UKC

SURVEY: User Interaction Survey

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC Articles 27 Jan 2017
UKC/UKH user interaction survey, 5 kbFollowing our recent UKC/UKH Readership Survey, from which we gleaned useful information on the value of certain features on our site, we are now launching a second survey with an emphasis on user engagement and interaction. The questions primarily concern forum, logbook and photo gallery habits.

This short survey is open to both registered and non-registered users. If you can spare two minutes, please take the time to help us improve the site.



-------------------------------------------------------

In light of recent threads concerning abusive and sexist posts and increasing inclusion on the site, we would also like to open a forum discussion airing views and suggestions on improving the forum environment for all users.

Please consider - but not restrict your response exclusively to - the following:

Your personal experience of posting:
What kind of comments have offended you? (please DO NOT name users or quote specific replies)
What kind of unacceptable comments directed towards other users have you noticed?
What did you do in these circumstances? Click 'Report Abuse', email the moderators?
Did we remove the comment?

How can we make the forums more inclusive to women?
Do people often make assumptions on gender? Does it affect our manner of responding to people?
Do we have a problem with sexism on site? Is there too much laddish banter? Is heated debate putting both men and women off?

Can we have reasoned debates without personal insults when online anonymity removes inhibition?
Have you seen examples where online abuse is stamped out/greatly reduced?

Did forum activity put you off registering at any point? Do you know people who have cited it as a limiting factor?

Please note - your comment may be used in an upcoming article on UKC, without quoting your username. Please also fill out the survey linked below.

Thank you!

Complete the survey
 John_Hat 28 Jan 2017
In reply to UKC Articles:
Hi,

Have completed survey. I would say:

Whilst I have not necessarily had sexist replies to my posts (I'm a bloke), I have seen many threads which consist of "blokey banter" and have not posted on the thread, or have stopped reading or posting on threads because of such "banter". By the way, to make it clear, by "banter" what I actually mean is crude references to either male or female genitalia, or crude references to women generally, and/or sexual acts.

Sorry to sound all formal and all that, but wanted to make clear that when I speak of "blokey banter" I'm not talking about comments regarding who won the football last night.
Post edited at 16:06
2
 Offwidth 28 Jan 2017
In reply to UKC Articles:

Done... there was no dialogue box when I clicked other on q13 but not so important really.

Thanks for running this, althogh the posting window is quite short... occasional users who might be most affected by any current issues might not notice before it is closed.
 john arran 28 Jan 2017
In reply to UKC Articles:

Done, and a good initiative.

One minor point: Because the 'none of the above' choices were accompanied by a comment, I found myself twice agreeing with the comment while having already ticked one of the above!
 Sean Kelly 28 Jan 2017
In reply to UKC Articles:

Yes, I can understand the reason for this survey. There has certainly been some recent puerile comments on the site. I suspected it was mainly younger posters but this is not always so when I check profiles (this is where some can't be bothered to complete one) I always suspect where posters don't reveal their real name, then it gives them some divine right to 'slag' someone else, just for having a different opinion.
If you can't take criticism, don't post. Leave the language of the football pitch back on the pitch. The same applies to overtly sexist comments.
In conclusion, i don't think it's a major problem yet....but these things can spiral.
 alan moore 28 Jan 2017
In reply to Sean Kelly:

Oo-err Sean. Offend the footballers! Don't they get sent off for swearing?
(Smiley icon; I'm not trying to start an argument!)
 Sean Kelly 28 Jan 2017
In reply to alan moore:

> Oo-err Sean. Offend the footballers! Don't they get sent off for swearing?

