Jump to content
SMS

Town Hall discussion on how to improve Ottawa section

Recommended Posts

Please write your wishlist for what changes you would like to see here in National Capital Region section.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • A sighting subforum
  • Rules on bad/missing attributions for copyrighted and copylefted images in messages
  • A thread for Jim Watson's look-alikes sightings
  • Pinned town hall discussions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, webfil said:
  • A sighting subforum
  • Rules on bad/missing attributions for copyrighted and copylefted images in messages
  • A thread for Jim Watson's look-alikes sightings
  • Pinned town hall discussions

I second a sighting subforum!

Maybe transfer the threads about Invero rebuilds, Invero retirements, D60LF rebuilds, my Classic retirement thread, Nova deliveries, double decker bus deliveries, and the STO sightings thread all into one dedicated subforum so that we can easily access them. 

The current forum can be relegated to informative threads such as the GOA thread, the misc. question thread, etc.

Doing that would make it more organized. I mostly go to the Ottawa section for those threads anyway. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am already getting the ball rolling: topic pinned.

SMS

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay! Public consultation!

I propose to:

  • Appoint a new CPTDB moderator/important person whose "home forum" is the Ottawa section
  • To maintain the "doubled punishment" for a little longer (until January 1, 2020 maybe?)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 hours ago, webfil said:
  • A sighting subforum

I like that idea!

4 hours ago, OC Transpo/STO Fan said:

Maybe transfer the threads about Invero rebuilds, Invero retirements, D60LF rebuilds, my Classic retirement thread, Nova deliveries, double decker bus deliveries, and the STO sightings thread all into one dedicated subforum so that we can easily access them. 

I second!

I also think that the STO Sightings and STO Classic Retirement Watch should have a "no double posting" rule (E.g. don't go posting that you spotted 9134 in both threads, pick one!)

5 hours ago, webfil said:
  • Rules on bad/missing attributions for copyrighted and copylefted images in messages
  • Pinned town hall discussions

I second! The missing attributions is definitely an issue here, we should really have a zero tolerance policy

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we just need to actively encourage people to post meaningful comments and act on those who don't.  Whether that's an additional moderator or not I don't know.  Take a few minutes and go through some of the topics and you see replies just for the sake of replying and comments that are completely useless.  Large font replies, name calling, etc... This is a discussion forum.  Let's discuss and agree to disagree like civilized people.

The number of new users on the forum is also suspicious and like others have mentioned I think there's some double accounts and they create discussion with "each other".  Any way to verify and crack down on this?

I like the idea of a "Sightings" sub-forum like in the Toronto area, but aside from that most topics on the second page of the forum are 6 months or older so everything recent fits nicely on the first page.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like others I agree that we should have a separate sightings sub-forum.

I have said before I have suspicions that there are some posters on here with more than one log-in, do new members have to be approved by a moderator before they are allowed to join the board?

Some other boards which I am a member of impose daily posting limits so that certain individuals do not flood the board with a large amount of posts, many of which can be irrelevant eg. posters who post "I saw that too" on a sightings thread, or posting weeks old articles from newspapers. Possibly set a limit of 10 posts per person in a 24 hour period?

The copy-write issue needs to be addressed, a picture without crediting the original source should be automatically deleted and a warning sent to the poster. No-one should be posting pages from any commercial publication, and obviously no-one should also be disclosing the contents of internal work related notices, as has happened on here on a few occasions, that can actually be a breach of your (the individual making the posting) terms and conditions of employment.

I agree that having a mod with a deeper knowledge of Ottawa and the surrounding areas could be an advantage and would assist the current admin team. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Centralsmt said:

Some other boards which I am a member of impose daily posting limits so that certain individuals do not flood the board with a large amount of posts, many of which can be irrelevant eg. posters who post "I saw that too" on a sightings thread, or posting weeks old articles from newspapers. Possibly set a limit of 10 posts per person in a 24 hour period?

I really don't know if it's possible to do this, but maybe the sightings threads could have a "me too!" reaction kinda like we have for "Like", "Thank you" "Confused", etc...

That would really crack down on the useless posting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, dudebrains said:

I really don't know if it's possible to do this, but maybe the sightings threads could have a "me too!" reaction kinda like we have for "Like", "Thank you" "Confused", etc...

That would really crack down on the useless posting.

