Reminder of a few Forum Rules

[ainsworth74]

Following recent feedback and requests, we would like to draw members attention to the following aspects of our Forum Rules:

• Members should think carefully before submitting any threads or posts that could potentially identify themselves to others. This is particularly important if the subject could provoke the interest of your present or future employers, or relevant authorities within the rail industry.
  
  Please be aware that this forum is in the public domain. You do not have to be registered with the site in order to be able to read and browse threads, and there is a chance that any contribution could be read by someone that you don't necessarily want to read it!
  
  We have had a number of requests in recent times to delete posts and threads that may incriminate the author in some way, be it through criticisms of an employer or by incriminating themselves in a ticketing dispute.
  
  It will not always be possible to agree to such requests, so we ask everyone to be vigilant before they post.
  
  
• If posting an article you should put the text in QUOTE tags, provide details of the source and make a relevant comment to promote discussion.
  
  In recent weeks some articles have been linked to but no quotation has been included we would ask going forward that people keep this rule in mind. Further we find that having quotations is of great use to our members who have to use screen readers and also for those members who regularly access the forum via mobile phones.
  
  
• Duplicate accounts are not permitted. Please contact a member of the team if you have exceptional circumstances for us to consider.
  

 

[Bungle73]

If posting an article you should put the text in QUOTE tags, provide details of the source and make a relevant comment to promote discussion.

In recent weeks some articles have been linked to but no quotation has been included we would ask going forward that people keep this rule in mind. Further we find that having quotations is of great use to our members who have to use screen readers and also for those members who regularly access the forum via mobile phones.


[*]Duplicate accounts are not permitted. Please contact a member of the team if you have exceptional circumstances for us to consider.

[/list]

Yes, that's the rule I have a problem with. It sounds ok in theory, but some of the time trying to copy and paste the text from a web page is so much hassle that it's easier just to not bother, and then I think we all miss out. Also if the URL clearly shows it is from a well known website (such as the BBC) is it really necessary to state this again?

 

[Crossover]

Yes, that's the rule I have a problem with. It sounds ok in theory, but some of the time trying to copy and paste the text from a web page is so much hassle that it's easier just to not bother, and then I think we all miss out. Also if the URL clearly shows it is from a well known website (such as the BBC) is it really necessary to state this again?

The reason why we are asked to put a quotation (or at least partial quotation) is for the benefit of mobile users who then don't need to click on the link and load another page

 

[telstarbox]

...For which may we be thankful. My reasonably modern phone struggles to load some popular news websites, including BBC pages from time to time.

 

[Bungle73]

The reason why we are asked to put a quotation (or at least partial quotation) is for the benefit of mobile users who then don't need to click on the link and load another page

But is that really such a problem?

The thing is several times I've come across something I think others here would be interested in, but the way the page is laid out makes a simple copy and paste impossible, at least not without a lot of faffing about. In the end I just can not be bothered so I leave it. To me it's too much work when all I want to do is share something interesting that I've found.

I've frequented quite a few different forums over the years, and this is the only one that has such a rule.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...For which may we be thankful. My reasonably modern phone struggles to load some popular news websites, including BBC pages from time to time.

That shouldn't be the case, unless a) you have a really cheap phone, or b) you have a poor signal.

And talking about phones, this rule makes sharing something when I am on my phone pretty much impossible too.

 

[yorkie]

But is that really such a problem?

For some people, yes!

Some people access this site at work, where news sites may be blocked (some people in the rail industry tell me they have restricted access to websites considered relevant to their work only, but railforums.co.uk is an allowed site)

Some people will be using mobile devices, and may be using our mobile theme or app. External links may take them to a full version of a news site, which may use a lot of bandwidth.

Our blind members (using screen readers) may not find it so easy to navigate to an external link, get past all the adverts to the actual content, and then navigate their way back.

The thing is several times I've come across something I think others here would be interested in, but the way the page is laid out makes a simple copy and paste impossible, at least not without a lot of faffing about. In the end I just can not be bothered so I leave it. To me it's too much work when all I want to do is share something interesting that I've found.

I've never had a problem copying & pasting, but that's your choice if you don't want to make a post.

I've frequented quite a few different forums over the years, and this is the only one that has such a rule.

How many of them had rule consultations though? The suggestion was made by a non-staff member last year and was discussed as part of our rule consultation which any member of this site could have been part of (and you chose not to). I don't recall any objections to the proposed rule, which was then ratified by the forum staff.

Here's another reason, a story I posted in April 2008: Blind man refused travel on sleeper (before I knew better!) - anyone trying to read that now won't be able to access the original story, as the hyperlink no longer works.

It's not just about making it easier for mobile users, it's also about making it easier for blind & partially sighted members, and for future readers of this site in years to come.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And talking about phones, this rule makes sharing something when I am on my phone pretty much impossible too.