Not so if your name is Wayne Rooney! An interesting article in the mail this week about all the abuse the refs get.

 pebbles 28 Jan 2017
In reply to John_Hat:

yeah I kinda agree with John_hat, I don't recall having any response to personal posts I would call abusive (I don't count calling me an eejit in no uncertain terms as abuse in this sense ;-D, that's just Full and Frank discussion )but I do get really pissed off by blokey leering threads which talk about women as if we're not even in the room. guys, we're climbers too, and you wouldn't talk like that in front of us so why do it online?
 mlmatt 29 Jan 2017
In reply to UKC Articles:

I wonder what the gender ratios are among the posters on UKC. Maybe this question shouldnasked on other forums to gage a response as to why people do not like posting on here. I used to post and browse quite often but since it felt like the same little club all one upping each other I stopped.

When I want to browse a forum now I use one of the female specific forums (I'm male) where it doesn't seem to matter my gender and the forums are more supportive a positive place to be.
1
In reply to UKC Articles:

Not much bothers me here, really. Some posters are tedious, and the only positive contribution I could make to the survey was to request an 'ignore' button.

Oh, and maybe remove anonymity from like/dislike buttons.
 Yanis Nayu 29 Jan 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

I think a good positive change would be to get rid of the dislike button.
24
 kamala 29 Jan 2017
Thoughts on the "dislike" function:

I'd actually far rather someone clicked "dislike" on a post of mine than typed a reply just to call me some random obscenity - the single obscene insult feels far more malign than a handful of dislikes which, because of their very ambiguity, could stem from a whole range of reactions.

It seemed to me that after the "dislikes" came online, there were fewer posts that said nothing but "You f****** ******", and I felt this was a distinct improvement in atmosphere. Just clicking "dislike" seems to allow some people to vent their spleen relatively harmlessly.

Forcing them to post in order to express their feelings doesn't generally result in more rational discussion, but in more inarticulate rage and repulsive language. I've quite often wished I could wash my mind out after seeing some posts on here.

I can appreciate that people who receive a constant trickle of one or two dislikes might start to feel persecuted, but personally I'd ignore such small numbers as random noise. The same number of explicit insults would feel far more personal and more like bullying.

Only larger than usual numbers of dislikes would cause me serious concern, and my first question would be whether I'd screwed up either my original thought or the way I'd expressed it. Assuming I was being ganged up on would come much further down my list.
(Of course posts asking "why the dislikes?" are sitting ducks; UKC humour isn't always subtle or original!)

I'd have no problem with putting my name to the rare "dislikes" I use, but I'm not sure all the consequences of removing anonymity would be predictable or positive. It'd be better than just removing dislikes, though (I think).
 Offwidth 30 Jan 2017
In reply to kamala:
You are not allowed to verbally abuse posters in a reply on UKC so much of that argument is non applicable. I know people are not listening but Facebook did a lot of work on the suggested use on dislikes on the site and chose to dump them. Numerous researchers and expert commentators have explained in detail why they are a bad idea for the site health (and hence advertising revenue). The kids clearly love em... quick and anonymous and who wants to behave?

There is usually no way to tell exactly why a thread was disliked (unless the comment is a single clause or the disliker explains) and it could just be a slip of the fingers on a touch screen. Its potentially depressing to see straight fact checking disliked (so one hopes they were slips) .. eg Robert Durran's post on trade stats on a current parallel thread.

Some people say dislkes are working here but largely it seems based on anecdote or confirmation bias. Mine was the only detailed snapshot across the site (except the pub ) that I'm aware of (a thread with anaylsis that I can no longer find... maybe it got moved to the pub?) and there was no evidence of dislikes mainly showing trolls (even with the zimp being active ) and clear evidence of mulitiple dislikes to serious posts and even some experts making important points (including Jim Titt).


Post edited at 12:12
6
 kamala 30 Jan 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> You are not allowed to verbally abuse posters in a reply on UKC so much of that argument is non applicable.

So you're telling me I haven't seen the posts I saw? Posts saying nothing but "you knob" or similar? I guess perhaps I imagined them (although I learnt a lot of new words I'd rather not know from them) or misread them, or...

