PLEASE. Admit that your new discussion board layout is a MASSIVE failure. Fire the fools who thought this was a good change and wasted your money - and return to the old format.
My God! I mean really…
24 Likes
Try a little harder … there is lots about this platform that is way better than the old one. Different, to be sure, and thus requiring some difference in usage patterns, but ultimately loads better with little real negative other than having to learn new patterns.
9 Likes
I can’t agree with that. There are things that I could do on the old boards that I can’t do here. And it all gets back to unthreaded lists of posts.
While I’m sure many like the bells and whistles that are here - and there are plenty of good bells and whistles, anything that relates to reading posts in an unthreaded way is no longer available. Perhaps you don’t like reading boards that way, but there are plenty of us who do. And it’s not wrong to want to read boards unthreaded.
In unthreaded mode, the list of posts gave lots of useful information about each individual post. At a glance, we knew who posted, what thread they posted on, and how popular that post was. You can use that information to pick and choose which posts to read and which posts to skip.
This threaded way of showing active and inactive threads does not make that information available. I only know that a thread has new activity. I don’t know who posted or how popular that specific post was. Not until I actually go into the thread to find out. And then I can only see one to maybe three posts on a screen because I am presented with the entire contents of the post.
So there are indeed negatives. To say otherwise is to demean those of us who liked reading posts unthreaded - to say that our way was wrong.
–Peter
20 Likes
I too used to read unthreaded and thought I preferred that, but I find some pluses reading threaded now that I am doing so. In particular, there is a coherency to reading all new posts on one topic all together instead of scattered around. Also, if I am moved to respond, it is easy to glance forward to tell whether someone else has already made that contribution. I admit the distinction between Unread and New is a bit odd, but functionally it is not a problem. For me, it is enough to know who wrote a piece as I start to read it; I’m not going to decide whether to read it based on who wrote it, although I may zip past a post I am not interested in.
5 Likes
The new layout has many bells and whistles, but is lacking some of the functionality of the old website. How is that possible? Whoever designed the old website should be congratulated on delivering the basic functions people wanted.
For example, how do I find the post that has the most likes? Maybe this can be changed on the new website. Do not count likes by thread, instead count likes by post.
1 Like
I will read a few specific posters on whatever topic they write, even if it is a topic I would otherwise not be interested in. The vast majority of other posts are, to me, most often a waste of time. Unless there is a way to screen through posts to see the names I am interested in, then I will probably be joining Mungofitch in leaving this forum after more than 25 years. I suspect these discussion groups will become a shadow of what they have been.
4 Likes
On this platform you can follow a particular Fool and see all the posts from the Fools you follow all in one place, see my detailed description of this feature here:
And there are fools who I don’t want to read everything they write, only on certain topics. You removed the ability for the brief daily scan of boards I like.
1 Like
You can find a feed of just posts by your favorite folks under your profile:
https://discussion.fool.com/u/**your-name-here**/follow/feed
Vicki
3 Likes
You still don’t get it.
Read what he said: “there are fools who I don’t want to read everything they write, only on certain topics. You removed the ability for the brief daily scan of boards I like.”
5 Likes
Vicki,
Have you looked at this problem/dilemma?
As of now we are presented with a all or nothing choice, which encourages users to completely hide their profile. It’s seemingly impossible to follow a hidden profile and it also breaks the only feasible way to list a user’s posts:
(https://discussion.fool.com/u/laffisloon/activity)
(@laffisloon: Hope you don’t mind me using a link to your profile as example. Image upload seems broken atm.)
I believe this isn’t hard to address, and should be top priority imho. I could write an essay of the implications of those public stats, explaining why I would advice people to hide their profile. I’m currently making an exception, since it would break useful functionality and would be difficult to reach out to users at a later date - i.e. would result in profiles staying hidden for a reason that no longer exists.
3 Likes
I totally agree this is a massive failure. It s clanky as the old one, it does not have any future that are up to standard nowadays. If you have to do something that is as bad as the previous one, then just stick the former.
1 Like
I hope somebody tabulates usage since the change (on real stuff, not the increased usage related to complaints) - and please, if they ever return to the good old days will someone email me? Because I’m not coming back to this POS
1 Like
absolutely horrible horrible website. I am canceling my subscription
I’m curious about which of the web sites you have been visiting. (They all have their detractors (and fans), each for their own reasons.)
You posted this on the free discussion boards site, https://discussion.fool.com/. No subscription is required to read and post here.
There is also the premium discussion boards site, https://community.fool.com/, for those with paid subscriptions to one or more Motley Fool services.
Then there are the regular web sites. Free content is at https://www.fool.com/. Premium content you paid for can be found at https://www.fool.com/premium.
I am not sure how to email you on this system, but since you are about to leave permanently, you can return to the good old days. Many of the best authors, who otherwise were on the edge of disappearing together, have already - thankfully - come back together again:
2 Likes
Thank you! I corrected the url.
— Manlobbi
Thanks! Happy New year!!
I will gladly give it a try.
Best wishes,
Michael
Manlobbi,
I post on your board under an different handle than I do here, and I’d post more on your board if I could do some of the same things I could here, namely upload charts and endlessly go back to to re-edit my own posts.
Arindam
2 Likes