Forums
Workforce.com Forum Engagement
General Forum
Workforce.com Forum Engagement
Discuss workforce management, performance management, retention, communication, motivation, contributing to business results and other topics.
Those of you who have been on this Forum board for a while recognize that the number of postings and engagements has been dropping off over the past 12+ months. There is the possibility that I w
0
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId53
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId53Discussion:7ae4472d-3a46-4b8c-ab2a-470ee8512c25
Forums » Topic Forums » General Forum » Workforce.com Forum Engagement
|
Workforce.com Forum Engagement
posted at 4/20/2012 3:25 PM EDT
on Workforce Management
|
Posts: 148
First: 9/20/2011 Last: 12/12/2012 |
Those of you who have been on this Forum board for a while recognize that the number of postings and engagements has been dropping off over the past 12+ months. There is the possibility that I will be having a conversation with Workforce.Com management about this issue next week. What would be very useful would be to have input from all of you out there that care about the future of this forum. The key issues are: 1. Why do you think the engagement has dropped? 2. If it were your site (which it is) how would go about reinvigorating the site in a way that would address the issues identified in 1 above. Thanks for your efforts on this. |
|
|
Re: Workforce.com Forum Engagement
posted at 4/20/2012 5:01 PM EDT
on Workforce Management
|
Posts: 127
First: 9/21/2011 Last: 11/12/2012 |
I have definitely noticed it! It happened right about the time that they switched the format of the site. Personally I don't think it is intuitive as to where the forum is anymore. Going through networking? I remember the first time after the change of the site that I thought the forums were just gone. Plus honestly as a lady, I am offended by the spammers who feel the need to post about escorts in all sorts of different cities. I report them each time, but sometimes it seems to take days to get the spam gone. I also feel like the fact that the # of postings by a specific poster really helped others feel comfortable with those that have been around for a while. I mentioned it, it got fixed and then one day reverted back to the new amounts. It's hard to feel confident with an answer from someone with few posts. You have 88 and I have 79.....and I know we both had much larger numbers as did Nork and hrbthr (?)..... eta: I will say that I have seen the trend on other forums too....(AHI, payroll talk, even labor law talk) |
|
|
Re: Workforce.com Forum Engagement
posted at 4/23/2012 7:12 AM EDT
on Workforce Management
|
Posts: 2
First: 4/23/2012 Last: 5/18/2012 |
My observation is that the resident/long time members that respond to questions of new posters/members in general receive snarky responses. The members with the most posts, in general come off as condescending and judgmental. I am not only referring to this site but to the sites that rrupert mentions in her post. I for one do not post questions because of the inevitable personal attacks I am sure to receive for my spelling or the way in which I may phrase a question. It’s a given that the long time members that answer questions are providing a free service for those seeking answers, but the nasty tone that is in the responses is quite simply unprofessional. Additionally, when one responder begins with the condescending response, the other long time responders seem to pile on with the attacks, especially if the poster takes offense to the personal attacks on his/her ability to type, spell, the way in which a question is asked, etc. In general, the people that come to these HR message boards are doing so because they are looking for answers that they do not have because they do not have the background or expertise in the particular area in which they are seeking answers. |
|
|
Re: Workforce.com Forum Engagement
posted at 4/23/2012 7:28 AM EDT
on Workforce Management
|
|
Posts: 148
First: 9/20/2011 Last: 12/12/2012 |
In Response to Re: Workforce.com Forum Engagement: My observation is that the resident/long time members that respond to questions of new posters/members in general receive snarky responses. The members with the most posts, in general come off as condescending and judgmental. I am not only referring to this site but to the sites that rrupert mentions in her post. I for one do not post questions because of the inevitable personal attacks I am sure to receive for my spelling or the way in which I may phrase a question. It’s a given that the long time members that answer questions are providing a free service for those seeking answers, but the nasty tone that is in the responses is quite simply unprofessional. Additionally, when one responder begins with the condescending response, the other long time responders seem to pile on with the attacks, especially if the poster takes offense to the personal attacks on his/her ability to type, spell, the way in which a question is asked, etc. In general, the people that come to these HR message boards are doing so because they are looking for answers that they do not have because they do not have the background or expertise in the particular area in which they are seeking answers. Posted by PixieJean Pixie Thanks for your input on this. As one of the long time posters I have not noticed the tone you refer to except in the case of spammers who do us all a disservice. However, just because I have not noticed it does not mean it has not and does not occur. Would you like to see all the postings "reviewed" before they are posted? That would slow responses down but would be a solution. With regard to spelling and question phrasing, IMHO language skills and accuracy have an impact on both the professionalism of the poster and the understanding of the question. Blogging is not texting or twitter and proper phrasing is important. What do the rest of you think? Howard7 |