What people are allowed to do and what they do are not the same, and traffic here is busy enough that I'm not surprised the moderators can't squash every post that doesn't follow the rules.

 Andy Hardy 30 Jan 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> [...]Numerous researchers and expert commentators have explained in detail why they are a bad idea for the site health (and hence advertising revenue). The kids clearly love em... quick and anonymous and who wants to behave?

> [...]

Loads of other sites have up and down voting though...I think if they were not anonymous then there 'overuse' might be reduced and random stalkers would either have to move on with their lives or accept being 'outed'
 Offwidth 30 Jan 2017
In reply to kamala:
I am saying such posts are clearly against site rules and will be removed if reported (or can be ignored). There is simply no evidence that dislikes reduce such posts, in fact the research highlighted around the Facebook row indicted the exact opposite (from a decline in politeness and increased negativity).

I did a snapshot anaylysis in the Xmas break of any multiple dislikes (3+) in any recent topics in forums (except pub posts) and in contrast to the oft expressed view that lots of dislikes highlights trolls and poor posts the only clear evidence I saw was around the zimp (not really a troll... more noisy, ignorant, rude and enthusiastic). There were lots of tit-for -tat politics dislkes and plenty of perfectly sensible posts that were multiple disliked (including a fact based post on gear safety from Jim Titt !! ??) . I cant find the thread or I'd link it (possibly moved to the pub and now lost)
Post edited at 13:27
3
 Offwidth 30 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Sure.. the real problem was always said to be anonymous negative voting. It can be done much better: Ive compared UKC dislikes ro the way negative karma is used on UKB on numerous occasions. Do we want UKC to be a 'normal' site... look at the major newspaper comment sections and see how horrible political posts can be. I enjoy reading about the outlook of keen climbers and walkers on the world outside climbing and in 'real life' this is rarely aggressive and often very funny. The site has also provided fabulous community information and help over the years... it won't be as good if the community feel is lost.
Post edited at 13:37
2
 Martin Hore 30 Jan 2017
In reply to UKC Articles:

Just like to say that the most worthwhile thread on this site related to the search for Rachel Slater and Tim Newton last winter. The thread was followed by the police and MRT and it was possible, though I admit unlikely, that comments on the thread might have led to them being found alive. We all tried to help anyway - the climbing community at its very best.

I only post serious, considered posts here - on both climbing and political topics. I expect and welcome contrary opinions, both well and poorly considered. What annoys me is when two posters get into an abusive personal argument on the thread. Please do this somewhere else - eg by email.

I use my real name on here - I would encourage everyone to do so.

Boring of Ipswich.



 Lucy Wallace 30 Jan 2017
In reply to UKC Articles:

I have been a member of this site for over a decade, but post less and less although I continue to lurk. I do comment on threads where people are looking for info on stuff that I may be able to help with, and in the past have commented quite a bit on threads that are female related, eg gear, attitudes to female climbers, womens sport in general. It is on these threads that I have felt less and less welcome as a woman. I now feel that this subject is pretty much off limits if you want to have an adult conversation, with female voices frequently drowned out. I read the most recent post with interest, and noted that very few women commented. One reassuring thing to have come from that thread is that there are clearly a lot of guys out there who genuinely understand the complexities of the issue and are sympathetic. It still didn't feel like a place where I wanted to leave my comments.
In the past this was a friendly place where I came for inspiration, camaraderie and information. These days I am more likely to look elsewhere eg facebook and twitter.
In reply to John_Hat:

> I have seen many threads which consist of "blokey banter"

True, sadly. To me, there seem to be common themes in such replies, in that the poster seems to forget that there is a real human being at the other end of that user name; that what they might get away with in a personal discussion with their mates doesn't come across the same when posted on a web forum; and that these forums are public for all who wish to read.

Quite what you do to sort that out though, I don't know; though I applaud the site for taking steps to improve inclusivity and wish those charged with delivering what results from this consultation fair winds and plain sailing.

