SurfnSun

I just started using the C6 forums and I have to say this isn't good.

I was trying to search for info on supercharged LS7s and got nothing back but threads tagged ZR1.

Im not sure what was gained by merging the sections but it isn't good for the end user.

J T

Back in May, Adminsitrator Savewave made an announcement in the sections about the upcoming merge and provided his email address for feedback.

The change was made due to low traffic in each section.

Any technical issues as a result of the change was not expected and has been reviewed by the tech team.

When I search for ls7 supercharge with the Z06 prefix, I receive 7 hits and not 0 as you indicated. Though I'd suspect there should be more. I believe this is one of the largest concerns as a result of the merge, which is being reviewed to find a way of resolving the technical issue.

SurfnSun

I first ran the search from my phone on mobile platform. It yielded 0, I got the 7 you referenced just now when I ran it from the desktop site. Pages 2-5 yielded not a single other Z06 tagged thread...I'm sure we all know that probably isn't right.

Either way, it's not user friendly.

I run a small forum for the Callaway group, I don't understand the feeling that lower traffic sections need to be merged as it requires no more maintenance on my end....but I'm not running s for-profit Forum.

SurfnSun

Ok weird....the mobile site returned over 15 threads on page 1 tagged Z06 just now.

J T

Maintenance is not a factor.

CorvetteForum's team believes that members see low traffic sections as becoming static and thus adjust their browsing habits to match by visiting less and thus participating less to further cause the sections to become even less active. Additionally, low traffic sections also create a condition in which vendor ads would appear to outnumber the content - adding further to the problem.

The discussion about the change is sort of irrelevant at this stage since I don't believe the change will be reverted. Administrator Savewave allowed members time to provide feedback about the change. The goal is likely to resolve the technical issues with the searching.

The Internet is full of websites that are owned and operated differently.

SurfnSun

I wasnt looking king at that section then but based on my quick read...Why bother asking for feedback when your mind is made up and the decision is set? I haven't seen any posts in support of the merge yet it happened anyway. Asking for input and disregarding it entirely is an insult to those that responded IMHO.

BTW the reason that the Callaway form exists is solely for the purpose of the owners having one place to go to get information without sorting through thousands of other threads. While not exceedingly active, the members like it for that very reason. I think people enjoy being able to have A place to discuss a Z06 or ZR1 exclusively...plus all of this search stuff was non-existant prior to the merge.

J T

My understanding was the feedback was used from the few who took the time to provide input. There's got to be a starting point somewhere. A decision or proposal is first made and then feedback is taken. Perhaps there wasn't a good enough argument to change the decision? Again, there was an announcement made well in advance of the change. To say the feedback was disregarded entirely is an insult and, honestly, off the mark. I think Administrator Savewave has a long history of involvement with the community.

If you want to debate the policies and the merger, I suggest you contact Administrator Savewave via PM. This is the Help section for Help with the forums, account issues, etc. While it also does provide for some feedback, policies and managing the site are topics outlined in the Guidelines as being taken to PMs with the appropriate staff.

You and others have raised a valid issue with the Search results. Again, I've stated the tech team is aware and is working on the issue. But the technical issue is not likely to please everyone who may not have been in favor of the change. But we're passed that point IMO.