant argument.

 

Spam is an issue and the mods do a grand job staying on top of it.   Surely there must be a computer generated check system before you post like “tick the motorbikes in this picture to confirm you are human”  that other sites use.

Web search engine access is useful for the owner/surfer looking to find a solution to taking the rear springs off their TR2.  Try it.

   This forum is 3rd item found after two sales sites that have probably paid highly to be at the top of any searches for anything. 

Blocking that as happened with the new initiative earlier this year was a complete mistake.

This search engine presentation gives our club a very good exposure and reaches people who might not know if our existence   That is good club marketing I think for not a lot of cost.

 

I welcome and enjoy contributions and comments from any who are able to give an opinion or help to other TR owners or enthusiasts.

Regardless of race, creed,, colour or club. Etc.

[brian -r]

23 minutes ago, cp25616 said:

What? The TR Forum police have struck again! I give up Brian R. It had not drifted away from the original silly idea at all another “let’s just pull the thread and hope it goes away” .I have had enough I’m off!

Alan G

This thread has NOT BEEN PULLED only moved to Alec's Inn and is still active, the reason being post are drifting into club management, finances and personal issues. not an ideal look for non forum members.

The full details of the issue are now visible on here thanks to Stuart who is much faster on the keyboard than myself

Brian

Ps Those that wish to continue to discuss internal club matters can still do so in Alec's Inn and leave this space uncluttered for all our valued non member contributors

[RobH]

OK thanks for that - now another suggestion. 

Instead of this rather vague and un-important sounding thread title, why not tell it like it is by changing to the rather more meaningful:    "Closing the forum to non-members"? 

 

 

[brian -r]

Rob

Let me live in the vain hope that reason and common sense will prevail

Bri

 

[TorontoTim]

Hi All,

I have been following this thread (well, both of them now) very closely and have been learning a lot from you all.  As I understand it, there are two parts to this topic - the intentional technical changes and the unintentional(?) consequences.

They are sensible and logical goals to both provide a single sign-in for all TRR members on both the Forum and the Website and to guard against spam as much as possible.  We are told that the new Technology will accomplish BOTH of these goals but that the software is incapable of doing this without treating ALL those who sign-in as paid TRR members.  This, it seems to me, is a case of Technology driving the decision-making which is entirely upside down; Technology should SUPPORT the decisions that we want to make and find a way to deliver them.  We will still have mutliple "levels" of users:  general users, moderators, admin, etc.  I would like to know why this can't be extended to TRR members vs Forum members just as it is today.  There are ways to deal with these challenges on a day-to-day basis which I as a moderator would be very willing to undertake.

The changes that are coming (note: not "proposed"...they are coming) will, as we all know, shut out anyone who is not a paid TRR member.  Although this may be driven by the software changes, it seems that there has been a feeling in the leadership of the Register for some time that we are "giving away" the Forum for free by allowing non paying members access and read/write permission.  In my opinion, this is wrong-headed.

If we shut those people out then we gain no additional income whatsoever and, I would expect, save no costs (unless there is a serious argument that they somehow cost us real money in overhead).  My guess is that the vast majority will choose NOT to become members, even on a month-by-month basis, and so all that results is less knowledge, a lower user-base and a weaker community, plus we lose a significant amount of goodwill amongst Forum members.  It is true that the Register funds the Forum but those costs remain no matter who uses the Forum – I doubt there are any significant costs related to number of users.  I would also argue that the knowledge and useful content posted on the Forum does not “belong” to the Register (whatever copyright and user agreements may say) – almost all of it is freely given by individual members or posters, including those who are not TRR members.  The people who post are contributors.  No, some of them don't pay but they help build the community, help build the overall knowledge base (even if they only ask a question - EVERYONE gets to benefit from the answer) and if it helps keep a TR on the road, how is that bad, long term, for what the register is trying to achieve??

Bottom line:  If we, the Register, are not getting value from Forum members who are not TRR members, then that's OUR fault.  For example, we could be asking for donations to support the Forum (as is very common elsewhere - noted by John R Davis).

The technical benefits of the change are a good idea but not, in my opinion, at the cost of losing what the Forum is actually about - creating a TR-based community with benefits quite a lot wider than the Register.  The words baby & bathwater spring to mind...

Cheers,

Tim

(I'm posting this on both threads, btw)

[Kiwifrog]

The funny thing is if you press on join the tr register on the main forum it says “link not found” 

ill get my coat 

[PodOne]

Maybe for those folk genuinely interested in adding to the preservation of these cars the time has come to dump the club and move to a more inclusive, welcoming and useful forum.

