Where am I going wrong with this site?

[Lucille]

I hate to be the wet blanket that stifles humor, but where do I draw the line?

You are saying that the BOI and the business forums need to stay on topic; but there is no need to stifle humor when there are so many other forums available that are there for that very purpose, there is even a humor forum.

People zoom off topic all the time in The Welcome Club and the Lonely Hearts Club but since those forums have no serious business purpose and are there precisely to allow some of the members to express themselves, off topic posts do not really seem to be a problem (as long as they are courteous).

Perhaps that is the line? I would not think that to be a problem: in one's own house there are different rooms for different purposes, one does not shower in the living room or entertain guests in the bathroom; the different forums have different purposes and it should be as easy to go to the proper forum here as it is to go to the kitchen when one wants to get something out of the fridge in one's own home.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

Whew! I actually read this entire thread, which seldom happens when I reach the inevitable hijacking of the original topic... "Where am I going wrong with this site?"

Rich, I am not sure it is YOU that is going wrong with this site as much as 'where is this site going wrong.'

While I appreciate and agree with the majority of the constructive comments made by many of the posters on this thread, I am bored by the predictability of a core group that somehow manage to make these threads all about them.

Here are my thoughts:

1.) If you eliminated the 'members' who have signed up but have never posted, or haven't posted in say... over a year, I think your traffic statistics would be more realistic.

2.) I think that Fauna Classifieds, Fauna Forums, and the BOI are three separate entities that should be considered as such when evaluating the site stats.

3.) I feel that the Fauna TOS should be more explicit and simplified without the superfluous fluff or rhetoric, and applied across the board... not just for the BOI.

4.) I think your "ruthless enforcement of the rules" should be the "consistent enforcement of the rules."

5.) I think that something like 'three strikes and you're out' should apply for chronic abusers. To clarify, if someone reaches three warnings for the same type of offense, they are OUT. Period.

6.) I think there are too many frivolous forums here on Fauna, and I would like to see the HELL forum abolished. Besides, if the 'three strikes' rule was applied, there would be no need for it.

Thanks for everything you do, Rich.

 

[shrap]

Ok Rich, in the future I will be sure to refrain from being light hearted and will keep my playful personality out of these more serious threads. I truly meant no harm, was just joking around.

So if you want complete seriousness in certain sections of the site, I will be sure to stay out of those sections in the future. For playfulness and joking around is completely ingrained in who I am as a person and it seems it is not welcomed.

Again, my apologies.

 

[WebSlave]

Ok Rich, in the future I will be sure to refrain from being light hearted and will keep my playful personality out of these more serious threads. I truly meant no harm, was just joking around.

So if you want complete seriousness in certain sections of the site, I will be sure to stay out of those sections in the future. For playfulness and joking around is completely ingrained in who I am as a person and it seems it is not welcomed.

Again, my apologies.

If in the process, such light heartedness takes, or attempts to take, a thread off topic, then no, it will not be welcomed, at least in the BOI. I would hope you will be able to be able to tell how your words may affect the flow of a thread before you submit the post. As I mentioned, I hate being a wet blanket, but I do have to draw a line somewhere.

As mentioned by someone else, the regular discussion forums are pretty much more free form in nature and will not be subjected to such restrictions. Yeah, I know, it's going to be tough figuring out what rules apply where, but I am working on trying to make the lines clearer for all to see.

 

[Lucille]

I agree that the BOI should be on topic and be fairly serious. It has saved me money and heartache by steering me away from Bad Guys in the industry, and it is a place primarily devoted to business discussion.

I think that the regular subject forums should be somewhat on topic, frinstance one should not have a turtle discussion in the gecko forum, for one thing you are depriving turtle owners of the value of that discussion because they may never stop by.

I just think that this is all common sense and courtesy, but because we do have forums that we can relax, unwind and laugh together, there is a place for everyone.

 

[nicolai]

My opinions on your post Marcia...

Rich, I am not sure it is YOU that is going wrong with this site as much as 'where is this site going wrong.

His perogative, his site

Here are my thoughts:
1.) If you eliminated the 'members' who have signed up but have never posted, or haven't posted in say... over a year, I think your traffic statistics would be more realistic.

Some people have been here for more then 3 years and never posted, they like to lurk and watch. They even search the boi before they buy reptiles. Why should they be forced to post if they dont want to, maybe they like bein "NOBODY'S".