I am sure we can wait until you get home

 

[richw]

That shouldn't be the case, unless a) you have a really cheap phone, or b) you have a poor signal.

Disagree with this. A certain leading news site format their site very badly for mobile users, and use a lot of high resolution photos, which subsequently kill off a lot of users internet allowance. Most contracts now only give 500mb data. I recently viewed one news page, and it used 10mb viewing just the one page!
When viewing from my phone I wouldn't even contemplate clicking on a URL even if it was something as clear as bbc.co.uk simply because many of these sites use so much in the background. BBC for example downloads their source, and often have a video on many of their news pages.

 

[Muzer]

I agree with this rule; but just a pointer for people who have difficulties loading news sites on their phones, try Opera Mini; it parses and compresses the data server-side so it's insanely fast. It just doesn't work particularly well with JavaScript, but I've rarely had problems with this.

I've browsed an awful lot of internet, and never got over my 500MB/month limit.

 

[maniacmartin]

[*]If posting an article you should put the text in QUOTE tags, provide details of the source and make a relevant comment to promote discussion.

I usually only quote the first paragraph or two of an article, and hyperlink to the rest, because I'm not sure that wholesale copy and pasting of another website's content isn't copyright violation.

Also a lot of websites have adverts that pay for producing the content. By copying the whole article, people are more likely to read the article without visiting their website, so they lose revenue. This is especially fishy, given that RailUK has adverts and would gain from quoting the whole text.

 

[yorkie]

For a long article/document, it clearly wouldn't be appropriate to quote the whole thing! I wouldn't specify an exact number of paragraphs because it depends on the length (e.g. BBC News paragraphs are very short) and the context, but common sense should prevail in most cases I'd hope!

 

[IanXC]

I usually only quote the first paragraph or two of an article, and hyperlink to the rest, because I'm not sure that wholesale copy and pasting of another website's content isn't copyright.

That is the intention of the rule, it might be better read as:

If posting an article you should put the quoted text in QUOTE tags, provide details of the source and make a relevant comment to promote discussion.

 

[SickyNicky]

If I may stick my twopenny worth in, for those of us that live out in rural areas and can only dream of having a 3G signal (let alone a 4G one), re-quoting is really helpful. The last thing I want to try to do is to load up another site on the GPRS connection. It takes long enough to load RailUK.

 

[trainophile]

If I may stick my twopenny worth in, for those of us that live out in rural areas and can only dream of having a 3G signal (let alone a 4G one), re-quoting is really helpful. The last thing I want to try to do is to load up another site on the GPRS connection. It takes long enough to load RailUK.

As a fellow Herefordian I fully concur . Also, by reading a quoted excerpt it helps me decide whether the topic is of enough interest to me to read the entire discussion. (Some are inevitably more angled towards rail employees rather than passengers, and hence over my head!)

 

[Pumbaa]

For some people, yes!

Some people access this site at work, where news sites may be blocked (some people in the rail industry tell me they have restricted access to websites considered relevant to their work only, but railforums.co.uk is an allowed site)

Some people will be using mobile devices, and may be using our mobile theme or app. External links may take them to a full version of a news site, which may use a lot of bandwidth.


I am sure we can wait until you get home

And on that theme, the rules need to allow for mobile users to post easily too. I really only ever use the forums on the go on my phone, and copying, pasting and quoting isn't the easiest thing to do. It's possible, but involves reading the (article), copying the link, opening up the forum, creating a thread, pasting the link, closing the app, re-opening the internet, copying the text, opening the forum, pasting and going back to quote /quote, then attempting to write the message by which point the train will have travelled into an area of signal...

Convoluted but you get my point. The forum needs to make it easy for users to post from mobile too, as well as read. And if 'wait till you get home' to post is the recommended line, I won't bother posting

In my view, simply posting the link and a summary is enough, especially if the URL has an easily recognisable name.

 

[Mike395]

I think a reasonable compromise might be to post a link plus a summary then edit it at the first reasonable opportunity to add the quote if you're posting on mobile - I don't think anyone can really argue with that, so long as it's clear in the summary as to the relevance of the link and the basic gist of what it's about (paraphrased if need be)

(note this is my own opinion and not forum policy!)

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Normally I'd be on the quote everything side of the fence because I don't want to increase 'footfall' on certain websites (and I'm too lazy to click a button or two sometimes), but some of the justification for quoting things is, imo, dubious, for example things like....

....Some people will be using mobile devices, and may be using our mobile theme or app. External links may take them to a full version of a news site, which may use a lot of bandwidth.....

....can be counter-argued with a comment along the lines of...

....I am sure we can wait until you get home ....

Thinking about the view from both sides of the fence though, I think a balanced view would be that the OP has the choice, then it's up to members to then decide if they want to participate or not, but I suppose the ultimate argument for quoting is "because it is in the forum rules".

