Category: Zone BBS Suggestions and Feedback
As a group, I'd give them a c+, but you decide. This is their log in stawtistics
The current system time is Saturday, December 07, 2013 14:35:56 eastern standard time.
admin Wednesday, 20-Nov-2013 17:10:34 (16 days, 21 hours, 8 minutes, 56 seconds ago)
Chris N today 13:20:16 (1 hour, 1 minute, 17 seconds ago)
KC8PNL Wednesday, 04-Dec-2013 22:37:30 (2 days, 15 hours, 45 minutes, 25 seconds ago)
Liz Tuesday, 08-Oct-2013 12:17:08 (2 months, 3 hours, 7 minutes, 47 seconds ago)
Devilish Anthony today 13:51:05 (34 minutes, 59 seconds ago)
OceanDream Saturday, 26-Jan-2013 23:41:04 (10 months, 14 days, 14 hours, 46 minutes, 17 seconds ago)
Grecia Tuesday, 01-Oct-2013 20:19:36 (2 months, 6 days, 19 hours, 9 minutes, 8 seconds ago)
Thanks.
Bob
I wouldn't rate them together as a whole because some step up and do what they should more than others do. Plus it isn't everyone's fault that not all of them log in regularly.
yeah, but January? Wow. Lol. I have an idea for another interesting stat, but really, presenting these things won't do any good. There are only a couple of us who are actually around doing stuff. E.G. Sports Challenge, Anagram Mania, trying to keep the boards free of spam and duplicate posts, verifying accounts, etc.
My statistics are what they are.
Those who do log in--and it's gotten better recently--do a fantastic job. Those who don't log in, can't do a fantastic job cause they aren't around to do it.
If anyone else has other stats to show: please do it here so we can compare results.
I decided to post my stats because I was outraged by stats like
2 months, 3 hours, 7 minutes, 47 seconds
10 months, 14 days, 14 hours, 46 minutes, 17 seconds
2 months, 6 days, 19 hours, 9 minutes, 8 seconds.
Some of this stuff needs to be taken care of on a daily basis.
Bob
Oh I understand and completely agree with you. However I don't see that as being every community leader's fault. Everyone is their own person. even if people like Anthony and Scott checked up on the others to see what's going on, and encouraged them to come around again or even consider letting go of the position, that doesn't mean they will. It wouldn't hurt to give that a try so long as we don't get our hopes up too much, if Anthony or anyone else hasn't tried doing this all ready.
I remember years ago, a CL was let go, without voluntarily resigning, for never logging in. I really like Jess as a person, but I think this should happen with her position too. It's been done before, I was on staff when it was, so it could be done again.
I did suggest on the staf list that the system automatically demote any cl who had not loged in for more than 60 days.
that's honestly a bad idea. I can think of very few reasons that someone would need to be away for more than 60 days. and if they do. I think that the extension should be optional from the admins point of view, not just indefinite.
My main point is that we have 3 cl's who have not loged in for more than 2 months now, and something should be done. no wonder no one takes the staff seriously.
Ok, how about 90 days? I mean ok, there might be reasons that impeed some CL's to log in for 2 months, but they took on that responsibility. I'm not complaining. All I'm saying is that it's not fair that all the staff are not being taken seriously because evidently admons don't care about the site. So...
To me, 90 days seems fair. If a staff member can't log in within a 90-day time period, they really shouldn't be staff at all.
I agree with the ninety day thing. Even if all you're doing is to pop in to refresh the timer. I'm talking about something like an extended hospital stay or whatnot.
But here's the thing. A community leader isn't leading any sort of community if they're ill or completely out of touch. I'm not trying to be a bear about this, but if you're not going to be around, and you know it, then pass the torch. Unexpected troubles that stop you coming online are one thing, and ninety days should be more than sufficient to cover this.
I agree, but I think it should be thirty days. If you're gone for a month, you aren't fulfilling your duties. IF you lose internet, or are hospitalized, or something else which will keep you away for a month, then you aren't being a CL at all. At that point, whether it is your fault or not, the responsibility goes on to someone who has internet and isn't hospitalized. Its that simple.
Agree with cody. oh, and here's a brilliant idea:
This is said half in fun, but why not just ban the inactive CL's? Huh? Anthony? Come on. Go on a banning spree, would you? lol
Of course, I'm willing to bet that it says somewhere in the already-way-too-flawed Terms of service that you can't ban CL's.
and to that I say:
boooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
lol
Heheh, well, they haven't done anything to deserve a banning. They haven't done anything at all. I don't want to bann them, and I can't demote them back to regular members either.
Anthony, I think you should declare yourself das feur of the zone. Banning all cls and admins and anyone else who gets in your way. That includes KC8PNL because he dared argue with my statistics.
Remember: its you and me mein feur.
Bob
The responsibility really lies with the admins in my opinion. If they are the ones letting CL's remain inactive, then they are the ones who should be brought to task about this.
In the future, I wonder if it would make sense to recruit CL's who are each good at one or two tasks. Maybe the job of being CL becomes too overwhelming for some, so they disappear. But if each CL only had one or two main duties that would not take up all their time, maybe they would be more willing to log in often and stick with the job. For example, someone who loves reading the boards could be in charge of checking for and getting rid of duplicate posts. Someone who loves chatting with everyone and is nonjudgmental could be in charge of dealing with drama between users who can't seem to resolve their own fights. Someone who is very tech savvy could dealw ith technical issues. A sports lover, such as myself, could be assigned to keep the sports challenge page going, which I have already been doing for the past few years even though I am not a CL. I did apply three times in the past but am actually glad I was never chosen before. But if I were chosen to be a new CL and just given that task, I would love it. These are just some suggestions that someone might want to consider.
