Forum Authority

[Twisted Sister]

Site URL: www.forumauthority.com
Date Opened: Roughly 10-06-2015
Review Type: Basic Review.
Extra Notes: None.

 

[Deleted member 17779]

@Twisted Sister

For your "Basic" review, you get to choose 2 areas to be covered in your review and you can choose those 2 areas from the following list......

• First Impressions
• Number of Posts & Members
• Activity Level
• Site Structure
• Design Quality
• Originality
• Spelling, Grammar & Professionalism

 

[Twisted Sister]

Site Structure and Design Quality please.

 

[Deleted member 17779]

Your Review is In Progress!​

---

Thank you for requesting feedback. I have tagged your thread, and will finish an official basic review within at most 48 hours. In the meantime, you will receive informal feedback from other reviewers and members at Forum Promotion. Once your official basic review is completed, you will be free to ask questions and receive feedback so long as your website remains open. You will also be able to request a re-review 7 days after this Basic Review is completed.

 

[Deleted member 17779]

---

Basic Review of Forum Authority
https://forumauthority.com/
Review by Grimalkin​

---

Site Structure:
I like the feature you have where you can scroll across each each section and see the description of each section. However, I think the descriptions can be a little bit more lengthy and describe the sections a little bit better. They seem to be a bit generic. Also, I'm not seeing a point in "Gaming" being by itself. I would add it to the "Technology" section and have a "Tech & Gaming" section on your forum. I would also mesh the "Forum Authority HQ" with the "Feedback" area. I don't think it looks professional with less the 2 or 3 areas in each section. Other than that, I think the forum is pretty well organized.

Average

---

Design Quality:
Normally I suggest that a person make their "theme" to match the niche` of their forum, however, you have a general forum that includes a lot of different areas of discussion. In your case though, I would recommend having two different "themes". You already have a light theme on your forum so I would recommend having a second one that is darker. I've seen many people debate whether a light theme or a dark theme is better. You can have one of each to appease people that are on both sides of the issue.

Average

---

Thing you liked best about forum: Lots of areas to discuss for your members.
Thing you liked least about forum: There should be a light and a dark "theme" on the forum.

---

Overall Mark:

I think your forum is off to a good start and with a little improvement, I think your forum can be a great one. I wish you and your forum the best of luck in the future!​

 

[Twisted Sister]

Thank you for your review. I'll take the points you mentioned into account and get onto implementing them on the forum. I am happy to hear that you think my forum is off to a good start and can become a great one.

 

[Gio]

Cash has been Deducted!​

---

Thank you for using the Forum Promotion review service. We have deducted 100 FP$ from your account in exchange for conducting a Basic Review. You can request another review in 7 days.

Request a package today!​

 

[xanaftp]

It looks like you have a decent forum going here for you. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

• I really like the design. The colors are not too hard on the eyes. It's very elegant and responsive. I do agree having a dark theme option could add even more benefit.
• https://forumauthority.com/thread-83.html Forum rules need improving for more professional grammar. For example, The "Content regulations" section should not have "do not:" because colons should only ever come after nouns, and "not" is not a noun. In addition, the use of verbs in some of the items in participle form, such as "using", or "discrimination", make for bad grammar (put it together and you get "Do not discrimination" and "do not using", which do not make sense). You need to be consistent with verb tenses. All items should be in the same tense, not some being in present form and some being in participle form. Other sections need revised as well as, to be honest and blunt, the rules sound like they were written by a young teenager. They should sound professional in order to make a strong impression on your website. Poorly worded rules can leave the impression the site is run by kids, which will detract a lot of people. The rules are not too badly written though at least... just some touch-ups are necessary.
  
• I don't think 'About Us" should exist in the footer. What you're about is an important part of your website. I'd suggest making it its own page in the menu instead.
• Your DMCA validation badge fails: https://www.dmca.com/Protection/Status.aspx?ID=8dcd2889-3652-46cb-b8c2-3248636e2800 . Please fix it or remove it. Broken items look bad on a website. EDIT: Apparently it fixed iteself.
• Typo in footer: "Ouick Links" should be "Quick Links"
• You have some decent awards, but I would like to recommend that the award images remain consistent with your website's theme style. Since your theme is flat and color-basic, I'd stick with that. You can find plenty of flat icons on websites such as flaticon.com .
• I would not recommend selling reputation power to others via. site upgrades. You might get trolls who upgrade just to tweak with the reputations of others. Reputation power has to be earned, not bought.
• Not sure what you mean by attachment quota. If you're speaking file size, you need an indicator after the number (Bytes, KB, MB, etc.).

That's all I have for now. Good luck!

 

[Twisted Sister]

It looks like you have a decent forum going here for you. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

Hello, thank you for saying so. I would like to point out that I appreciate that you took the time to observe my forum and list suggestions for improvement.

I really like the design. The colors are not too hard on the eyes. It's very elegant and responsive. I do agree having a dark theme option could add even more benefit.

