Like a swamp ? 
I have always put myself aside of discussions and/or threads that in a way or the other, showed disagreements towards the way SB is administrated, I am here since 2002 with a purpose: to share and to make friends, objectives that I reached. Nevertheless and as a REGULAR MEMBER - not as a Staff member - I could not let pass the overall feeling that I have of a not so good " ambiance" here at SB. Or because some valued members are leaving or showed more than one time their intentions to leave ( all are valuable members ) or because some discussions I see - without interfeering - that questions in many ways - some in an absolute academic and not rational manner - the way the site is administrated, - or even the reasons administrators do give - I have to say something about this. I own two sites and "communities" - portuguese - bike and gastronomy related. I am the only ruler but I hear opinnions being that only 15% or 20% of those opinnions are well attended by myself.Why ? Because things are always mooving forward and because people do feel that I am a very "cold" , fair guy, as I put all my emotions out of the way when " managing" anything in my life, specially matters that involves other people.That said - just to position myself clearly in this thread - SB is...what we want it to be..because we are PART of SB. There are members that are here for many years, and there are members that " just arrived", being that these "rookies" must be encouraged in a transparent manner and without any possible suspicion on how things are dealt with. I, as a member, do want a lively , cristal clearwater SB site, not a swamp where every "frog" is just awaiting for that " imprudent" fly, to catch it. So...what is wrong here? What shall be done and most important: why should be done? Instead of getting aggravation with each others, lets be united and try to solve things out. We deserve it, SB deserves it. Over and out.
Post replies:
Reply by: MountainHawk




And it´s sad to see people focus on people rather than look at the issue. The issue of featuring. Regardless of what is being said - "they don´t get featured and all they wanted is to get featured" - it is obvious by the statements of several people they wanted improvements for SB and not personal gratification. Is that so wrong?
Now, you say you are cold and fair, let´s look at the photofeaturing in a cold way, say from January 2006.
Facts are:
As of 5-1 2006
Person "1" gets 2 features in a row followed by person "2", "3", and "4"...
Then person "1" gets another feature, person "3" gets 2 features in a row...After that, a new person "5" gets featured 5 times in a row, whereafter person "1" gets featured.
A new person "6" gets then 2 features, followed by "5", and then "1" again..
We are already at the end of March where 2 new people get featured "6" and "7", then "1" again 2 in a row.
Let´s recap: In 3 months 1 gets featured 7 times, 2 - 1, 3 - 3, 4 - 1, 5 - 6, 6 - 1, 7 -1...In other words 4 people a single feature, one person 3, one person 6 and one person 7 features.
Now let´s look at the days the features were up. Out of the roughly 90 days 25 days went to 2,3,4,6,7 and 65 days to 1 and 5.
I do not believe that it has been this one-sided the next quarters, but I do have a point where I can ask staff for a bit more equally divided featuring don´t I? After all there are many types of styles. One has to ask: Does staff prefer to feature one kind of style that they like? Or are they able to feature different styles that are equally good in "quality" ?
Are there some simple rules to set up so that more people can get featured? Rules like, a feature stays up for 5 days, not shorter, not longer. This seems to me more fair.
I really do hope a positive outcome on this topic, and a factual debate on this issue rather than playing blame games. As you say SB needs it and so do the members.



Reply by: MountainHawk



Reply by: MountainHawk



Reply by: MountainHawk





Reply by: MountainHawk



You speak of rules Artur, I can say everybody here is willing to abide by rules if they make sense, but does that mean staff do not have to abide by rules of fairness, equalness and impartialism? Basically that´s what is at stake.
We, as members, do not have any powers, we can only speak out our concerns. If there is no response on a mature level from the staff, what does that radiate to the members? Members need interaction with staff when they start questioning things, and debates should be held in all openness and with dignity while sticking to the facts. A solid interaction is the basis of a healthy relationship between staff and members. The only one I can think of was TAXIFUNK, always willing to participate or fix problems.
Now, going back to what I have summoned above, the featuring in the first quarter, and since you, Artur, withdraw yourself from responsibility ( you don´t pick features ), I can only ask the person who does the features, my friend Nikos :
1. Do you think it was a fair way of featuring, have you looked at them with an impartial eye, and do you treat every person with equalness?
2. Would it be possible to think of a way where the same person is not featured one time after another?
3. Is it maybe possible to share within staff the picking of features to insure more versatility? (Different people, different tastes)
4. Are you also willing to look at the possibility to keep a feature up for an x-amount of days where x > 2 let alone 1 and use that as a general rule?
I really hope Nikos that you will answer these questions and also give a reasoning.
I do urge anyone else to put more questions in regarding the featuring if they have any. And please in a respectful way.

Reply by: MountainHawk




Reply by: MountainHawk



Reply by: MountainHawk
"Boldly bothering to go where no-ones bothered before"