Time to evaluate the issue of replies in the classified ad sections.

Back on 06-04-2011 I disabled replies to classified ads to all non-paying members. This was done, in part, because of a rampant problem with ad threads getting bumped sometimes MANY times a day by some posters, causing issues on many fronts. This was discussed here when I implemented that change -> http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=249378

So, we've been running the classifieds in this manner for just over two and a half years, and I figure it's time to re-evaluate the situation to see where we stand. Basically, has it helped? Or has it hindered you and/or how you use this site?

From my own personal standpoint (and I think some of the mods as well), the emails and PMs from members asking why that cannot post replies to the classified ads has NEVER ceased. Regardless of an announcement that shows up in each and every classified forum about this, and regardless of this being mentioned in the above mentioned thread about this policy change. Apparently those are not effective ways to get a message across to all members. I suppose it's a classic "lead a horse to water...." problem that has no real solution.

Secondly, my review of the statistics of traffic on this site shows a steady decline in participation. I expected postings to drop when the bumping problem was stopped cold, but maybe it's gone beyond that now. After all, this IS a discussion style forum site, so at what point does STOPPING discussions begin to hurt participation?

Postings are down, but oddly enough, new thread creations are up. New registrations have declined slightly as well, and raw page views are down as per the Google stats as well as the stats I see on my FaunaTopSites listing. So, when I see stats like those, I have to question myself about what I may have done in the past that could be causing this change. Granted, we lost substantial ground when we went through that server hacking problem back in the Fall, as I am sure many prospective participants high-tailed it away from here when they started getting malicious redirects to other websites. And it took longer for me to get that fixed than I wanted to. Maybe that is what is behind most of the drop I see in the stats. Maybe at least some have tried coming back and seen that the problem has been resolved. But likely not all. At least not yet. But still, I think I do need to be introspective about the classified ad change made and do a status check to see what you all think. Has it helped things, or put a real damper on member participation in sections that it really SHOULD be encouraged?

Of course, any members who might have left here for greener pastures because they did NOT like the "no reply" change probably won't be providing their input. Seems like no change here ever takes place without some collateral damages.

Anyway, not saying that I AM going to change things, but admittedly the results of this poll WILL influence me. That's why I am asking for input. It's entirely possible that even a poll will show no conclusive thoughts about this situation.

The poll will be pretty cut and dry, so comments posted as replies here are solicited. I prefer polls to be pretty simple, if at all possible.

So, let me know, please.

I am kind of on the fence between the first three choices, but I will share my thoughts.

I try to keep my ads somewhat informative if I can, although that definitely makes them a bit beefier than some customers might prefer. Sometimes I am in a rush, lazy, or simply overlook something. Option one would allow questions about wares to be available in threads for all to see so that people may not have to email me to ask the same things repeatedly. Ooooooooooooooon the other hand, I already get a large number of people who ask me what the price is, what my terms are, and other information already present in the text of the ad (I love when they email me to ask what my email address is...), so some folks just seem to find the act of reading to be abhorrent.

Option two works fine for me on a direct personal level, but if it is potentially at the cost of the viability of this site's volume-based statistics, then I would be concerned with the possibility of a longer-term participatory decline (which would feed into a reason for generating this thread and its poll in the first place) based on what you have shared.

I like the idea of option three on some level, as it would potentially keep things "cleaner", but I think the drawbacks are greater than options one and two. People would still send messages to moderators asking how to reply. People would still send emails to sellers based on willful illiteracy. So load on both parties will be higher and I do not think that will solve the participatory issues you have highlighted.

My logic therefore excludes option three due to not offering a solution to several problems mentioned. That leaves option one and two out of those I might consider potentially viable. Option two changes nothing for the better if there is (I am not convinced there is or is not) any kind of causal relationship with current board functional status and current member participatory behavior. As such, I would test option one for a significant span of time if you believe this could significantly improve participatory and usage stats. If it is found to be worse, it could always be reversed once the test period is over. I cringe at the requests for shipping charges asked by tire-kickers to various sellers that do not build shipping in (I build it in because the fewer messages to a sale makes a better experience for me and for the buyers which are not looking to use me to fulfill some emotional need for a buddy), but they could adapt by linking to a calculation page for the facilitation or shipment service used by the seller. Of course, people will screw that up and put tiny weights in minuscule box dimensions to generate a quote that has no bearing on the realities of the actual product's shipping needs, but I guess that is just a part of the game such sellers would have to deal with.