It shouldn't be hard to replicate the theme and implement the darker colors. I do like the idea, I believe it gives users more option to browse and use the forum in their preferred style. I definitely see myself implementing this shortly.

Forum rules need improving for more professional grammar. For example, The "Content regulations" section should not have "do not:" because colons should only ever come after nouns, and "not" is not a noun. In addition, the use of verbs in some of the items in participle form, such as "using", or "discrimination", make for bad grammar (put it together and you get "Do not discrimination" and "do not using", which do not make sense). You need to be consistent with verb tenses. All items should be in the same tense, not some being in present form and some being in participle form. Other sections need revised as well as, to be honest and blunt, the rules sound like they were written by a young teenager. They should sound professional in order to make a strong impression on your website. Poorly worded rules can leave the impression the site is run by kids, which will detract a lot of people. The rules are not too badly written though at least... just some touch-ups are necessary.

To be honest, this hasn't crossed my mind, however I am glad you brought it up as I do agree. We will be taken necessary action, re-reading over the rules and determining what needs changed and how we will do it. I will definitely be using the information you supplied above as a basis.

I don't think 'About Us" should exist in the footer. What you're about is an important part of your website. I'd suggest making it its own page in the menu instead.

I will put this into consideration, as some individuals do prefer to see what the website is about without having to leave the main page or go to another.

Typo in footer: "Ouick Links" should be "Quick Links"

I can't believe I haven't noticed that, or any other staff members. You have a good eye!

You have some decent awards, but I would like to recommend that the award images remain consistent with your website's theme style. Since your theme is flat and color-basic, I'd stick with that. You can find plenty of flat icons on websites such as flaticon.com .

I do like the idea, however I didn't want everything to seem consistent as that will lead to an overall boring and plain forum, if everything was within the color scheme that is. I like slight variation and I'm sure others do too. I wouldn't mind implementing flat awards though.

I would not recommend selling reputation power to others via. site upgrades. You might get trolls who upgrade just to tweak with the reputations of others. Reputation power has to be earned, not bought.

Forum Authority users have the ability to give reputation to others as a form of appreciation or dislike. We actively monitor how reputation is used to prevent such cases, as you mentioned "tweak with the reputations of others" in a situation like this, depending if it consists of reputation abuse. The user/s doing such acts will either have their privileges removed, receive a warning or temporary/permanent ban. "Selling reputation power to others via. site upgrades" as mentioned users do have the ability to give reputation, however default members start off with a small amount of reputation to give to users, whether it be positive or negative. The upgrades only include increased amounts of reputation to give. However we are thinking of tying in the reputation with the like system, to give determination on the users popularity.

 

[xanaftp]

Forum Authority users have the ability to give reputation to others as a form of appreciation or dislike. We actively monitor how reputation is used to prevent such cases, as you mentioned "tweak with the reputations of others" in a situation like this, depending if it consists of reputation abuse. The user/s doing such acts will either have their privileges removed, receive a warning or temporary/permanent ban. "Selling reputation power to others via. site upgrades" as mentioned users do have the ability to give reputation, however default members start off with a small amount of reputation to give to users, whether it be positive or negative. The upgrades only include increased amounts of reputation to give. However we are thinking of tying in the reputation with the like system, to give determination on the users popularity.

Ahh so users are not buying reputation power, but how much reputation they can give? If that's the case, it shouldn't be as concerning as I thought.

 

[Twisted Sister]

Ahh so users are not buying reputation power, but how much reputation they can give? If that's the case, it shouldn't be as concerning as I thought.

Oh no they're not buying reputation. Users can give a maximum of 2 reputation points. A standard upgraded member can give 5.

 

[xanaftp]

Oh no they're not buying reputation. Users can give a maximum of 2 reputation points. A standard upgraded member can give 5.

Well that's actually kind of where I was going with that. Even being able to buy the ability to influence other users' reputations more is a bad idea in my opinion. Reputation influence shouldn't be determined based on whether or not you spent money for an upgraded account. That can be a set-up for abuse. Rather, the amount of influence a user can make on other users' reputations should be based off of how well established that user is in the community. A well-established, long-time, active member would typically be a lot more trusted with being honest about the reputation they give other users than a new member who bought an account upgrade. So why give the new member who bought an account upgrade the ability to have more influence on others' reputations?

 

[Twisted Sister]

Well that's actually kind of where I was going with that. Even being able to buy the ability to influence other users' reputations more is a bad idea in my opinion. Reputation influence shouldn't be determined based on whether or not you spent money for an upgraded account. That can be a set-up for abuse. Rather, the amount of influence a user can make on other users' reputations should be based off of how well established that user is in the community. A well-established, long-time, active member would typically be a lot more trusted with being honest about the reputation they give other users than a new member who bought an account upgrade. So why give the new member who bought an account upgrade the ability to have more influence on others' reputations?

I understand what you mean and I realize the potential risks of this. Some users may register and upgrade their account to have a more powerful effect on others, as the standard members giving reputation is lower than an upgraded member. They have the ability to make a more notable adjustment to any users standing reputation. However do you have any suggestions for the system itself? as I am rather interested in changes that can be implemented.