2.) I think that Fauna Classifieds, Fauna Forums, and the BOI are three separate entities that should be considered as such when evaluating the site stats.

I would have to agree with that one.

3.) I feel that the Fauna TOS should be more explicit and simplified without the superfluous fluff or rhetoric, and applied across the board... not just for the BOI.

Hard to explain unless they are laid out in very simple terms for the average reptile keeper.

4.) I think your "ruthless enforcement of the rules" should be the "consistent enforcement of the rules."

I think it should be a combination of both.

5.) I think that something like 'three strikes and you're out' should apply for chronic abusers. To clarify, if someone reaches three warnings for the same type of offense, they are OUT. Period.

And to never come back??? 3 warnings of the same offense in what time period??? If i break the same rule once a year for three years???

6.) I think there are too many frivolous forums here on Fauna, and I would like to see the HELL forum abolished. Besides, if the 'three strikes' rule was applied, there would be no need for it.

Now here is where i take issue with you Marcia. I personally think that the more forums rich has here the more people he will draw to the site and keep them coming back. Not everybody likes the same things and its nice to provide a wide variety of forums to insure you have something for everyone.

Hell Abolished.????? Why does it have to be abolished??? why not just hidden from the general public and only accesable to the people that subscribe to it and pay for it. Why would it hurt you what other people do and say if you are neither part of it or can even see it?? Hell is a place for some of us to kick back and say what we want without all the censorship and political correctiveness. You cant be offended by something if you dont know about it..right???

Thats just like all these politicians saying "reptiles arent good pets lets get rid of them". and passing laws to take them all away. What harm did the reptiles do to them?? None right, but just because they dont like them they want to get rid of them and screw the reptile people because they are the minority. Now your saying "i dont like hell!! abolish it" Why??? Just because you dont like it then is should go away and screw "US" the minority that do like it??
Getting rid of "hell" will just add to the list of "what am i doing wrong with this site" because a lot of us think it is wrong to get rid of hell!!!!!!

 

[Lucille]

.




Not everybody likes the same things and its nice to provide a wide variety of forums to insure you have something for everyone.

I agree. Having just about cornered the frivolous market, I think it is good to have a little corner of the site to discuss our lives and non reptile stuff. Kinda makes it more homey.
There are times that I've read all the new stuff on the substantive forums that interest me, and I'm too broke to do more than windowshop in the classifieds, but I still would like to talk to my friends here.

 

[reptilebreeder]

Some people have been here for more then 3 years and never posted, they like to lurk and watch. They even search the boi before they buy reptiles. Why should they be forced to post if they dont want to, maybe they like bein "NOBODY'S".

I personally like that idea. Many of us consider this a "community" or "group", be like someone going to the weekly pot luck, never bringing anything, never even bothering to say Hello, taking a plate full of food (useful info from the BOI), and then leaving.

I don't think it's to much to ask for someone to bring something to this "pot luck" every once in a while. Doesn't have to be a 12 course meal every time they visit, maybe just a bag of chips (occassional ad, say hello in welcome forum, participate in a "harmless" poll every once in a while etc.).

If I'm in the minority in this way of thinking, it wouldn't have to even be that complicated. Instead of deleting members for not posting, delete them for not logging on for a certain amount of time, thought if it was that minimal of a "contribution" I would make it 90 or 180 days or something and not a whole year. Maybe there could be a section where you have to check in (leaving no publicly visible footprint) every once in a while. At least it would clean the registrations up a little, those total membership numbers are unrealistically high. Heck I think I even have a forgotten, "handle" from the early days, where I forgot what it, or the password was, and I doubt I'm not the only one.

Now here is where i take issue with you Marcia.

huh??? looked like you took at least some issue on everyone of her comments, except #2

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

Nicolai, I was just posting MY thoughts and feelings on Rich's topic of "Where am I going wrong with this site"... sorry if they are not aligned with yours and/or do not seem to warrant the same level of respect and consideration as yours or those you agree with.
Ultimately, to quote you:

His perogative, his site

...is what it will all boil down to regardless of how anyone else feels in the long run. I will respect whatever Rich chooses to do with HIS website. I've had a tough week, and I really don't have the energy to argue with anyone.

 

[ms_terese]

His perogative, his site

Bingo!

