Re: Discussion Headquarters
Layout – Green! A good, hearty color. Solid blocks of white, green and red give the forum strength; a lightly patterned green background adds flavor. If it weren’t Christmas time, the red bar across the top would be too distracting, but given the season, it gets a pass. (This color green might be too intense for some. For me, it borderlines between good and too strong. You might want to take this into consideration since some people have sensitive eyes.)
With the forums in the middle and a sidebar on the right side, the initial comment I have is that it is a fairly common but trustworthy set up. There is nothing experimental about it, but that is okay. It works. Font is a readable size and style and the links are visible. Nothing burns my retinas or makes me squint in an effort to see what is written. The blue “new” icons are a shade that stands out but isn’t overwhelming.
Rules – First impression is that, without reading them, they appear to be to the point. But on further inspection, I find that the rules are a jumble of words and improper grammar. Awkward phrasing makes the text difficult to get through. For example, “To report a member, we would like to encourage and thank our members to use the Report button,” would be better phrased as, “Please use the report button to report a member.” This wordy language continues throughout the rules.
The content of the rules doesn’t fare much better. In the first rule, it states that the site is rated G (as I assume you mean when you say “general audience”) but then you list topics and say that they have to be kept at a minimum. What does “minimum” mean? Your rule essentially says, “This site is rated G, but you can talk about porn, vulgarities, and drugs every now and again.” If your site does not allow this content, say that it does not allow the content. If it does allow the content, then say that it does allow the content.
The first five rules might be strangely phrased, but the following rules don’t encourage me to join the site. Rule six says not to make a thread if another one of the same topic exists. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this rule, the phrasing sounds discourteous. “Regardless of if you ‘feel’ you deserve to have your own thread” comes across as though you are minimizing your member’s opinions.
Rule seven is totally weird. If a staff member doesn’t like my thread, he or she can lock it because he/she wants to? It might not be what you mean, but that is what it reads. Rule eight says that you can’t post a topic without using the search feature because nothing you ever have to say is unique. Again, I understand that you don’t want a dozen threads on the same topic, but watch your wording. I have never seen a rule like rule twelve. Many sites have experienced members who try to pass themselves off as two people, but to tell siblings they have to share accounts is odd. And it doesn’t make sense to say that there is no need to have multiple accounts under 1 IP. Obviously there is a need, as you go on to state that people might be on the site with their siblings.
The advertising section has a rule which states that you can have a banner to an outside site. Okay, that’s fine—then how come rule five in the previous section says that you can’t? I might be misreading one of these rules, but if I am, it’s likely other people are, too. Also, what is your specified dimension for avatars? It would be helpful to write it in the rule.
Activity – Your site appears to be active. Every forum on the main page has had at least one post in it within the past week—which is pretty neat. Unfortunately it’s hard to judge the true activity of a site based upon statistics alone, but all of your recent topics have been within the past 12-24 hours. I do see a lot of posting on the part of the administrator, which is good.
Content – I took a semi-random sampling of posts to skim content. Some of the topics have back-and-forth discussion between members, while others appear to be just “reply once and you’re done” sort of threads. This is fine. Many discussion/chat sites I see only have the latter, which makes for a dull site. I didn’t find many in-depth posts, which is neither here nor there. It might be something to consider in the future to try to create threads/posts where people feel the need to post longer posts. Not because long is better but to create some variety. Some of the topics are overdone on all forums, while others are more original. Compared to other discussion/chat/resource forums I’ve seen lately, the content appears to be pretty good.
Other – Have you considered adding a FAQ? I didn’t know if, judging by your rules, you ended up with a lot of the same questions over and over. If so, it might be worth creating a FAQ and linking it up on the red bar next to the rules.
Overall – You have some significant strengths: design and activity being the two major ones. I can read everything on your site with ease and the “Recent Thread” thing in the sidebar makes ongoing topics easily accessible by all.
Your biggest weakness right now is your rules. The constant grammatical flaws continue throughout the entire document. However, they pale in comparison to the tone and content of some of the rules themselves. Please fix these. I don’t know if you realized how bizarre and/or rude some of them sound, but from an outsider’s perspective, it doesn’t make me want to join the board.
Good luck on your site.