I think the last poster had an excellent idea. I'm not very techy so have never applied. I would, however, feel comfortable dealing with the boards and/or verifying accounts. Great idea. Perhaps this would allow the zone to use it's member's tallents most efficiently.
90 days? Seriously, that is way too generous. I think 30 days is about right, particularly if no explanation is given. On most vacations, people would have the down time required to get on a computer at least once, in the event its 1 month long.
I think some specialization is a good thing, but I do think all or at least the majority of the CL's should be able to fill another job function, should one need to pick up the slack. Specialization only really works in any situation if all the cogs in the machine are doing their job, and turning free of incident. As such, until we have everyone working consistently in the first place, specialization would only create more headaches, in some situations.
30 days. Stay away from a job for more then 3 days without saying why and you don't have it. So 30 days is a lot.
Oh but this is only the zone. It's not like a real job as some say. Lol
Stay away from duty in a volunteer capacity for a day of when you got orders papers and see what happens. lol
I agree with those who say 30 days should be the maximum amount of time to know whether a CL can, or will, do the job they applied for. even then, though, I still say that's being too generous.
I agree with the 30 days as well. And DG, you really don't have to be a tech person to be a CL, trust me. I had thought that too, but having been one, I know you don't.
I've told Chris N before that I would come back to help out if it was needed or wanted, because I know that only a few are doing all the work, and that's not fair. He knows the offer stands.
I'd gladly try my hand at the job, as well.
Come on back sister. I needs some points. Lol
Seriously. If they took on more people like James, Alicia, or myself who would do the job, it would save the admins a lot of complaints which is probably the reason why they don't bother coming around here. but such is life, several topics have been made for the purpose of letting them know there are people willing to step up and none of them seem to have done anything.
But how, exactly, would it save them a lot of complaints? even if you're put in the position of CL, you don't have the powers needed to fix the site.
The following information concerns how many times each admin or CL has logged in during 2013. If the log ins total more than 100, the information cannot be given beyond the lastt 100 log ins, so I simply noted more than 100. I'm not here to defend or comment with this post, I'm providing information. So…
1. Admin: 19
2. Jage: 12 for an admin grand total of 31 log ins
26. Chris N: mor than 100
267. KC8PNL: 91
283. Liz: 12
4179. Devilish Anthony: more than 100
6405. OceanDream: 13
8765. Grecia: 25
Wow, I would comment, but I am pretty "newish" hear so guess I don't have room to talk...but thanks for sharing the stats KC8PNL.
KC8PNL's stats bare out what we pretty much knew, but its another good way to track staff involvement.
It looks like, purely from a statistical view, things are getting better.
Now if we could see any improvement on the zone.
Bob
Well, try not turn out to work and not reporting to work for more than 60 days and see what you get from your boss. Hell, try 6 days for the sake of it and see what you get. Doesn't matter if it is a voluntry posission or a pay posission, for fun or serious.
I do think if you take on the responsibility to become a CL, you do have that responsibility to show your appearance on the side. Maybe what zone should have is an automated worning for those that fail to log in within 30 days, and demote them to a standard member after say 45 days or 60 days. Now, if you are a serious, or not serious CL, you take the job, you have that responsibility. Take 45 days for example, will be quite enough for one to log in regardless of their life condition. Even if One in extreme condition, dealing with lost and grief, takes bereavement leave, most company will only allow you a week or two the most. And, if a CL got more than 2 worning, the third will be an automatic kick out of the game.
If you want to play the CL game, you got to go according to the rules. Unfortunately, those rules don't exist here.
I'm amaze, Anthony and Scott are still keeping up with Zone for better or worse. And, whatever the rest of the community said, i send my gratitude and appreciation to you both.
Hey, so what if everyone payd for a monthly subscription. No way in hell am I suggesting it, but I wonder if it was a payd job there would be more committed people to the sight?
Incidentally, the only reason I suggested more than thirty days is because of how difficult it seems to be in order to get things done. If it was only thirty days, you were a good CL, and then you had something happen that truly did keep you out of commission for more than a month but you intended to come back...well, my thinking, such as it was, had been that you'd not have to re-apply and be re-instated.
Day-to-day, thirty days would work nicely, mind you.
Incidentally, I and at least one other person I know have applied for the CL position to try and help out. This was back in the early fall, and there's been no word in any event. I figured that it was time to put my money where my mouth was and actually prove that I wanted to help.
A couple things to address here.
Post 27. Ryan, even if all the CL's were working at full capacity, the admins would still get complaints, because the CL's can't actually change the Zone, only do the day-to-day maintenance. A lot of the complaints we saw when I was a CL were things we could do absolutely nothing about, and so we specifically directed people to complain to the admins because only they could change it.
Post 31: Bob, all I can say is, read above. For things to get better or change here on the site, we'd need the admins to be more involved, and based on the past, oh, six years or so, I doubt that's going to happen.
Post 34: SW, I think I know who the other is that applied, and I told them the same thing I'll tell you here. Unless it's changed drastically, you can submit all the applications you want and they won't be looked at. The only time applications are looked at is when it's been publicly announced that the position is open for new candidates, and the only time frame those applications are looked at are the ones submitted after the announcement and before the closing date. Staff and admins do not take into account any previously submitted ones. Anthony, or particularly Scott, since you've been around the longest, correct me if I'm wrong on that, but that's how it was, anyway. SW, that's why you and the other applicant have gotten no response, and why I'm 99.99 percent sure you won't. Submit again whenever the day comes they take on a new CL, and then they'll get looked at.
I personally think that's a bit silly - they should let us know that, or close applications at all other times - but I digress. Thanks for the info, in any event. You've got experience with the CL thing, so perspective is good.
I definitely agree with you that they should close them at any other time, or make that more well-known, but unfortunately, that's not how it works.