There are many, many directions this site can go in. It really depends on what has to happen for Rich to consider it "successful": does that mean X amount of revenue through registration? X amount of classifieds revenue? X amount of traffic? a specific reputation (i.e., the tough BOI site, the intellectual reptile site, the premier business discussion site)?

You have to know what you want to achieve before you can achieve it. Many people believe in what this site, specifically the BOI, stands for, and will support it through any reasonable changes. (By that I mean that even some of the staunchest supporters might bail if suddenly this site decided to donate all its revenue to the KKK, etc.)

Others have different sets of priorities...that was witnessed when the fee structure was implemented. They found that fundamentally wrong, and moved on. C'est la vie.

Whatever changes are made to Fauna, there will be those that support it and those that leave because of it.

So it comes down to A) what Rich wants Fauna to be, and then B) implementing those strategies that will provide the highest chance of meeting those expectations.

Easier said than done, of course, but them's the facts!

 

[nicolai]

"... sorry if they are not aligned with yours and/or do not seem to warrant the same level of respect and consideration as yours or those you agree with.. I've had a tough week, and I really don't have the energy to argue with anyone.

Marcia, hopefully everyones opinion warrants the same level of respect and consideration as one another. We are all members of this community and deserve to be heard. I am not arguing just giving you feedback from the heart as i always do. This is my one place to retreat to and I dont want to see it go.
None of us are going to agree 100% about what needs to be done or what is good or bad.

huh??? looked like you took at least some issue on everyone of her comments, except #2

I guess we have different opinions as to "taking Issue" with something. If I dont speak up how will anyone know how i feel??

 

[Wilomn]

This is getting to be about hell, which is a completely separate issue from where Rich has gone wrong with this site.

It is, hell that is, a bit of a pimple, or so it seems to me, for a guy to have on his site that he never goes to. Well, it didn't come out smoothly but I am hopeful you get what I mean.

Rich has NO need of it. He COULD go hardcore and just suspend, fine or ban as he sees fit. Nothing at all wrong with that.

He could charge for it and make it a request only forum. We've got those already so there is precedence for another.

The thing is, it's NOT his cup of tea. He doesn't use it. He doesn't particularly like it and down right does NOT like a lot of what goes on there. People see that and think he condones such. Funny, this is the same issue that came up with reina's banner ad.

This is just my supposing but if Rich cares more about what people think of his site than he does what the members of that site think, then there is a big problem. If he thinks a few members of the site, whichever side you wish to favor can go here, are the be all and end all of this site then there is a problem there.

I think the problem Rich is having with this site is that he's forgotten that he is the one in charge.

OR he simply does not want the responsibility that this site has become. He may NOT want to say yes to this and no to that and have to play referee and all that crap. Not everyone can fire an employee and not everyone is comfortable being the "bad guy" that Rich seems to think he will become if he becomes something more of an enforcer.

Then again, it may be something else entirely.

Probably we'll, the general populace, never know.

 

[WebSlave]

Some thoughts.........

Apparently this issue concerning "consistency" is a hot button with some people. And also apparently, it appears that some people just have what I consider as unrealistic expectations about what they expect out of this site. There is NO enforcement power in this world that I am aware of that has 100 percent "consistency", 100 percent coverage, and 100 percent accuracy. So why is it expected HERE? It hasn't happened, can't happen, and like it or not, WON'T HAPPEN. There will always be differences of opinion about everything. Not everyone is going to agree that a post is actually a violation of some rule. It will always be a discretionary choice of the moderator reading the post as well as it is discretionary for a moderator to even be reading that post in the first place. When you all can come up with consistent definitions (meaning agreeable to everyone) of profanity, derogatory language, trolling, and what constitutes "on topic" as opposed to "off topic", then black and white rules can be provided to make things more "consistent". But personally I don't think anyone can do that, so the basic bedrock of what is needed to make US consistent just does not exist.

So regardless of how many people want "consistency", however it is that you may define it, I believe that it cannot exist here simply because of two reasons: (1) by my definition, it is not practical to offer, and (2) YOUR definition may not agree with mine, and perhaps be quite different from dozens of other definitions that other people may come up with as well. In short, there is no consistent definition of "consistency" here to get a handle on. And even if EVERYONE agreed to a single definition, there is still he hurtle of being practical and reasonable, with the resources available here, to meet such a definition.