For those interested in a run out, pay someone else to fix it and the polishers then this club is perhaps perfect for you. Not that I dislike an annual get together.

Third time of asking MT just quietly forget the idea and do yourselves and everyone a favour. Trying to move the topic and exclude valued overseas or other non members is not a good look.

Andy

 

[Ian Vincent]

Maybe it’s time to point out that the benefit the so called “Freeloaders” are getting is access to the collective wisdom of the contributors to this forum, so perhaps the right thing to do would be to run a poll to see how they, the contributors, feel about free access being denied.  Personally as someone who contributes occasionally (but not nearly as often as the likes of Stuart or Bob Lebroc or Robh), I am very strongly against the idea of restricting access and if some people are taking advantage, so what?

Rgds Ian

[Rod1883]

Completely agree Ian.

I often seek out other Forums when I have a question about, for example, our little Midget or one of the moderns. I had a couple of issues with warning lights and display settings on the Volvo V60 recently and found a Volvo forum where I asked questions and very quickly got good answers. Yes I had to sign up and await approval before posting but there was no fee. Similarly on MG forums I've always found good advice without any fee involved.

I always go back and post the result of my question and the answers given as I feel it the right thing to do and it adds to everyone's understanding. My posts elsewhere have often resulted in others chipping in to say they have the same or similar issues so I'd like to think it adds to understanding across the board - as do many of the non members questions and answers here.

Please MT - review your decision as this forum is a wonderful resource for TR enthusiasts everywhere and can only be a good advert for the Register, whether those that find it subsequently decide to join the TRR or not.

Rod

Edited December 31, 2024 by Rod1883

[Charlie D]

 

I am still confused about when this decision was made.

 

At a show back in June (7 months ago ) I was told this was going to happen.

Roger H. can confirm this as he was at the show and I mentioned it to him.

I actually mentioned it in a post here. Hamish asked me for the name of the person who told me, I replied (on 17/8/24)

"Not sure of the gentleman’s name, but he was in charge of the Register stand at the Pre 1940’s Triumph show in Leamington Spa a few weeks ago.

Not being a member of the register I was not sure where I should park my car ( the show was advertised in the local papers and gave the impression that anyone was welcome.) {If it had been a show organised by the TRR and only meant for TRR members obviously I would not have gone.}

I asked if I could park along with the other TR’s. I pointed out that although I was not a register member I did contribute to the forum. He said that that would not be happening much longer as before the end of the year only TR register members would be allowed to post on the forum.

I asked if I would still be allowed to read it and he said yes, but I would no longer be allowed to contribute. "

A couple of day's later John Morrison replied:

"No. that's not the case."

(I actually felt like a bit of an idiot, thinking that I may have got it wrong.)

I have no doubt that John did not know about it, but the gentleman who told me did.

Why was it being kept a secret, and why has it taken so long to make it public.

Is it possible that the announcement was made just before Christmas because people would be too busy with festivities to even notice that it was going to happen.

What other reason could there be?

Charlie.

[Lebro]

+1 completely agree Rod, I do the same.

Often things are imposed upon us (forum users) as part of a general TRR "update", or "improvement", but this is only about the forum, not the rest of the TRR, so surely the users of the forum (us) should have a very large say in what happens to it.

Bob

[Hawk]

This is not the way to attract new members or the younger generation.  

The internet and the forums within is a valuable resource to all and we should not be seeking to charge people.  Nobody else does (or at least very few and most of them have sister forums that can be accessed for free).    

When I joined the Register, I was proudly told that the Register was to keep cars on the road.  Like many above, I have kept many a car on the road by making use of forums for fault finding etc. Likewise, I like to join forums before I but so I can understand what to look for and common faults etc.  

And if we don't give them access, they will go to another (free) Triumph resource

BUT, as with anything I am willing to be persuaded that this is a good thing.  So please can the group who has made this decision show us the analysis?  I am very keen to understand the cost of these freeloaders and perceived benefits of charging £5.   

[iain]

19 hours ago, TorontoTim said:

Hi All,

I have been following this thread (well, both of them now) very closely and have been learning a lot from you all.  As I understand it, there are two parts to this topic - the intentional technical changes and the unintentional(?) consequences.