T.
 Hooo 30 Jan 2017
In reply to UKC Articles:

For the record, I've used the Report Abuse button once.
A new user posted a reasonable question, and someone replied with a very nasty "***** sake you ***** registered to post this ****?". I checked back later, the offending post was gone and the OP had thanked everyone for the helpful responses - so I assume they had never seen the nasty comment. Well done moderators.
What I would like to see is an "ignore user" button that hides all of someone's posts. I think it would stop some of the rows developing. With the best will in the world it can be hard to not respond to someone who persistently tries to be provocative. There would only be a few on my list by the way, I'm fine with the vast majority of users on here.
 stp 30 Jan 2017
In reply to UKC Articles:

Thanks for putting this together Natalie. I think it's an important topic and something that has bothered me for quite some time.

It's been apparent to me that forum aggressiveness/rudeness/bullying has been a problem because I have several friends who no longer use the forums for this very reason. I fully understand why because I've been put off posting myself at times too. Additionally I've seen comments from other users that say the same. For instance just last week someone's second ever post said:

'Anyway, I made a comment about an observation. To then have the piss taken by two people I have no idea who they are or never met means I shan't bother posting in the future.'

I strongly suspect that for every person who leaves with a comment like this there are probably at least 20 more who leave silently, without ever posting the reason.

What I personally dislike is when people gang up on one person. This makes one feel isolated and alone and not wanting to continue. Also a hard thing to moderate against as no one person is to blame and every one wants to put their counter points to unusual or non conformist ideas. But the more active users there are the more likely one is to find an ally who holds a similar view.


> Can we have reasoned debates without personal insults when online anonymity removes inhibition?

I'd hope so if only because other sites seem to manage better than here.


My general feeling is that firstly some people are obviously more sensitive than others. Over the years the more sensitive types have stopped posting leaving only the less sensitive and more aggressive users on the site. This results in more rudeness, and because those left still posting don't get as upset as those who have left it's not seen as serious an issue as it is.

I think it's also very easy to forget about the lurkers who never post but do read the threads.

The decline in stats is pretty sad. This has sometimes been blamed on social media rather than forum rudeness. But rather than seeing these as two separate issues I suspect there is some connection. People may switch to social media because on there they have the power to block rude/abusive people directly.


In terms of solutions I thought Offwidth's suggestion of using a Karma system sounded interesting (on the sexism thread). No direct experience of using it myself but if you someone is rude to you but you see they're someone who's amassed a lot of negative karma it can't help but make you feel a bit better and highlights the problem is likely to be more with them than you. It would also empower users to deal with negativity themselves rather than having to tell tales to the mods and hoping they'll come down on your side.

I think moderation can only help so far because we can quickly learn what is and is not acceptable and then still post negativity whilst staying with the rules.


> How can we make the forums more inclusive to women?

That's a tough one. I suppose eliminating as much unpleasantness as possible and creating a more friendly environment is key. Hopefully over time more women will drift back. Interested to hear if any women have suggestions on that.
1
 kamala 30 Jan 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> such posts are clearly against site rules and will be removed if reported (or can be ignored)
I don't follow your argument when you say offensive posts can be ignored, what am I missing? Of course they can be, in the same way as "dislikes" can be. To me the difference is that one has to read the post before one knows it needs reporting or ignoring, and if someone has called me something vile it's not really possible for me to unsee that, even if the post is later removed.

> ...in contrast to the oft expressed view that lots of dislikes highlights trolls and poor posts...
I see I've not made myself clear - I'm *not* talking about using dislikes to determine which posts to remove.

I'm talking about the availability of the dislike function allowing people who would otherwise make abusive posts to express their adverse feelings in a less offensive way, just because it's easier.