About the suggestion to delete accounts of inactive members. I disagree. I am a member of a lot of different message boards covering a lot of different subject matter. Some I may visit once a week, others maybe once a year or three. Depends on where my interests may wonder over that time. I post on some occasionally, and others rarely. Now, if I were to go back to one of those sites and find that my registration had been deleted, would I be inclined to register anew? Hardly. I would take that as being downright unfriendly of the admin of that site. REQUIRE me to visit or post in a certain amount of time or I am axed? Well that's fine, but I won't be back unless they are offering something I can't find anywhere else. And even then, I would do so very reluctantly, and probably in a black mood over having to register again. Not everyone will think the same way I do about such things, but I do have to think at least some WILL.

I have not forgotten who is in charge. But being in charge does not mean that I have to ACT like I am in charge all of the time. Since I am in charge, I can do that, you know. I have been trying to ignore the fact that 10 different people will often come up with 10 different opinions about everything. I would like to think this site is run by it's members, and all of those members were reasonable, logical, and mature adults, with this industry and this site's best interests at heart. I like to think the best in all people, and that is my downfall, I suppose. I hope that it is not paranoia for me to think that some people here really are not interested in what is best for this site, but are more interested in what is best for THEM. I really cannot rule out the possibility as well, that some people may even give me intentionally bad advice. Yes, some people WOULD like this site to fail.

No, the majority is NOT right all of the time. No, I am not right all of the time. But above anything else, I do know what my intentions are and what it is that I HOPE is best for this site. The one real conflict I sometimes face is when what is best for this SITE, may not be best for ME.

So sometimes I ask for opinions when I run out of clear paths.

 

[DAND]

Rich,

What would you like to see more of and/or less of here? I know you have stated a few concerning both, but if you posted your pro and con list maybe we could see the whole direction you would like this site to heading in.

 

[Wilomn]

Without some sort of guidlines, some sort of "do not cross THIS line" or say THIS word in THIS forum and THIS will happen, you will have much the same as you do now.

I don't think anyone is really saying that you and your mods have to read every post every day. I know I'm not.

What I am saying when I refer to consistency is that if it's cool today it should be cool tomorrow and if it gets points today then it should tomorrow as well. ALL you enforcers should have some sort of guidelines YOU follow, personalities aside.

I also think each mod should have a civilian user name to allow them to post and participate as regular members as well as a Mod moniker and that the two should be separate entities, much as Rich and Webslave have shown us it can be.

If everything is arbitrary, if nothing is good today good tomorrow good forever, then just how do you expect honest expression from your members? Or is that NOT a goal? And I'm not talking about name calling and that crap, it's just games.

What I do mean though is that if you really want people to contribute you need to let them know what's cool and what isn't and just saying "Don't troll" isn't good enough. You NEED to spell it out if you want it to be known.

If you won't/can't do that Rich, then what you've got now is what youi'll have for a long time. It's just the names that will be changing, not the way input is made.

Perhaps you are too nice a guy for this particular job but I think it's the main lack on fauna.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

About the suggestion to delete accounts of inactive members.

If you eliminated the 'members' who have signed up but have never posted, or haven't posted in say... over a year, I think your traffic statistics would be more realistic.

Rich, I wasn't implying that these members be eliminated from Fauna... I meant that by disregarding that group from your statistics that your numbers would be more realistic.

I think your "ruthless enforcement of the rules" should be the "consistent enforcement of the rules."

Apparently this issue concerning "consistency" is a hot button with some people.

What I am saying when I refer to consistency is that if it's cool today it should be cool tomorrow and if it gets points today then it should tomorrow as well. ALL you enforcers should have some sort of guidelines YOU follow, personalities aside.

I think Wes explained the issue of 'consistency' accurately.

 

[WebSlave]

Without some sort of guidlines, some sort of "do not cross THIS line" or say THIS word in THIS forum and THIS will happen, you will have much the same as you do now.

I don't think anyone is really saying that you and your mods have to read every post every day. I know I'm not.

What I am saying when I refer to consistency is that if it's cool today it should be cool tomorrow and if it gets points today then it should tomorrow as well. ALL you enforcers should have some sort of guidelines YOU follow, personalities aside.

I also think each mod should have a civilian user name to allow them to post and participate as regular members as well as a Mod moniker and that the two should be separate entities, much as Rich and Webslave have shown us it can be.

