New Forums needed for end-user Support of Manufaturers' Radios/Products?
06-29-2004, 03:41 PM
#1
New Forums needed for end-user Support of Manufaturers' Radios/Products?
Seems to me that specific questions asked of specific radio products in the manufacturers' support forums are not being very well recieved by the moderators of those forums when they don't tend to flow the way they want them to.
I've run one of the largest support forums on the net and while I can certainly appreciate the need for a thread to stay on topic and certainly for a forum to stay on topic; it is a natural tendency for threads to take on lives of their own. Sometimes these new lives deviate from the original topic of the thread as a natural evolution of the same topic.
Such was the case with a thread recently in the Futaba support forum where (I take creative liberty with a synopsis here. The original thread is here: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/Futa...1932707/tm.htm for anybody that wants to look at it.) a user asked about Futaba's apparent statements that Futaba only supports certain servos with NiCad chemistry. A natural evolution of such a thread is to ask (IMHO) since Futaba does not sell extended service/high amp NiCad packs; where might one find a reliable source for the same. Some other questions developed in that thread too. Most of them seemed perfectly valid (to me) and the thread was developing into a nice synopsis of the problem at hand AND resolutions not degrading Futaba in any way for their stance.
While I respect the moderators' rights to define the scope of topics for discussion in their own manufacurers' forums by limiting questions to only be answered by their own staffs, they don't seem to have a problem when someone goes into a page-long explanation of how to program flaps and spoilerons on a 9CAP so they don't have to answer that one, yet some things seems unacceptable for other members to help out on. How are we suppose to know the difference?!?!?
Maybe we need member supported manfacturer specific forums (especially here in the radios areas) for users to support other users on commonly shared equipment. This would actually serve to ease the load on the manufacturer reps and would give us a chance to help one another in a much more manufacturer-centric area of the board for end-users.
Does this make sense to anybody else? It just seems that this one "catch-all" forum tends to lose radio/manufacturer-specific questions and they tend to get asked in the manufacturers' specific support forums where they are, apparently; unwanted.
Is it just me?
I've run one of the largest support forums on the net and while I can certainly appreciate the need for a thread to stay on topic and certainly for a forum to stay on topic; it is a natural tendency for threads to take on lives of their own. Sometimes these new lives deviate from the original topic of the thread as a natural evolution of the same topic.
Such was the case with a thread recently in the Futaba support forum where (I take creative liberty with a synopsis here. The original thread is here: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/Futa...1932707/tm.htm for anybody that wants to look at it.) a user asked about Futaba's apparent statements that Futaba only supports certain servos with NiCad chemistry. A natural evolution of such a thread is to ask (IMHO) since Futaba does not sell extended service/high amp NiCad packs; where might one find a reliable source for the same. Some other questions developed in that thread too. Most of them seemed perfectly valid (to me) and the thread was developing into a nice synopsis of the problem at hand AND resolutions not degrading Futaba in any way for their stance.
While I respect the moderators' rights to define the scope of topics for discussion in their own manufacurers' forums by limiting questions to only be answered by their own staffs, they don't seem to have a problem when someone goes into a page-long explanation of how to program flaps and spoilerons on a 9CAP so they don't have to answer that one, yet some things seems unacceptable for other members to help out on. How are we suppose to know the difference?!?!?
Maybe we need member supported manfacturer specific forums (especially here in the radios areas) for users to support other users on commonly shared equipment. This would actually serve to ease the load on the manufacturer reps and would give us a chance to help one another in a much more manufacturer-centric area of the board for end-users.
Does this make sense to anybody else? It just seems that this one "catch-all" forum tends to lose radio/manufacturer-specific questions and they tend to get asked in the manufacturers' specific support forums where they are, apparently; unwanted.
Is it just me?
06-29-2004, 06:45 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Washington,
DC
Posts: 993
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New Forums needed for end-user Support of Manufaturers' Radios/Products?
You might be interested in [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/restricted_forums_%28e%25g%25_support_forums%29/m_1940280/tm.htm]this thread[/link] in the suggestions forum, suggesting that the system enforce the vendor's-only rule for the vendor forums.
Personally, I think the above suggestion is a good one. I also think the open forum is probably big enough to handle questions about all the brand names. Since so many guys own more than one brand, it would just add to the number of forums they'd have to subscribe to.
But I can't say I feel really strongly one way or the other on this.
Personally, I think the above suggestion is a good one. I also think the open forum is probably big enough to handle questions about all the brand names. Since so many guys own more than one brand, it would just add to the number of forums they'd have to subscribe to.
But I can't say I feel really strongly one way or the other on this.
06-29-2004, 07:41 PM
#3
Senior Member
My Feedback: (16)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Locust Grove,
GA
Posts: 12,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New Forums needed for end-user Support of Manufaturers' Radios/Products?
Please let me recommend a third option.
What is the manufactures moderator transfers the question to an open forum under the appropriate topic when he/she is finished. That way it will be maintained as (Futaba/JR/???) only then transfered to the appropriate open forum when it is answered by the manufacturers representative.
What is the manufactures moderator transfers the question to an open forum under the appropriate topic when he/she is finished. That way it will be maintained as (Futaba/JR/???) only then transfered to the appropriate open forum when it is answered by the manufacturers representative.
07-02-2004, 01:42 PM
#4
Senior Member
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pampa, TX
Posts: 5,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New Forums needed for end-user Support of Manufaturers' Radios/Products?
ORIGINAL: Mike in DC
You might be interested in [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/restricted_forums_%28e%25g%25_support_forums%29/m_1940280/tm.htm]this thread[/link] in the suggestions forum, suggesting that the system enforce the vendor's-only rule for the vendor forums.
Personally, I think the above suggestion is a good one. I also think the open forum is probably big enough to handle questions about all the brand names. Since so many guys own more than one brand, it would just add to the number of forums they'd have to subscribe to.
But I can't say I feel really strongly one way or the other on this.
You might be interested in [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/restricted_forums_%28e%25g%25_support_forums%29/m_1940280/tm.htm]this thread[/link] in the suggestions forum, suggesting that the system enforce the vendor's-only rule for the vendor forums.
Personally, I think the above suggestion is a good one. I also think the open forum is probably big enough to handle questions about all the brand names. Since so many guys own more than one brand, it would just add to the number of forums they'd have to subscribe to.
But I can't say I feel really strongly one way or the other on this.
EDIT Got the wrong Mike in there..