In the old days I remember seeing threads where perfectly reasonable (or at worst mildly provocative) posts were followed by three or four obscene ones in response. I also remember noticing fewer threads of this pattern after the "dislikes". I freely admit I didn't go back and count but the change in atmosphere struck me at the time. Reasonable posts nowadays may have a number of apparently irrational dislikes, but with less of the foul language the threads seem that little bit less off-putting.

This is undoubtedly not "evidence" of anything but my perception, but then more forum users probably act on perception than on actually counting how many posts fall into which categorry.

Haven't read the Facebook research - would be interesting - but it is a different environment in many ways. Yet even without "dislikes" some of the political pages I've seen contain vitriol as bad as if not worse than here.

Anyway, my interpretation (correct me if I'm wrong) is that those who want the dislikes removed feel it will make people type longer, more considered posts in response to things they disagree with. I admire your optimism and hope you're right, but on past form in this forum I suspect there'll just be more of the ****** posts.

I also suspect that tempers will be getting worse in the future as more and more depressing and anxiety-inducing news fills our screens.
 aln 31 Jan 2017
In reply to kamala:

> So you're telling me I haven't seen the posts I saw? Posts saying nothing but "you knob" or similar? I guess perhaps I imagined them (although I learnt a lot of new words

If you learnt new words that's great. If you're saying you learnt new swear words or insults from UKC then you must have led a very sheltered life before you came here.
 Offwidth 31 Jan 2017
In reply to kamala:
If you care about the serious swearing report it and the moderators will delete it (as Hoo points out above). I don't care about swearing but do dislike nasty personnal attacks... playing the person rather than the ball is normally a sign of having lost an argument and too much of this damages the 'atmosphere', especially for newer or less aggresive posters. It makes the site less inclusive, like a rowdy bar. You do have the right site for you.... UKC is anti swearing and UKB highly tolerant of it.

What we perceive depends on our internal narrative and the psychology of witness evidence can sometimes be notoriously unreliable because of this. Quite a few level headed and long standing members are saying there is evidence the site is currently unfriendly and in particular lacking female input (we are a small sample but the same anecdotal views seem prevalent). Exactly what is wrong and why needs investigation and this is the reason we suggested doing that: the article this thread is advertising is a welcome response.
Post edited at 05:53
 kamala 31 Jan 2017
In reply to aln:

>> (although I learnt a lot of new words I'd rather not know from them)
> If you're saying you learnt new swear words or insults from UKC then you must have led a very sheltered life before you came here.

Yes, I do mean swearwords and insults, and yes, I did have a pretty sheltered life. You can tell how sheltered, by the fact my vocabulary of expletives first started to expand when I went to an all-girl boarding school...

But actually, here and Facebook are the only places I tend to see such explicit language so it's not that hard to miss even without trying.
 kamala 31 Jan 2017
In reply to Offwidth:
Well, I don't like the graphic sexual language some people use but so many people seem to need it to express themselves, I'm not going to spoil their fun by reporting it. I just avoid the worst of such threads. Can't say it improves the atmosphere for me though.
(I actually swear a lot myself when I'm really scared but it tends to be the more banal four-letter words, and I can't recall ever having done so in writing.)

> What we perceive depends on our internal narrative and the psychology of witness evidence can sometimes be notoriously unreliable because of this. Quite a few level headed and long standing members are saying there is evidence the site is currently unfriendly and in particular lacking female input

I'm certainly not saying the place is perfect, I've just been saying one particular type of unpleasantness seemed reduced.
I totally agree that personal attacks make for an unpleasant and unwelcoming mood. It seems to me there are a couple of situations in which those attacks break out:
- long back-and-forth discussions where the participants are making the effort to reply to each other's points. At some point frustration at not getting through kicks in, the personal comments start coming and the thing escalates into one of those personal battles that turn everyone else off the thread.
- strangely enough, people jumping in to tell someone they're out of order. Sometimes the intervention is justified and sometimes it isn't, but either way it almost always starts a fight.