If everything is arbitrary, if nothing is good today good tomorrow good forever, then just how do you expect honest expression from your members? Or is that NOT a goal? And I'm not talking about name calling and that crap, it's just games.

What I do mean though is that if you really want people to contribute you need to let them know what's cool and what isn't and just saying "Don't troll" isn't good enough. You NEED to spell it out if you want it to be known.

If you won't/can't do that Rich, then what you've got now is what youi'll have for a long time. It's just the names that will be changing, not the way input is made.

Perhaps you are too nice a guy for this particular job but I think it's the main lack on fauna.

Sorry Wes, but what you are asking just is not really feasible. How do you define "profanity"? Do I make a list of unacceptable words that cannot be used here? What about those people who use alternate spellings? Or use words in Portuguese? How about a phrase that means the same word? How many people would agree that one word is profanity and how many others would claim they use that word in daily usage, so it isn't profanity to them?

Who can really define "trolling" in black and white terms?

When is a word or phrase derogatory?

When is the horse dead that you are beating?

I could generate a 200 page document that covered every instance I could imagine about what is going to be not allowable on this site, and I would bet you BIG BUCKS that I would get swamped with gripe-o-grams when the warning points started flowing that the offender didn't realize the penalty because they didn't read the document. Or it was just TOO LONG and they didn't have time to read it. Heck how many members on this site have read the rules for posting in the BOI that is posted at the top of the forum?

Secondly, some people are of the frame of mind that they want to know where the line is so they can get as close as possible to it without going over. Or nudging it a bit to see how far they can push it.

Honestly, I think the TOS here will be something short and sweet such as "You will be treated here as you deserve to be treated". Nothing more, nothing less. Interpret it as you see fit. But I strongly suggest that everyone here tone it down tremendously. I am done allowing people to run away with my site and treat it as their own personal playground.

The mods will have guidelines, as they do now, but quite honestly, I picked those mods with great care, and I either trust them or I don't. What it is going to boil down to is YOU either trust us to be fair in how we treat you or you don't. If that is a concern to you, you have a choice of either posting far on the side of caution, or not posting at all. No moderator will remain here who unfairly gives people warning points. And that does NOT mean that just because Joe Blow did the same thing and did not get warning points that YOURS are unfair. It means YOU got caught, HE didn't. But that horse is REALLY dead, in my opinion.

Sorry, but no. I am not going to fritter away my time in fruitless pursuits by making some huge list of specific and detailed guidelines that no one will read anyway, or just use it as their own guidelines to try to figure out what they can really get away with that I overlooked. Read the descriptions of the warning points as they now stand (which is in that thread on the BOI concerning the rules for posting) and you should have a real good idea of what is expected of you. All that is going to change is that some or most of those warnings will trigger an automatic fine and suspension. That and it will be posted site wide, with some distinction about what is valid in the BOI and what is valid in the rest of the site.

I intend to be VERY hardline right off the bat. When the dust has settled after the change is fully implemented, then I will reassess the situation to see if I need to make any changes in the way the warning system works. I may need to get MORE hardline if it appears I have not gone far enough in that direction. Or perhaps too many people are getting suspended out of mistakes and I need to address it.

Yes, some people are going to get slammed by making an honest mistake. But we won't be able to determine the truth of that claim, and will assume the worst in order to accomplish this job as quickly and efficiently as possible.

It is what needs to be done, and it WILL be done.

 

[WebSlave]

About the issue of "consistency" again. I think some people fail to remember that myself and the moderators are human beings. Just as all of you here are as well (I think). When you are in a bad mood, things look differently to you then they do when you are in a good mood. You may read the same exact words, depending on what mood you are in, and they will mean different things to you. When I am in a bad mood, "profanity" has a much broader definition then it does when I am in a good mood or just feeling patient with the apparent failings of some people to be able to express themselves well in print. A troll is much easier to see if I am already pissed off because of something else that happened 15 minutes ago. But if I am eating a bowl of ice cream and just browsing some threads, I may not be quite so cognizant of such activity. Or heck, I just don't feel like putting down my spoon to click the warning button.