My thinking is if there was a posting limit, some people may think twice before making irrelevant postings.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One condition of the CPTDB regardless of where you live is that anyone found posting with multiple accounts will receive a permanent ban. By no means is this policy limited to the Ottawa section.

I like what I am reading so far, please continue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An Admin, whom is regularly active in the Ottawa section of the board, should be appointed.
 

A sub forum for spottings should be created, and removal of any useless threads that may still be present in the forum and are creating clutter.

A list of constantly broken broken rules should be pinned as a reminder for those who break them, this way, there is no excuses when one is being called out for breaking said rules.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What honestly bugs me most are the consistent posts on certain threads asking for more information, including but not limited to the current status of a vehicle. This is information that is posted as it becomes available, and thus it shouldn't be constantly needing to be asked for. Exceptions are obviously cases such as procurement after several months have gone by without hearing anything. It'd probably also be best enforced as a polite reminder the first time or two, followed by stricter action.

I am going to place another vote towards having a separate sightings sub-forum, and I am also going to put another vote towards a post limit, and in that case, perhaps it's something like a limit on the number of posts one can make in a 24 hour period, until they've made a certain number of posts (50?) and/or been a member for a certain period of time (a few weeks or a few months?).

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HB_1024 said:

What honestly bugs me most are the consistent posts on certain threads asking for more information, including but not limited to the current status of a vehicle. This is information that is posted as it becomes available, and thus it shouldn't be constantly needing to be asked for. Exceptions are obviously cases such as procurement after several months have gone by without hearing anything. It'd probably also be best enforced as a polite reminder the first time or two, followed by stricter action.

I am going to place another vote towards having a separate sightings sub-forum, and I am also going to put another vote towards a post limit, and in that case, perhaps it's something like a limit on the number of posts one can make in a 24 hour period, until they've made a certain number of posts (50?) and/or been a member for a certain period of time (a few weeks or a few months?).

I second that, anyone can make 50 posts in a short amount of time. Maybe a post limit for 6 months to a maximum of 5 posts per thread, per day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly speaking, I have no business posting here; however, I just thought I'd add (and this goes for members outside the Ottawa region) that one's post count is totally meaningless. Nobody gains or loses anything from posting more or less (this is especially relevant for newer, younger members of the Board). The reason people like Dan, Bus_medic, Mr. Parsons, JCL the Admins and many other senior members have post counts in the thousands is because they have a wealth of knowledge that they are generous enough to share. They didn't get there by posting daily sightings and so on. 

I think members, especially younger and newer members should internally discipline themselves and really think about what they're posting, if it can or already has been answered, or if it can even just be searched up on Google. A lot of us are here are for different reasons; some to get updates on a unit's whereabouts, others to have meaningful discussion, and some, like me, to learn. I can certainly confess that when I was younger, I did have that occasional tendency, or urge to post more than what I'd normally average; but in reality nothing is gained or learned. Its better to sit back, and see how things unfold, maybe learn a thing or two in the process. And maybe even spare yourself some embarrassment later.

This is not to say I'm some experienced member now who doesn't make that mistake. I'll be the first to point out that I still make them. Its simply a case of resisting that urge, and allowing the more experienced member to answer the question (we all know that that member is always there, and they will be able to answer it better than you), because in the grand scheme of things, us younger members don't know nearly as much as members who have been on here for years and have been in the industry, or relevant industries for many more years.

Personally speaking, a great many posts could be substituted, as others have said, by adding more options for the "reactions" to a post at the bottom left. 

Additionally, in the sightings, new vehicle service entry and similar threads, a post count cannot be increased by making a post, similar to the general non-transit discussion threads. This could curb unnecessary posting. 

All this accompanied by stricter enforcement of rules of course. 

I speak for the GTA section of the board as well in this post. Perhaps any accepted suggestions from what members posted above could be board-wide implementations. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alrighty, I'm back from my suspension. Here are my thoughts:

Clear guidelines on post criteria as it seems to be scattered everywhere in bits and pieces in multiple threads and topics and even different sections from what I've seen.

List the punishments for said Infraction(s) that is clear and listed for all to see so there no "well I didn't see that" *like literally create a topic named "Rules and Guidelines" and pin it to the GOA section*

I think we should have a second sub forum to make accessing spottings and the stuff that's constantly engaged with much easier as you got page 1. with the recent stuff then page two with topics exceeding more than 2 weeks in regards to active status.

