We seem to have a lot of new members lately. Maybe I’m just noticing because activity is down and other threads aren’t getting pushed to the top. You’d think that if a site gets a handful of new members in a day the times they join would be spread out over the course of the day and their behavior would differ, but the other day I ran across a few who joined within a handful of minutes of each other and all of them immediately opened a thread. None of them commented anywhere else. They just joined and posted. I think that’s interesting behavior. I would’ve thought it would be more common to comment on threads immediately after joining a website.
There also seem to be more new members who are posting inconsistent information or threads/topics that just seem off. Of course, they always seem to have an explanation for it. My activity is probably 1/10th of what it was before the change because I no longer have a real sense of who I’m talking to on the other end. And that has nothing to do with the new format.
I’m also seeing threads that Ive already read come up as one I haven’t read. They come up NOT in bold face…
And for the record, I think it’s backwards to have boldface for threads one has already read, and regular for unread. But that’s my opinion.
I’ve pretty much figured out how to navigate on this new format… but I don’t like the endless scrolling needed, the font, and the overuse of the white background.
Thank goodness I never saw the video…and I hope they keep that feature…away.
While I haven’t been a member for all that long and don’t post a ton, this does remind me a bit of a bad car accident, where everyone just slows down to take a peek at the twisted metal and possible carnage, before eventually moving on to whatever life has next to offer.
Time for CC to revise their mission? What they’ve done with the new website is to de-emphasize discussion of important topics. “Best college discussion forum”? Not anymore! They are now emphasizing generic/junk articles.
“In order to fulfill our mission of being the best college discussion forum, we want important topics to be discussed here at College Confidential.”
Wouldn’t planted posters be going against the ToS?
Also, if CC’s mission or forum rules have changed (which appears to be likely, given the posts in this thread), CC should notify users. They have left it up to guesswork by posters to determine what is going on.
“College Confidential seeks to maximize the utility of its forum to its members and visitors, and does not knowingly allow members to misrepresent themselves”
And
“College Confidential will attempt to notify Website users whenever it modifies or revises the Terms of Service, Forum Rules and/or Privacy Policy”
The sad thing is you all are the only online friend group I participate with, that are similar ages and life experiences. I have no where else to go, nor do I want to lose these friendships. I’ll continue for the immediate future, but it’s not as fun as participation is so low.
Not sure I see where you are coming from. I don’t see paid services advertised by CC. In fact…soliciting business for paid services is not allowed by posters on this forum.
I think they just want to link articles. I’m hoping I’m wrong. But already I have seen a significant decline in posts by former regular and knowledgeable posters on the financial aid forum. Too bad because finances are a huge issue, as is college selection. Even getting opinions gives one food for thought…or the basis to know where to look on the college websites for answers, who to call, and what specific questions to ask.
It is weird that CC simultaneously rewards frequent posters but also is trying to drive them off with an unusable interface. I don’t want to have to scroll a foot down to find new posts in the forums I frequent. If it is hard for me to volunteer my time, I won’t. Well, their choice!
Yes, a LOT more snarky kid posters, insisting they know x and y- and still have time to take it easy. They’re correcting long timers (some with specialty knowledge,) with dubious info and then, in a few cases, biting into them.
It spirals. It’s becoming sport, not discussion. We used to be able to id these kids (or?) and wait for them to trip themselves up. But now they skirt right under the line.
How do I really flag a kid for rampant misinfo? (After all, it’s a free world, eh?) “I don’t trust this one” seems insufficient. I don’t want to have to go trace posts, to find out the kid is a rising senior and doesn’t know admissions, just thinks he can claim this or that. And so on. And all that does is take mod time- I know ski said go for it, but these kids are skirting just under some obvious line.
Any answer to ignore them still means proliferation and a waste of CC space. Sorry, but the T word fits. I respect the rule not to use the word, but in so many cases, it would be esier to question that than all this workaround with words like “bridges” or who resides under them.
But they skirt under the line of “repeat offender.” They hit various threads, patting on the head, with misinfo. Several times, I then see the OP respond wth big thanks, as if this other hs kid is true and the rest of us are just meanies. Aggravating.
If it weren’t for the uncertainties (and insecurties?) of this new format, I might tackle it with a post. But it’s often after many comments are already in and would be an OT of its own.
(I did report a recent one, but suspect there isn’t enough to can or reprimand.)
@lookingforward That’s why I said write a note in the report that’s its a repeat offender. A posters activity is avaible to mods to see and they look at other posts they do.
As an FYI, the flag was that a HS student was advising another HS student that s/he has a “very good” chance of acceptance to a particular college. So a few comments:
• The reported user is not new; s/he registered 3 years ago. Not that the reporter claimed the user was new. Just tying in with posts on this thread wondering about the number of new users.
• Being wrong or giving bad advice is not a ToS violation; a user is free to counter with the standard statement, "Nobody’s chances for acceptance at that school is “very good.”
• The blind leading the blind on threads is not a new phenomenon; many users on this thread have commented over the years at the absurdity of the phrase “Chance me. I’ll chance you back.”
• The thread itself was earlier closed by me for an unrelated reason (and to be clear, the OP was not the user flagged). The moderators will generally not action on posts in closed threads unless there was an especially egregious ToS violation that was overlooked before closing.
I now understand the highlighted threads issue! At one homepage for a college I frequent, the highlighted threads have always been at the top - with the most recent posts of March 2016 and April 2018. In the past, though, they took up one line each - with the most recent post, etc. when you read left to right.
Now, they take up:
TITLE
Started by; most recent
starred/checked/views/posts/etc.
And the line spacing is like double spacing, so when I view that college page, they are the only thing visible (and this is on a laptop, not mobile). I scroll down and the next four posts are pinned … all taking up huge amount of vertical space and minimal horizontal. My quick calculation is that the forums (WHAT THIS IS) now take up about half of my screen with white space (I mis-typed that as shite space… which is actually kinda funny), and ads taking up the rest. And “expert advice and insights” … some of which isn’t exactly that.
@skieurope I did discover it was closed, mid-day. But the flag was about the poster, who’s on several threads stating scores will make up for a low gpa, how passion can override all- and that if you don’t have a passion, make one up. And so on.
On one hand, I can ignore or 2nd guess that there isn’t enough to do anything. On the other, some want these suspicions reported. On the thread you closed, the OP seemed thrilled by his advice. More blind leading the blind.
That’s all. Yes, it’s happened for a long time. It’s still counterproductive. I accept mods’ reasoning and need no response.