I sure that WC2 will be fine for the use I will put it to. Our 'Trinity' make me feel confident that they are keeping ahead of issues, problems, anticipated problems, aggravations and organisation. 

 

From the ideas on this thread so far I'd like to comment that I see no reason for a Bible Search feature to be included - but a Recommended Book List might be cool.  A space to share titles you have enjoyed and to talk about books in general.

 

I don't have any interet in  including a Church Finder.  My local UC doesn't have a web page - I think I'd have to drive for over an hour to get to one that has a webpage, passing quite a few churches that are still in opeation on the way! 

 

If there is to be space for discussions limited to UCCan then I figure there could also be space for other denominations - maybe they would be willing to offer money for the convenience of having a forum that is ready to use? 

 

Anyother questions I might have had have been addressed already. 

To be fair, then, the UCCanada should also have to put up such funds.

Like the idea of a Reading List.

I like the like feature and I'm not why this would be a "social" issue, it gives people the option of anonymously acknowledging a pov.

Sometimes life isn't 'fair' Jae. Sometimes the people involved in setting up something choose to act on  what the majority seem to want.  Neither of us know what items WC2will include yet - we have a work in progress.  Although I'm not a member of the UCCan, many others are.  If they want an area for UCCan discussions that sounds ok to me. Some of the operating funds may well come from UCCan members too.  Doesn't seem like an important detail to me .

Like buttons have the potential to turn forums into popularity contests. Some people post to get "likes", which affects forum content, not always to the positive.

 

Personally, I think "likes" are for Facebook, and we're all saying we don't want Facebook.

 

Basically what chansen said. I've also seen hard feelings erupt around "likes" where users felt their contributions were basically being ignored because no one ever "liked" them.

 

Mendalla

 

 

I agree chansen.

 

Hi chansen,

 

 

Imagine what a clique could do with like buttons.

 

 

First of all, I am completely and utterly blown away by the realization that this notion has been heard and finally, having been heard it is apparently believed.

 

Such a refreshing change of pace.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

I agree with the statements above.  I think a "like" button trivializes a site.  WC2 will be so much more than that with thoughtful and in-depth discussion.

 

The "like" button on facebook makes discussion superficial.  I use facebook, but it is what it is.

You're right, kay, sometimes life isn't fair. Indeed, I would suggest that often it isn't fair. However, I still believe that fairness is a worthy goal to strive for. Each party who wants to dine at the buffet should pay the same cost per plate.

Sometimes, I think this thread gets silly. Places to put pictures, like buttons, church lists. Come on group, we want a place to post. Leave the silly things to FaceBook. Thanks.

Exactly. Facebook created it's own market, and fills that place in the market rather well. I use forums and Facebook, but I use them completely differently. I rarely use Twitter, and mostly just because one person I keep in touch with uses it a lot.

 

To be fair, at least we're not going, "Yeah, we can do that! Let's put it in!"

 

I'm trying to draw upon what I know about forums and this group to provide feedback to the suggestions. Some may not understand what they're asking for, and that's fine. I'm happy that most people seem to agree with my opinions, but if something came up that the vast majority wanted and I didn't, then too bad, I'm the admin.

 

Relax, I'd enable a feature I didn't like, if everyone was against me.

 

For a day.

 

It would be a clique of clicks. A clicking clique.

 

LOL, I was saying it with you all along. I'm not from the UCCan social media department.

 

So much dishonesty on the net. I don't know if they improved but when the net became  more popular  I know people from N.S. who wouldn't use it. They said it was the devil........perhaps partly because of people's  real  names being anonymous, they said it was set up as  a lie, a fabrication. Its so easy to tell lies.  ( Is it the serpent in the Garden of Eden ....lol...)

 

Lots of companies are selling facebook "likes" which is totally dishonest.

 

 

Places to put pictures wasn't a silly idea. :) People post photos here now and then. I suggested it just because I don't want to sign up to another website with another password in order to be able to. I find that all too tedious. But, I understand it's not going to work for now. I can manage without it.

I think quoting posts and saying 'well said' is just as good as a like button.