I do think there should be a posting cap however it should be implemented where it matters most, like the GOA news, rebuilds and spottings and should be more restrictive on new people, if implemented. I think the non-transit forum is not important to many on this section that it would warrant a crackdown or similar scrutiny as the main important threads need, IMO.

There also needs to be a crackdown on copyrighted images. I've personally had to take down photos of buses on the OC and STO pages because a wiki user would think that because a member posted their image on the thread that it's "fair game" to use on the wiki. I think I personally had removed 1 or 2 copyrighted images by @Oc4526 because of this abuse of users intellectual property, so that needs to be looked into.

Also, I'm digressing but to everyone, I do like to apologize for my poor posting etiquette and ethics. I should conducted myself more professionally and should have known better not to add my own bits. From the time I've had off, I did some reflecting and have realised my ill way of contributing, so going forward I'd like to further contribute in a more meaningful way that further strengthens the credibility and unity of the CPTDB.

Thanks guys, 

Loud-Invero

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @Doppelkupplung; nobody gains or loses anything from posting more or less. New members on a board make mistakes. It is part of the learning process. Nobody is perfect on the first try, and a member's first few post may be erratic. It's not a duty, but it's welcome to point out the mistakes ― ideally with humour and good faith. 

Some users have pointed out the need for rules that are already existing ― post relevant content only, avoid questions answerable by Google, among them. I do not see the need for more rules or tighter rules, just stricter enforcement.

I'm against adding post-count rules and other babysitting shenanigans, because of the poor efficiency of such measures. Quantity is not the point; quality is. Post removal/editing and approval requiring should be enforced if and when rules are not followed properly. Not systematically.

12 hours ago, Loud-Invero said:

Clear guidelines on post criteria as it seems to be scattered everywhere in bits and pieces in multiple threads and topics and even different sections from what I've seen.

General rules that apply everywhere are posted here. Not "scattered everywhere in bits and pieces in multiple threads." Consequences are clealy put out in simple words. Specific rules that apply to Ottawa section are posted here. One is a 25-second read, accessed from the top bar or the "Site discussion section". The other is a 2-minute read, pinned atop the section. You can even figure out if you already read it or not, with the read/unread marking. It's not crippling, mostly common sense.

image.thumb.png.23ff51b2214a2c4a99602a65148ff13f.pngimage.thumb.png.ec542d1e76c0f53df56140bcb44706e1.png

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the issue of posting photo's and copyright of those photo;s, what happens when you don't know who the original owner is? I've bought over 100+ over the years of slides from Ted Wickson, as well through E Bay auctions? The E Bay auction slides doesn't credit who took the slide just the individual selling the slide,who may not be the original copyright holder? what do you do in that case?

 

Grant you I need to buy a new slide scanner for the computer, but have tons of slides of OC, TTC, Gray Coach, Voyageur, GO Transit., Greyhound and various other Bus Manufactures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MCIBUS said:

On the issue of posting photo's and copyright of those photo;s, what happens when you don't know who the original owner is? I've bought over 100+ over the years of slides from Ted Wickson, as well through E Bay auctions? The E Bay auction slides doesn't credit who took the slide just the individual selling the slide,who may not be the original copyright holder? what do you do in that case?

Where the photographer is known, I credit the photographer in my watermark (and even in file names as that helps me with watermarking images at a later time after scanning) as well as noting that the slide if from my collection. 

Photo © John Doe, Collection of Martin Parsons

If the photograph is unknown, I simply credit it to my collection

Photo © Collection of Martin Parsons

In particular this applies to slides and negatives that I have purchased. Quite often there is a photographer listed on the slide mount. More often than not I find it does not appear that the eBay sellers were the original photographers.

This changes a little bit if I know the person and they gave the slides or negatives to me (vs. me buying).

Photo © John Doe, Collection of Martin Parsons via Jane Doe
or
Photo © John Doe, Collection of Jane Doe. 

This applies to first generation images.... original slides or negatives. 

Second generation images I handle differently. Second generation images would be considered anything that was produced from an original first generation image... so, prints or duplicate slides.

Since with a second generation image I don't own the original image I give myself no credit. In my case this largely applies to prints I had made from the late Peter Cox's collection, so, it is typical to see these variations:

Photo © Peter Cox
Photo © John Doe, Collection of Peter Cox.