They are sensible and logical goals to both provide a single sign-in for all TRR members on both the Forum and the Website and to guard against spam as much as possible.  We are told that the new Technology will accomplish BOTH of these goals but that the software is incapable of doing this without treating ALL those who sign-in as paid TRR members.  This, it seems to me, is a case of Technology driving the decision-making which is entirely upside down; Technology should SUPPORT the decisions that we want to make and find a way to deliver them.  We will still have mutliple "levels" of users:  general users, moderators, admin, etc.  I would like to know why this can't be extended to TRR members vs Forum members just as it is today.  There are ways to deal with these challenges on a day-to-day basis which I as a moderator would be very willing to undertake.

The changes that are coming (note: not "proposed"...they are coming) will, as we all know, shut out anyone who is not a paid TRR member.  Although this may be driven by the software changes, it seems that there has been a feeling in the leadership of the Register for some time that we are "giving away" the Forum for free by allowing non paying members access and read/write permission.  In my opinion, this is wrong-headed.

If we shut those people out then we gain no additional income whatsoever and, I would expect, save no costs (unless there is a serious argument that they somehow cost us real money in overhead).  My guess is that the vast majority will choose NOT to become members, even on a month-by-month basis, and so all that results is less knowledge, a lower user-base and a weaker community, plus we lose a significant amount of goodwill amongst Forum members.  It is true that the Register funds the Forum but those costs remain no matter who uses the Forum – I doubt there are any significant costs related to number of users.  I would also argue that the knowledge and useful content posted on the Forum does not “belong” to the Register (whatever copyright and user agreements may say) – almost all of it is freely given by individual members or posters, including those who are not TRR members.  The people who post are contributors.  No, some of them don't pay but they help build the community, help build the overall knowledge base (even if they only ask a question - EVERYONE gets to benefit from the answer) and if it helps keep a TR on the road, how is that bad, long term, for what the register is trying to achieve??

Bottom line:  If we, the Register, are not getting value from Forum members who are not TRR members, then that's OUR fault.  For example, we could be asking for donations to support the Forum (as is very common elsewhere - noted by John R Davis).

The technical benefits of the change are a good idea but not, in my opinion, at the cost of losing what the Forum is actually about - creating a TR-based community with benefits quite a lot wider than the Register.  The words baby & bathwater spring to mind...

Cheers,

Tim

(I'm posting this on both threads, btw)

Well put Tim,

Iain

[Peter Cobbold]

What is the legal liability of TRR if a £5 paid-for query gets no response from any forumite, or proves to be wrong?  Charging £5 for advice is surely very different from giving free advice?

Peter

 

Edited December 31, 2024 by Peter Cobbold

[SuzanneH]

7 minutes ago, Peter Cobbold said:

What is the legal liability of TRR if a £5 paid-for query gets no response from any forumite, or proves to be wrong?  Charging £5 for advice is surely very different from giving free advice?

Peter

 

This is a very good point.

[TorontoTim]

Hi Peter,

I think that the 4.99 is register membership so technically not paid specifically for the Forum (even though it might look like it). 

Tim

[MadMarx]

The outside view:

I was a long time head of sport of the German TR-Register, responsible for the "Triumph Competition" racing series. (Since 3 years I'm not anymore)

We had the same discussion about the website and forum access some years back.

We came to the conclusion that the best return of investment is free access for everyone - being the best advertisement for the club.

 

[RobH]

It is fairly evident now that this debacle is driven by the new software or rather its seeming inability to differentiate between full members and visitors. 

The new software has been chosen to allow single sign-in to both the full site and the forums and in the present iteration anyone signing in will have full access to both; hence the need to charge non-members for limited-time access at a rate above the cost of normal membership.  

On the face of it it would seem trivial to mark sign-in credentials in such a way that once signed-in, entry is allowed either to the forums alone or to the full site. The problem seems to be that either the new software cannot support that, or the person setting it up is unable to do so or they have been instructed not to. 

I wonder which it is. 

[james christie]

Hi Rob

I think you are unlikely to get a reply to your question. It's been 2 weeks since this idiot policy was announced and not one, not one, of the elected MT has put his head above the parapet to say anything!

Reminds me of the new management policies tried out in the seventies when I was a young, enthusiastic, even motivated manager.
One of those  ideas was ´mushroom management': keep everybody in the dark and open the door every now and then to throw a bit more sh*t in.

james

[Ian Vincent]

1 hour ago, james christie said:

It's been 2 weeks since this idiot policy was announced and not one, not one, of the elected MT has put his head above the parapet to say anything!

Does anyone from the elected MT want to comment on this or are you all happy to be identified as cowards who aren’t prepared to defend your decisions?

Rgds Ian