I doubt anyone here can claim they don't suffer from the same failings. And I seriously doubt that anyone thinking about it with any serious effort can fail to see why myself and the moderators might act in the same manner as you do at times. We are not robots. We have feelings and emotions just like everyone else. And unfortunately not all of us are going to have exactly the same mood at exactly the same time when posts are being read. There is really no way to quantify this aspect of the job of moderation, yet it appears the some people do expect that out of us. I do hate to disappoint you, but that is just the way it is, and the way it has to be.

Unfortunately, I can see no way to make FaunaClassifieds the perfect place that many people seem to want to have as a refuge in this imperfect world.

 

[Wilomn]

It is what needs to be done, and it WILL be done.

Cool.

Is there some kind of pool going yet on who gets whacked first?

 

[Serpwidgets]

Just wanted to add some comments specific to the BOI itself...

Obviously the "good guy" threads on the BOI are not a problem and seem to serve their purpose without any intervention. But I think the "bad guy" threads could use some improvement. I think the biggest fault of the BOI is that the threads become so huge because of side discussions or unnecessary comments. To me, the BOI serves two purposes when there's a bad transaction:

1- To assist someone in getting a resolution to their transaction.

B- To provide a record of the details of a transaction, so that people who are considering doing business with that party in the future can decide whether or not to do so.

If I'm looking someone up to see if I should avoid doing business with them, it's very disheartening to find that there's a 150 page thread on them, and that I might have to spend an entire evening wading through a bunch of irrelevant stuff in order to find "just the facts."

From that perspective, I think it might help to disallow anyone but those who participated in the transaction to post in that thread. If someone wants to guide a poster, to tell them that they should post emails or pictures or whatever, or maybe to tell them they don't think the claim is justified, or any other "not just the facts" commentary, they could PM that person instead of posting it in the thread. I think this would eliminate huge amounts of chatter that often turn a short thread into an entire evening or weekend of reading.

The chatter (while it can be entertaining at times) doesn't really help anyone who is trying to figure out whether or not they should do business with the person the thread is about and therefore reduces the effectiveness of the BOI in that respect. Perhaps a "side bar" or some type of rider thread (where other posts can be added/viewed, but are not directly injected into the main thread) would be great. After all, the comments can be helpful at the time, and I think it would also be bad to stop any and all discussion of the issue by "third parties."

For an example, this thread (http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71523) was given as one of the threads where the BOI served its purpose. (Please note that it wasn't nasty comments or other off-topic essays that achieved this end.) I agree on point 1, but not on point B. Let's say that someone needs to go look up this person and decide whether or not to do business with them...

Out of 92 posts, the following are really the only ones that are IMO relevant to making that decision: 1-6, 45, 59, 60, 64, 69, 70, 73, and 86. That's 14 posts out of 92 that are a direct discussion of the details of the transaction and how things were being resolved. Notice that all of the mentioned posts were made by the person directly involved in the transaction. I don't believe that it's a coincidence.

Some of the posts in the thread were helpful in guiding the resolution, and possibly in pressuring the "subject" to resolve the issue, but they are no longer relevant to anyone reading the thread after the fact, and the thread is now over six times longer than it "needs" to be. Many of the posts are:
· a discussion of whether or not someone should do business with a company named "redneck," whether or not the term "redneck" is a slur, etc.
· at what point in time the snake appears to have been fed or regurged or died,
· people applauding themselves or others or the BOI for doing its job,
· people calling the seller names in many creative ways,
· people telling the poster they are glad he got the problem resolved,
· etc.

They were not all necessarily "bad" posts at the the time they were made, but it will definitely hinder someone trying to simply form an opinion about the business in question. It would be much better IMO if the other posts were listed in a sub-thread or side bar of some kind (which is directly linked to or readable from within the thread) instead of being directly inside the main thread.

The other suggestion I would make for the BOI is to compile a list of pointers for people who are going to post a "bad guy" thread, so that they know how to go about doing so. List out all the things they should do, such as "post pictures, post any email or IM conversations, receipts" etc. These suggestions seem to be necessary in almost every BOI thread I've read. If practical, place that as a printable HTML file that is opened when the person hits the "New Thread" button on the BOI. Instead of immediately posting a new thread, it first shows them this, and then at the bottom of this page is a "continue posting a new thread" button, maybe even including an "I've read the instructions above" checkbox.

These are probably not things that could be added to the current set of changes, but I thought it worth mentioning as fodder in case any similar review of the site is done in the future.