 

I agree.  Especially with google image search, if I want to put up something it's nice not to have it tied with other info.

I don't like the idea of putting my photos in a virtual album in the ether somewhere, basically giving my photos to them- WC2 would be okay- to have a select few all in one place where I need it to be just for uploading. Plus I accumulate too many darn passwords and have to give personal info to too many sites and it gets frustrating.

I agree that photo hosting is not a silly idea. The problem for us is that we are using rented space for WC2 and if we generate too much bandwidth or storage usage, which can easily happen if we are hosting image files, then our rent will go up. Technologically speaking, there are ways to do it, but I would want the core function of the board (providing discussion forums and associated features) working and stable before we sink money into "nice to have" items like image hosting.

 

Given that almost everyone on the Internet can access some kind of file/image hosting, is it a good use of our donor's money to pay for the storage, bandwidth, and software development to do it ourselves when we can offload those stresses on to the existing services? If you have a Google account, you have image hosting space on Drive (through their Picasa photo service). If you have a Yahoo! account, then you have Flickr. MS allows photo hosting on OneDrive. None of these requires an extra user account and password if you already use other services from those "clouds" (e.g. MS Onedrive is included with a Hotmail or Outlook.com account, Google Drive and Picasa come with a GMail account, and so on).

 

For these reasons (possible higher costs to WC2 vs. readily available free image hosting elsewhere) I suggest making local image hosting a phase 2 or later item rather than a day 1 item. I am not saying we cannot do it, only that we should not be making it a priority relative to other features.

 

Mendalla

 

Okay. I get it. I just don't want to use those services. I am skeptical and plus I find it tedious. But, I understand your point.

We can post a thread explaining how to host photos on imgur.com or similar free sites.

 

If we host user media like pictures here, we need an add-on for the software. The cost is only $70 ro so for the forum licence, but then we have all the hassle of setting it up and making it look right with the theme of the site.

 

If it's okay with you all, that's the way I want to go initially - no hosting of images, but of course hotlink all you want.

 

Edit: And what Mendalla said.

 

Okay. Thanks.

 

ahem.....

 

That should say

 

I'm ForumGod...oh wait, you are an atheist.

 

I'm ForumKing ...wait, you're not an imperalist...i don't think

 

I'm ForumMaster....

 

oh, wait, you are the uber-geek engineer of the Forum geekdom for wondercafe2

I'm good with that.  I think there have been times photos have been posted that contributed to discussion, so the option isn't silly IMO, but isn't absolutely neccessary either.  Just nice to have if it's easy/cheap enough.

 

I will smite thee from the heavens! Or...er...York Region.

 

 

Actually, maybe a forum for "User tips and help" with this and other useful items stickied.

 

Mendalla

 

Chemgal/Kimmio

 

The primary concern re images is datasize.

Text and pictures for your profile are simple.

You start letting people post pictures, and videos....now you are consuming data.

You also start to worry about malware which increases our risk.

 

Let's see what we can do about linking to image hosting, see how tough that is...and from there...and talk it out

 

I've always liked a FAQ stickied with links to threads with specific resolutions

 

A searchable FAQ that could be added to is something I sorely miss here.

 

Realize this as well: When you use a free image host and hotlink, it's their bandwidth you're using. If we store images on our server, every view of that image counts against our bandwidth usage. So, we're really getting hit twice - data transfer and storage. If someone hosts an image on our site, then hotlinks it to, say, a popular thread on Reddit, our account could get hammered. Image hosting could cost us an additional, say, $400+ per year between licences and hosting. Considering our hosting package for now will cost us less than $150 per year, I'd really rather not.

 

The more I think about it, the more we have to teach people to use free image hosts. Google's Picasa, Yahoo's Flickr, Photobucket, and Imgur are all better choices, and free.

 

Sorry.

 

 

 

FAQs in the forum in the form of a sticky are common, and work this way. You can just search the thread. Bingo, exactly what you want.

 

 

Great point.  I know that, but didn't even think about that.

 

I think my bigger point above is that discussing things like these isn't silly.  Features help make a discussion forum what it is.  If we just wanted a place to post we could move to Reddit.  I don't think that's what the vast majority of us wants.

