Automated feeds

Discussion in 'ARRSE: Site Issues' started by Victorian_Major, Dec 2, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

    • Like Like x 1
  1. Good CO

    Good CO LE Admin

    Interesting. I was approached by Pathfinder Online and asked to publish their article feed and after quite a bit of discussion agree to publish periodic full text articles from this, rather than the snippets they place on other forums.

    I did this because the subject matter seemed relevant to the forum in question, and agreed that notifications would be sent to Pathfinder Jack so that he can join in with discussion. ie. not just fire-and-forget free advertising, but a contribution to the community. It was a genuine attempt to firstly help out someone in a neighbouring military/internet/forum boat and secondly to add interesting content for readers of the MH forum.

    I'm not a MH buff and I'm not a regular in that forum, so that was firing blind to some extent. I know we have to play things by ear and Pathfinder also knows that there may be too many articles or simply not wanted.

    So no, it's not a trend. It was a one off approach, and a considered acceptance with conditions attached.

    The MoD feed is a different matter. May be worth starting a poll as to whether the MoD stories spark conversation and interest or are just a distraction.
  2. Thanks for the swift reply Boss,

    IMHO the MoD feed is valuable, it's just a shame that the ratio of interesting stuff is smaller than the PR puff - 'RAF Security Dogs reenact Crufts 1972' styled rubbish.

    My beef against the Pathfinder online post is, that in my opinion:

    It was massive, yet;
    The OP offered no synthesis or comment, which is rude, and;
    It could be argued that there was something of a bias in the article, finally, and because of the above;
    It smacked of an advert.

    All fine, but let's not legitimise it as a recurrent feed if that's all it's going to be?
  3. Some of these 'Automated feeds' whatever they are can be a bit tedious but some ain't too bad - you can't please all the people all of the time!

    (They also do attract some brilliant rants by people blatting off some capital letters and exclamation marks.)
    • Like Like x 2

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    VM - I can't take you seriously if you defend the MOD feeds. They are raw spam and simply drive the decent topics down the view list and essentially, once a threads off page one on its forum list, it's gone (at least until its five years old and re-activated by one of the lunatics who have recently joined the site). Most of the MoD_RSS topics are of the mind-blowingly dull 'sailor spots fish' variety and draw no comment. A quick look at the RN site at time of posting shows a front page where all but five of the threads are RSS feeds with a total of about forty responses and seven have drawn no response at all.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. OK thank you for the feedback VM. Ironically that is the longest content we have ever posted and as this is the first time we have used RSS it actually looks like it feeds in the last article that I post up every morning. Lets see if that is the case tomorrow.

    The reason we used RSS feeds as this is what the boss and I discussed. He didn't want me to just post links as he wanted the full content - which actually makes sense to me, as he rightly said - if the posts create conversation and debate then good.

    Lets see how it works out for everyone.

    Best wishes,

  6. Not sure it's working too well.

    You've started 21 threads with a post count of 35. That means that on average you deign to reply to threads you've started just over half the time. So you are starting a debate with limited inclination to participate? You can see why some people are accusing you of spamming, particularly as I would question some of the academic rigour of your content...
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Hi VM- thank you for that and I hear what you are saying - this may help

    Buuuut...I will drop the CO an email as I really don't want to cause anyone any upset whatsoever - if it doesn't work for you guys then that is fair comment.

    Best wishes,

  8. To be clear, this isn't about hounding you off the site, which I wouldn't presume to do but you may infer from some other posters. Just that you may need to adjust the way you engage a bit?
  9. Hi VM,

    Spoke with the CO and we have dissabled the feeds because I felt it was offending you all to much, which as you know isn't what I wanted. I would be more then pleased to know how to engage better than I have. Any ideas would be more than appreciated.

    Kind regards,

  10. S'easy. Just get stuck in. Post the material that you want to post BUT add some comment or synthesis of your own. As the thread grows (or dies under cyber-darwinism) nurture it a bit with feedback and response.

    Some of your posts are quite big. Provide the edited hilights in your first post and slowly feed in the other stuff as the thread develops.

    Get stuck in with the banter and shape the thread as much as you can, accepting that you will get trolled and hijacked from time to time.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Thank you VM, very much appreciated and lets give it a crack. One of my issues was that it was posting articles that really weren't that relevent to you guys. I will post one up later to see how it goes.

    Thank you for your feedback.

    Warm regards,

  12. In that case, could I ask you to re-consider your decision to allow them to post so much stuff to the Military History Forum. Perhaps put them "on probation" for a couple of weeks and see what sort of comments that you get on this thread? Thank you.

    Some stuff posted by Pathfinder Jack is analogous to spam ( very tasty as a rare treat, but not if it is posted every day)
  13. Lets give it a go Westpoint - I will only post what I think is relevant to you all once a week or so - if there is indeed anything that is of interest. I have just tried that with the Falklands piece. With regards to using the Monty picture - that was just how it was from the original article. I would imagine they used that as the header picture not for provocation but because actually is a damn fine picture and the best one of the lot. That is my take on it.


  14. I'm going to go against the flow Jack, some of your threads have encouraged some lively and interesting debate.
    As history is my thing so to speak I am grateful for your presence.

    Possibly a little more interaction on some of your threads would be good.

    PS - Don't feel that you need to be nice if someone posts a load of crap in one of your threads and that includes me.