So I guess I would vote for option one for a test period of six months and urge consideration of a reversal back to the current setup if improvement is not achieved (or if decline is very badly accelerated).

Thanks, Rich. I find these discussions interesting.

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

So I guess I would vote for option one for a test period of six months and urge consideration of a reversal back to the current setup if improvement is not achieved (or if decline is very badly accelerated).

That's a great idea, a results-based proposal with a realistic time frame.

Personally I agree w/the policy about only paid members being able to bump their ads (within limits of course.) However, I do feel that everyone should be able to comment on the ads. As mentioned above it lessens the amount of emails, calls, texts, etc asking the same question that can be answered once in a public reply. I do see that becoming a problem not if, but when unruly people make rude comments or comments to provoke argument. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, but I think the benefits will outweigh the frustration.

I think a major factor in reduction of traffic is social media. There's several very popular social media groups that have a lot of reptile classified/auction/show and tell traffic. This has probably directed the traffic away from fauna a bit, but that is just speculation on my end.

Probably a long-shot, but....
What if, when a non-paying member attempts to reply, they get a pop-up type thing that says "Non-paying members cannot reply within the ad. Please contact the seller via pm with any questions". If they're interested in the animal, it wouldn't be off-putting. If they're trolling to gripe about price, etc. it wouldn't give them the attention they're looking for.

Noelle

Originally Posted by rcarichter

Probably a long-shot, but....
What if, when a non-paying member attempts to reply, they get a pop-up type thing that says "Non-paying members cannot reply within the ad. Please contact the seller via pm with any questions". If they're interested in the animal, it wouldn't be off-putting. If they're trolling to gripe about price, etc. it wouldn't give them the attention they're looking for.

Noelle

I agree - the current message states that the user doesn't have permission to access the page, and mentions the possibility that an admin has taken action against their account (a lot of the inquiries indicate that people believe this to be the case, and that the limitation is due to some random infraction). If the message could be adjusted, it would help people's understanding.

Originally Posted by hhmoore

I agree - the current message states that the user doesn't have permission to access the page, and mentions the possibility that an admin has taken action against their account (a lot of the inquiries indicate that people believe this to be the case, and that the limitation is due to some random infraction). If the message could be adjusted, it would help people's understanding.

The problem with this is that the vBulletin code uses templates for many of it's functions, which are used globally in all pages. Which is why the text in many of them are pretty generic sounding. Many of the error displays can be triggered by several conditions and not by a single condition, so yes, it can be confusing to some people.

So modifying a template affects the entire site. Just adding more text to the specific template may help, but I'm not at all confident that many people will take the time to actually READ what it says. At least based on prior history. Heck, I put a notice in the CONTACT US link to try to direct people to check the FEEDBACK FORUM before contacting me, and the number of people who are still asking questions that are obviously answered in the FEEDBACK FORUM is discouraging, to say the least. Apparently some people believe that my time is less valuable than theirs is, so I should be perfectly willing to spend my time to answer them, since they do not wish to spend their own time seeking the answer to their question. I suppose it just pisses them off when I reply to their emails with "Please check the Feedback Forum on the site."

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Just adding more text to the specific template may help, but I'm not at all confident that many people will take the time to actually READ what it says. At least based on prior history.

As a non-paying member I tried to reply to an ad so I could see the error message. I can see why you're getting inundated with emails based on how it's worded. I would suggest changing to something like:

bcr229, you do not have permission to perform this action. This could be due to one of several reasons:

- You are a non-paying member attempting to reply to a classified ad. Please use a PM to contact the seller.
- Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Originally Posted by bcr229

As a non-paying member I tried to reply to an ad so I could see the error message. I can see why you're getting inundated with emails based on how it's worded. I would suggest changing to something like:

bcr229, you do not have permission to perform this action. This could be due to one of several reasons:

- You are a non-paying member attempting to reply to a classified ad. Please use a PM to contact the seller.
- Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

OK. Done. Please see how that looks now.

Works for me, but the way to gauge its effectiveness going forward is to see if it reduces the number of emails you get.