 

[xanaftp]

I understand what you mean and I realize the potential risks of this. Some users may register and upgrade their account to have a more powerful effect on others, as the standard members giving reputation is lower than an upgraded member. They have the ability to make a more notable adjustment to any users standing reputation. However do you have any suggestions for the system itself? as I am rather interested in changes that can be implemented.

I'm actually getting some suggestions from the FP community so I can build my own reputation system on my website.

Typically, forum reputations work in such a way that users can influence, plus or minus, the reputation of other users on posts they make. Users start off with 0 points of power... and they get a point of reputation influence power for every configured milestone they reach (usually things like making 1,000 posts, or being a member for several months, and so on). When a user gives another user reputation, plus or minus, the number of reputation points that user gains or loses depends on the reputation power of the user who gave the reputation. Many forums also pose limits... eg. you can only give X reputations per day... you can't give the same user reputation again until you gave X other users reputation... and so on.

The nice thing about the above system is that reputation is in the hands of the users, and it requires little to no staff maintenance. Plus, with reputation influence being determined by how well established a user is by things such as membership time and number of posts made, more established users are more trusted and thus can influence reputations more strongly. And the reputation limits help prevent abuse.

However, there is a major downside. A reputation system like this encourages favouritism. Users on social media tend not to use reputation for what it really is supposed to be for. Instead, they use it as a method to award users they like, and punish users they don't like. So someone on FP actually recvommended to me that the power to take away reputation should not be in the hands of the users. In other words, users should only be able to add reputation, not take reputation away. And only staff should have the power to take reputation away. This makes the reputation system less abusive, but puts a little more work on staff. I however think it's a good idea for a reputation system to operate in that regard though. And perhaps you can make more incentives, such as giving users perks for reaching certain levels of reputation.

 

[Twisted Sister]

I'm actually getting some suggestions from the FP community so I can build my own reputation system on my website.

Typically, forum reputations work in such a way that users can influence, plus or minus, the reputation of other users on posts they make. Users start off with 0 points of power... and they get a point of reputation influence power for every configured milestone they reach (usually things like making 1,000 posts, or being a member for several months, and so on). When a user gives another user reputation, plus or minus, the number of reputation points that user gains or loses depends on the reputation power of the user who gave the reputation. Many forums also pose limits... eg. you can only give X reputations per day... you can't give the same user reputation again until you gave X other users reputation... and so on.

The nice thing about the above system is that reputation is in the hands of the users, and it requires little to no staff maintenance. Plus, with reputation influence being determined by how well established a user is by things such as membership time and number of posts made, more established users are more trusted and thus can influence reputations more strongly. And the reputation limits help prevent abuse.

However, there is a major downside. A reputation system like this encourages favouritism. Users on social media tend not to use reputation for what it really is supposed to be for. Instead, they use it as a method to award users they like, and punish users they don't like. So someone on FP actually recvommended to me that the power to take away reputation should not be in the hands of the users. In other words, users should only be able to add reputation, not take reputation away. And only staff should have the power to take reputation away. This makes the reputation system less abusive, but puts a little more work on staff. I however think it's a good idea for a reputation system to operate in that regard though. And perhaps you can make more incentives, such as giving users perks for reaching certain levels of reputation.

A very unique way of using reputation, certainly an interesting idea! I do agree on "users should only be able to add reputation, not take reputation away. And only staff should have the power to take reputation away." I feel this would make the system less abusive also. I really like the idea of automatic reputation with reaching milestones, gaining certain awards etc..It would give the user maybe a goal to reach and something worth achieving.

 

[John]

Hi, what areas of your forum would you like reviewed? You're allowed to choose up to three for a basic review.

 

[Twisted Sister]

Hi, what areas of your forum would you like reviewed? You're allowed to choose up to three for a basic review.

Hi there, would this be a cash deduction as I requested a re review upon the Marchmadness discount time?

 

[Kaynil]

Hi, what areas of your forum would you like reviewed? You're allowed to choose up to three for a basic review.

Hi there, would this be a cash deduction as I requested a re-review upon the Marchmadness discount time?

Hello. As far as I can see you posted on the day and used the code so it should be at no cost even if we couldn't finish the review during that weekend. 🙂

 

[Twisted Sister]

@Kaynil Thank you for clearing that up. 🙂
@John For the three, I would like to choose First Impressions, Activity Level and Spelling, Grammar & Professionalism. Thank you 🙂

 

[John]

Your Official Review is In Progress!​

---

Thank you for requesting our services. I have tagged your thread and will finish an official review in less than 5 days. In the meantime, you will receive informal feedback from other reviewers and members at Forum Promotion. Once your official review is completed, you will be free to ask questions and receive feedback so long as your website remains open. You will also be able to request another service in the Community Reviews a few weeks after this Official Review is completed. We will inform you the exact date in a future post.