 

[yorkie]

...but I suppose the ultimate argument for quoting is "because it is in the forum rules".

... but it's only in the forum rules because members wanted it to be.

We may well have another rules consultation some time, when the rules will be reviewed again, and when that happens anyone who wants to have their say, is welcome to.

 

[bb21]

Thinking about the view from both sides of the fence though, I think a balanced view would be that the OP has the choice, then it's up to members to then decide if they want to participate or not, but I suppose the ultimate argument for quoting is "because it is in the forum rules".

The problem is that you cannot let each individual member freedom to decide what to do on everything which would likely result in chaos so a line has to be drawn for some issues. Quoting an article may or may not be one of those significant issues, however the feedback from the rules consultation was that members largely preferred a quotation to be provided for the reasons given above. (We can argue whether the people involved in the consultation were representative of the whole forum membership till the cows come home but everyone was given a chance to provide their views.)

We made a decision to draw a line on this issue based on the feedback from the consultation which was decided most likely to be beneficial to the forum in the long run.

If there is strong objection to this rule, as yorkie has mentioned, please take the opportunity to voice it at the next consultation. We will then reconsider things that much of the forum membership objects.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'd just observe that hyperlinks were invented by Tim Berners-Lee to avoid generating multiple copies of everything, and to aid concision, accuracy and the waste of internet bandwidth and storage.
Long quotations entirely defeat this objective.
Going to the original is often a necessary chore to get the full context of what you are interested in.
I'm not saying "choice bits" are not useful and stimulating, but it would be wrong to make it so easy that people don't bother (or know how) to find the original.

 

[yorkie]

I'd just observe that hyperlinks were invented by Tim Berners-Lee to avoid generating multiple copies of everything, and to aid concision, accuracy and the waste of internet bandwidth and storage.

Yes, but hyperlinks don't remain valid forever, as I mentioned earlier in post #6 with the Blind man refused travel on sleeper example.

It can be frustrating when you come across hyperlinks which no longer work.

Long quotations entirely defeat this objective.
Going to the original is often a necessary chore to get the full context of what you are interested in.
I'm not saying "choice bits" are not useful and stimulating, but it would be wrong to make it so easy that people don't bother (or know how) to find the original.

I agree it would be wrong for people to be unable to find the original (though if the original URL becomes invalid, then that's unavoidable) and that is why we require the hyperlink to be provided.

I think that most of the time people choose a sensible amount to quote. Enough that people who find it difficult to navigate to (and back from) external sites don't have to do it, but not too much either.

 

[Bungle73]

Yes, but hyperlinks don't remain valid forever, as I mentioned earlier in post #6 with the Blind man refused travel on sleeper example.

It can be frustrating when you come across hyperlinks which no longer work.

Is that really a big enough issue to be concerned about though? If the link no longer works then the information (and certainly the thread) is probably so old that it's useless anyway. And I would add that generally we are talking about news articles, which generally stay on sites like the BBC indefinitely.

 

[yorkie]

Is that really a big enough issue to be concerned about though?

I am not at all concerned; I think the rules our members decided are fine, but as I said before, if anyone has concerns, then they can take part in our next rules consultation.

If the link no longer works then the information (and certainly the thread) is probably so old that it's useless anyway.

I don't agree that just because a hyperlink no longer works, the information the website contained is going to be useless.

And I would add that generally we are talking about news articles, which generally stay on sites like the BBC indefinitely.

I agree that the BBC have a very good record in this area, but the same cannot be said of all sites, for many reasons (not least of all, the site may cease to exist).

 

[Crossover]

If I may stick my twopenny worth in, for those of us that live out in rural areas and can only dream of having a 3G signal (let alone a 4G one), re-quoting is really helpful. The last thing I want to try to do is to load up another site on the GPRS connection. It takes long enough to load RailUK.

Although I live in a town, I sometimes struggle with data signal to the point the RUK app sometimes struggles to load threads - the quoting (or part quoting) of articles can be very useful in these cases

 

[Deerfold]

I'd just observe that hyperlinks were invented by Tim Berners-Lee to avoid generating multiple copies of everything, and to aid concision, accuracy and the waste of internet bandwidth and storage.
Long quotations entirely defeat this objective.
Going to the original is often a necessary chore to get the full context of what you are interested in.
I'm not saying "choice bits" are not useful and stimulating, but it would be wrong to make it so easy that people don't bother (or know how) to find the original.

Much as I admire Sir Tim Berners Lee, he did not invent hyperlinks (unless it was when he was at primary school - the idea has been around a while and the practice predates the web), though he did make them integral to the way the World Wide Web works.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am not at all concerned; I think the rules our members decided are fine, but as I said before, if anyone has concerns, then they can take part in our next rules consultation.

Indeed so. I think that no forum member could claim that the last consultation period on all the main sections of the last rules discussion was neither long enough nor not in great depth.