What would you add to F1technical?

[myurr]

What would you add to F1technical?

More cowbell

[manchild]

Extended WDC list.



In races to come, his greatness that has fallen to 10th after Spa, will fall to 11th, and what is the WDC list without "best driver ever"? So, in the name of all his fans I say "We got to have him in sight!"

[marcush.]

Extended WDC list.



In races to come, his greatness that has fallen to 10th after Spa, will fall to 11th, and what is the WDC list without "best driver ever"? So, in the name of all his fans I say "We got to have him in sight!"

many thanks for taking care for us lonely souls.. do you think extension to p11 will be enough?

[andrew]

An ignore button? I don't like this idea as I tend to think if someone has taken the time to respond to one of my posts then it is only fair that a response is given. However in extreme cases I think an ignore function would be of use.

[zenithbeach]

An ignore button? [...] However in extreme cases I think an ignore function would be of use.

i agree.

i would also suggest removing the following smilies as they seem to incite aggression and defensive argumentation instead of discussion:

[Tomba]

... i would also suggest removing the following smilies as they seem to incite aggression and defensive argumentation instead of discussion:
:^o [-X

Some have been removed, as they were hardly of any positive use anyway

[xpensive]

I would like to see a default function, stopping members from quoting the entirety of a previous xtensive post, including several images, creating yet another xtensive post.

Equally, there should be a function limiting members to post the link only, not whole bloody shabang from their favourite blog-rambler. You can often see the latter happening, even from xperienced members, most frustrating that.

[Just_a_fan]

I agree with xpensive.

Quoting extensive amounts is fine if it's part of a long reply i.e. quote a section, comment on it, quote another section, comment on that section etc. Some just post 100 lines of ramble from some site or other and say "see this supports me" (or words to that effect).

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I'm not so sure X and J.A.F

If you can find an excerpt from a realiable source(AutoSport, Scarbs) and then use said text to back up your view, fair dinkum.
I think it will actually shorten unneccesary debate, as overpowering evidence tends to.

[xpensive]

The point is that a link is quite enough, without having ol' Joe Sewer's text directly in my face.

[Tomba]

I think the best way to go is to ALWAYS provide a link. Furthermore, a quote can be interesting if it is just a part that is relevant to the thread or your post, but in line with xpenvive, pasting a whole article from another site (especially if they are blogs) is rather annoying to come by.

[segedunum]

Equally, there should be a function limiting members to post the link only, not whole bloody shabang from their favourite blog-rambler. You can often see the latter happening, even from xperienced members, most frustrating that.

True. What then ends up happening is that another member then ends up quoting even more text in reply.

Personally I'd like to stop people posting articles in the same thread that say exactly the same thing but I doubt the moderators would be able to keep up.......

[WhiteBlue]

It is not always sensible to rely on links being operational. If you take for instance content on Autosport.com you will find that you cannot access that content after one month unless you have a payed subscription. If the linked document relates to an issue that may run over a long time like the resource restriction agreement or other fundamental issues you loose the source in the process unless you document things by copying.

There are also cases where publishers change published content later. This has happened occasionally when articles have been critical about FiA or FOM. In such cases it can be useful to make a copy. I even had postings with copied material changed here on F1technical by request of parties involved in law suites. I would have preferred to keep the published details accessible but It is up to the admin to decide how to deal with such requests.

[flynfrog]

I like the articles being posted with a source. it prevents me from opening the site over F1T then closing it again only to realize that it didn't open in a new tab like ever other web forum.

That and clicking a link to read is to much work for the majority of posters.

[andrew]

There is really no need to copy and paste an entire artcle, thus forcing other members to read it when they may prefer not to if they just know the highlights. Posting a link is sufficient in most cases with a short summary or a couple lines on the main points. I'll admit I did this a couple of days ago with a translation of an Italian article and have probably done this in the past with English pieces. In future, I'll certainly practice what I preach!

The thing that really does annoy the hell out of me is the sheer number of photos posted in some threads. Most are totally unnecessary and don't show anything of real interest (oh look, a blury car on a blury track - wow!). Fair enough showing stills of a detail on a car or a crash/incident that requires discussion but just showing a car driving along a track on it's own is of no real interest.

It also is often the case that the photos take an age to load. Surely it would be better to either post a link to a dedicated photo thread run in conjunction with the race thread or post a link to a series of photos on somewhere like Imageshack or something similar.

Just my thoughts on the matter.....