|
|
Re: Workforce.com Forum Engagement
posted at 4/23/2012 8:27 AM EDT
on Workforce Management
|
|
Posts: 127
First: 9/21/2011 Last: 11/12/2012 |
I would hate to see posts having to be reviewed. Because there are times that the post could already have been answered but not reviewed and we would really just be double posting. I often don't post because it has already been answered correctly by a previous poster. (I find this on BLR....I post something with a web address and it must be reviewed first...someone else comes along and posts and then mine shows later and looks weird/out of order) That said, I think it is often hard to read the "tone" of a posting. I know my style --- that is I try to answer the question and then I give documented/researched backup. I try to go back to an original or trusted source (such as the DOL, EEOC, attorney's article, etc) and direct the OP to it. I once got told I posted messages that were too long and the OP didn't want the research, just the answer. And then I asked how could the OP trust the answer from an unknown person out on the 'net, just because I say so? I see postings that are inaccurate and it is hard not to state that they are. And honestly, someone who disagrees with a posting/answer SHOULD post that they do. I have been corrected and don't mind at all. It's one thing that keeps me sharp on my skills. I think if a person posts on a professional forum, which all of the ones I listed are (except labor law talk which is not), then it should be a professional/work post. But I am a bit older and see how communication has gotten very lax with the invention of texting...grammar and spelling have gone by the wayside. But I also believe that in a professional setting, one should consider their spelling and grammar. (Of course there are probably a few mistakes in my own posting LOL) |
|
|
Re: Workforce.com Forum Engagement
posted at 4/23/2012 1:26 PM EDT
on Workforce Management
|
Posts: 32
First: 10/25/2011 Last: 8/27/2012 |
I still am trying to figure out how one reads a "tone" into a posting on an Internet job board but that is just me. I agree that spammers are a PITA (and i still support capital punishment for them) but that in and of itself does not keep me away. As a business owner I frequently do not have the time to devote to sites like this as I once did. I present when I can but honestly...this site as well as others is not the purpose of my existence. I know people come here with varying backgrounds and experiences. I especially feel some empathy for those without an HR background who are trying to navigate an issue or question. However, when experts ask follow-on questions seeking additional detail or fact, that is not a snarky response. It simply means if you want a good answer more detail is needed. If you want an off the cuff response that odds are is incomplete or simply inaccurate to your true situation then let us know. There is an abundance of HR expertise on the Internet...some even know what they are doing. As to the format here...over time you get used to it. However, if I didn't know or rarely came her finding a discussion board under an innocuous title like "Networking" isn't where I would probably look. This challenging labeling is not unique to Workforce and exists in many many places |
|
|
Re: Workforce.com Forum Engagement
posted at 4/24/2012 10:44 AM EDT
on Workforce Management
|
|
Posts: 149
First: 9/29/2011 Last: 12/13/2012 |
Part of the drop off in postings is, I'm sure, due to the new format and having to update the log-in. Casual users might not have bothered to renew their login and simply moved on to other forums. I certainly don't think that the drop off in forum activity and the switch to the new format is coincidental. As far as snarky responses, there have been some but I think mostly they've been "in kind"; that is, a snarky post gets a snarky response (excepting, of course, the spammers. I don't believe that capital punishment as HRPro suggests is appropriate. Something more painful and prolonged would be much better.) I can see potential issues with the tone of question and responses, but that's a hazard of written communication. One person's professional response is another's "snarky" response; without the benefit of the inflection inherent in speech communications, it's easy to misinterpret the tone and intent of the communication. There are long term posters who have spent considerable time and effort in providing thoughtful and accurate responses to questions. That's certainly a resource for other HR employees which I'm not sure is being promoted. I also remember when the legal forum was moderated by attorneys at Epstein Becker & Green (this was about 10 years ago). Their advice was certainly a credible "value add" to these forums and, I think, helped generate traffic to the other forum topics. |
|
|
Re: Workforce.com Forum Engagement
posted at 4/24/2012 11:54 AM EDT
on Workforce Management
|
|
Posts: 13
First: 10/24/2011 Last: 8/22/2012 |
Do we have statistics of how many people subscribe to Workforce.com? Both before and after the update? Moderators wouldn't hurt. Perhaps they can post 1 question every week or every other week that goes out in the newletter(s)? People aren't going to chime in and start using the message boards if there aren't any posts that interest them. I also agree about the old posting numbers and when you first became a member. It should provide some guidance as to credibility. |
Forums » Topic Forums » General Forum » Workforce.com Forum Engagement