I would of course also use this format if the material was just loaned to me to scan.

I think that that just above covers that....

On the topic of reposting images... 

If the image is readily available on the internet, there is no need to upload the image to the CPTDB in my opinion. This uses CPTDB resources, and as minuscule an amount as a few photos are in the grand scheme of things, someone is paying for that space so the decent thing to do is respect that and limit using those resource when you can. Duplicating an image that already exists on the internet is one of those times. Having said that, there might be a compelling reason to post the image, fair enough. And of course if it's an image that's not already on the internet, go wild uploading here.

By linking to the image at the original source you are then directing the viewer to other potentially interesting material.

HOWEVER....
Some counterpoints to my above...

Directly linking to an existing image is known as hotlinking and can be considered bad netiquette: https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/25315/hotlinking-what-is-it-and-why-shouldnt-people-do-it

Personally, I don't mind people hotlinking to Barp given that we have unlimited bandwidth. STRONG preference would be if the image is embedded, to modify the code to display a thumbnail sized image. If the full size image is embedded there no reason for somepne to click on the image and follow the link to the original source after all. OR, simply provide the direct link without embedding the image itself.

By providing just the link to the image you then do save the website that hosts the image that bandwidth. If you think how many times members and none members visit any given thread on the CPTDB, each and every time that pages open with a hotlinked/ embedded image the website that hosts it uses bandwidth.

Finally, while browsing some of the images posted in the Ottawa section in particular researching for this post, I've noticed a pattern with STO_1601's use of uploading to CPTDB vs. linking to the original sources.

If he was able to download the images from websites, he would then upload them to the CPTDB for posting.
However, if the images were on a Flickr members account who disallowed downloading of images (Jan Boic and Paul Bateson that I noticed in particular) he would link to the images directly on Flickr to circumvent his apparent inability to download the images and then upload them to the CPTDB. What the result of this is that the images once embedded in a post on the CPTDB will actually allow you do download the image which seems to go against the original intention of the copyright holders. I might be looking too much into that, but, it was an observation based upon looking back a few pages in the vintage photos thread.

A couple of images as examples of my watermarking and crediting scheme:
octranspo1781-VHdemo-05-12-1986-JudyDorsey-002042019007.thumb.jpg.a54c45f030ab79724aed008868933f12.jpg
Photographer known, slide that I purchased.

ets103-Sept1978-BMTD-02172019003.thumb.jpg.97151ef7eb5f9dc550828e76b6fcbddf.jpg
Image in my collection that was given to me. Covers the original photographer, that the image is in my collection, and credit to the person who passed the slide on to me. I figured this one is not OC Transpo since I've only scanned the one OC Tranpso slide in my collection, however it is a foreign artic demonstrator so ties in nicely with the Van Hool artic with OC Transpo. :P

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should correct image attribution become a requirement, this should be a pinned post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to duplicate accounts, it has already been addressed that only one account is allowed per person.

However, it should be known that before any new member account is approved here on the CPTDB, IP addresses are checked against existing posts/users and the user account will not be approved if it is a duplicate. There are exceptions (eg. certain organizations all appear to come from the same IP address even though there are different users/computers within) but even this method is not foolproof, and can result in spam accounts still getting through.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The admins have come to a consensus with the following issues:

  • A subforum for sightings will be created (a general clean-up of the entire section will be undertaken);
  • Copyrighted material must be respected. We will no longer tolerate future infringement, plagiarism, or - let's call it what it really is - theft.
  • Correct image attribution, if it hasn't been made clear yet, is a requirement;
  • Multiplier in effect for offending members facing suspension (we sincerely hope that we will not need to use this).

Please give us a little time to implement the above.

Items mentioned above not in the points are still subject to consideration, including a moderator currently residing in the National Capital Region. Stay tuned.

 

  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, STO_1601 said:

I'm thinking probably the Non-Transit Subforum should be moved to the General Lounge. It's kinda pointless having it here as it doesn't have anything transit related and there no other city/province subforums that has one.

https://cptdb.ca/forum/62-non-transit-discussion/

Disagree, it's specific to Ottawa and should remain as such.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to point out. There are still a few thread that should be moved to the spottings subforum

This one for example

The OC Invero retirement thread got moved, But this one didn't. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...