How about installing some flash games on the site? I like Bake Shop Drop.

I don't think anyone is calling that silly. There is a feeling that personal images here are more private. I don't know how true that is, but it would be easier, in a way.

 

I'm not completely against an arcade section, because I could totally kick ass, but....something tells me that's not what this site is about, and staying true to certain goals and not being distracted by high scores, either in games or in likes, is in order.

 

This is what I disagree with.

 

Sure, some possible features are silly.  Pictures are something I would like to have, I think it being brought up isn't silly.  It's now shared why we can't/shouldn't.  I don't want a like button, but I don't think it's a silly thing, it's a feature many people get use out of.

Seems to me that people want WC2 to be all things to all people.  A place to have relevant and insightful discussion, which I  would think would be the no. 1 priority.

 

Next a place to share and store photos.  As mentioned that can be costly, and there are other ways to share.  I have a flickr site - flickr is free, easy to upload pics.  People can also create albums on facebook.  I have used Picasa but don't at present.

Sometimes my friends share pics through Dropbox.

 

Then, a "like" button which makes this more about popularity and the superficial...sorry but it does.

 

And then, "flash games" - seriously?    Dumb, and would really detract from the site.

 

It's OK to shoot for the moon, but a little reality check is in order.

 

 

 

You can always post a link to your favorite game in a thread if you want to share. But hosting them? Not really in our mandate, IMHO. Unless someone with Flash development skills wants to write an official "Wondercafe2" game. Maybe a battle arena a la League of Legends with angels vs. devils?

 

Mendalla

 

I understand that people come from different online forums, and some of these suggestions reflect that. That's cool. I'm offering my take on these suggestions, from both a technical and a personal preference standpoint, knowing this community. I have been on forums since 1997, and usenet before that. I wasn't part of the BBS scene, sorry, but did admin game servers with way more problem users in a day than this site sees in the year, and was an admin on the very active related forum. I like to think I know what I'm doing, but I'll make mistakes and take the server down at some point, I'm sure.

 

If others have technical experience with the installation of forum software, I'd welcome the help. I have no intention of making this my puppy. I hope at some point I can step away from the admin side.

 

 

 

gecko46,

 

just you wait till WC2 gains its first cetacean member...then hear the screams of anguish as some kind of translator software will have to be installed into WC2 to accommodate their handicap :3

 

chansen,

 

good points re: image hosting.  i guess, for a sustainable WC2, people will have to be mindful of images/videos

 

(me, as well...*blush*)

 

There's Bible Fight http://www.gameshed.com/Fighting-Games/Bible-Fight/

 

:3

 

Quick! Throw bibles at that atheist! No, don't kill him! If you knock him out and revive him, you might get a NDE conversion bonus!

 

Gecko, for me it was less about sharing photoalbums or anything like that, and just have the ability to post the occassional one that pertains to a discussion without taking it from elsewhere on the net.

Not much use at throwing Bibles at you atheists - you all just seem to fling 'em right back. I'd rather try to pin down a liberal follower of the Way.

Not at all. Not if we're not hosting the image. Link to YouTube and other image servers all you want. That doesn't count against our bandwidth.

 

I do not possess the tech language to ask the following questions, but I am going to give it my best shot.

 

Precisely, what software is going to be used for WC2?  (If software, or perhaps platform, or another term with which I am not familiar)   Has it been decided upon?

 

If so, there are options and limitations.

 

List  those instead of seeking input.  It becomes a selection process rather than a wish list.

 

Might make it a whole lot easier.

Redhead, see this  posts from earlier in the thread.

 

Chemgal has it in her quote above. You're free to go through the list of features and add-ons, but it's not the easiest of reads for the non-techie. I didn't start this thread, but I've tried to be good about answering requests and questions.

 

 

This is what I was trying to say. Reality should have been used in place of silly.Thanks gecko

 

"Whalespeak" is easy......

 

 

Hi gecko46

 

 

Yeah.  What I can't stand is when they start swapping Krill recipes.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John