Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
View Poll Results: Do you think restrictions should be applied to the jobs offered / required section?
- Voters
- 65. You may not vote on this poll
-
No - I think that we should continue to allow anyone to post up a job / apply for a job offered
-
Yes - The restrictions detailed in the first post are a good idea and should be inplemented
-
Yes - but not those detailed in the OP. I have given my suggestion in the thread.
-
Your thoughts on proposed changes to Jobs Offered / Required section
We are currently reviewing the jobs offered/required section of the forum, and are considering limiting it's use to members of the forum who have been a member for at least 3 months together with at least 100 posts (similar to how the 'For Sale' section works).
The whole sub-forum would be hidden from view unless and until you meet these criteria (to prevent non-qualifying members circumventing the system via PM)
That way, only established members of the forum with a viewable track-record would be able to post jobs, or apply to cover jobs offered.
However, since it's the membership who use/benefit from this facility, we thought we'd put it to you before we made any changes.
1. Do you think that the above would be a good idea?
2. Any further comments / suggestions on the subject?
Last edited by Corabar Entertainment; 03-11-2010 at 01:49 PM.
-
-
I don't think 100 posts is enough.
It's achievable in a day!
-
Originally Posted by
Mark Wild
Good idea but even numpties reach 100 posts
Very true. It's not fool-proof but at least it'll allow the members to make an informed decision based on the content of the posts.
If anyone has any ideas they'd like to throw in the pot, please do. 
Originally Posted by
charlie brown
I don't think 100 posts is enough.
It's achievable in a day!
It would be 100 posts AND three months membership. If they posted 100 posts in the first month they would still not have access until after the three month "evaluation" period.
-
Ezekiel 25:17
I think it's an excellent idea, like any criteria it's always open to debate where you draw the line, but this sounds sensible and fair.
Last edited by funkymook; 03-11-2010 at 01:33 PM.
Reason: mistake
-
Likes Disco-ing
It seems a shame a genuine business conscious new member has to suffer because of a shady few tbh, I think the job offers section works well as it is. If you go on how many times its successfully gotten jobs covered and not anyway. I'm sure the messy efforts which have recently reared their ugly heads won't happen again in a hurry. They did happen for all to witness afterall.
-
The thinking is, people would have a 'track history' to look at so that you could make a better informed decision about the other member. ie: Charlie - if someone did post 100 times in one day, then nothing for 3 months, then applied for a job / put up a job, the fact that the member had posted 100 times in one day would surely tell you something about them!
Yes, you could make it higher, but there are a lot of valued members who spend a lot more time reading than posting, and if it were higher, I think you would be excluding those valued members from participating / benefiting.
-
How about 100+ posts & or been a member of the forum (actively reading etc) for 2 months?
-
What's your thinking there Charlie?
(You appear to have gone from asking for criteria to be increased to now asking for them to be decreased)
-
Originally Posted by
charlie brown
How about 100+ posts & or been a member of the forum (actively reading etc) for 2 months?
That's pretty similar to what we're already proposing The only difference being three months instead of two.
Last edited by Shaun; 03-11-2010 at 01:54 PM.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Reply With Quote