Anyway, figuring out how to tone down animosity and make the forums more welcoming is a worthy aim and it'll be interesting to see what comes up.

edit: before I go - just spotted this link
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/31/politics_detachment_an...
Relevant to several threads on here ("Fake news" etc.) but food for thought on the tone of posts in general.
Post edited at 11:13
 Offwidth 31 Jan 2017
In reply to kamala:

An interesting link. I think he historically wrong in that political satire has been here nigh on forever (just the lack of record hides a multitude of sins) and currently wrong in that if anything the digital footprint issue seems to be irrelevant to online posters spouting rubbish (anonymity allows you to lie and abuse almost with impunity within the limits of the law).
1
 Mark Collins 31 Jan 2017
In reply to UKC Articles:

I don't know if this fits in with the survey but its what has got me thinking. In regard to photo voting, I'm generally swayed by previous votes. I am often the first to vote on an image, but when I'm not I always find myself judging the image against the present vote and want to agree with it. If I'm in two minds I often do, but I reckon my vote would have been different if I had not known the current vote. This may also have something to do with how harsh I believe some people vote. If they see a five and are of a rebellious nature, its easy to give it the polar opposite. Correspondingly, if I see one of my newly posted photos doing well after uploading on a Sunday (day one), I have added other images to my gallery to bring focus and boost the votes of the original. This tactic hasn't been particularly productive to be honest, but knowing the running vote makes me wonder what I can do to help my image. I draw the line at creating fake profiles by the way. So how about hiding the running vote of a new image until the top ten is published the following Sunday?
In reply to UKC Articles:

Just giving the survey and this thread a bit of a bump as it's closing tomorrow! Thanks for the responses, please pass it on to UKC user friends!
 Sean Kelly 09 Feb 2017
In reply to Mark Collins:

Should this post really be in the Photo forum Mark? But an interesting observation none the less.
I must admit that my voting is directly influenced by the image and sometimes by the thumbnail itself. But then again my background from teaching Photography and Art must make it a lot easier to make such a judgement.
 Mark Collins 10 Feb 2017
In reply to Sean Kelly:

> Should this post really be in the Photo forum Mark?
Quite possibly, although I think there was something about photography in the survey which is why I posted here.

But an interesting observation none the less.
Thanks.

I must admit that my voting is directly influenced by the image and sometimes by the thumbnail itself. But then again my background from teaching Photography and Art must make it a lot easier to make such a judgement.
Yes, I should say that primarily my voting is influenced by skills picked up in the amateur photography World but after an image has been marked by one or more people I find myself looking at the mark and then back at the image, trying to understand how it became what it is, especially if I feel the mark I have in my head disagrees with the current one.
 subtle 10 Feb 2017
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

> Just giving the survey and this thread a bit of a bump as it's closing tomorrow! Thanks for the responses, please pass it on to UKC user friends!

Clicked on the link today to do the survey but its now closed

Oh well, chance missed.
In reply to subtle:

You can still give some feedback in this thread if you wish
 subtle 10 Feb 2017
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

> You can still give some feedback in this thread if you wish

Good point! Ok, since you asked then.......

What kind of comments have offended you? (please DO NOT name users or quote specific replies) - I'm not easily offended, however I do occasionally see some personal attacks on posters which is not nice

What kind of unacceptable comments directed towards other users have you noticed? - whenever someone is singled out for continual verbal insults by one person it is not nice,

What did you do in these circumstances? Click 'Report Abuse', email the moderators? - just stop reading the thread
Did we remove the comment? - no idea, I just stopped reading the thread in question

How can we make the forums more inclusive to women? - it does need to be more inclusive, not just to women but to all who cant be doing with the overly laddish / boorish / cyber bullying brigade - who to achieve this is a difficult one though

Do people often make assumptions on gender? Does it affect our manner of responding to people? Yes, people do make assumptions with gender, especially when user names are not "gender specific"

Do we have a problem with sexism on site? Is there too much laddish banter? Is heated debate putting both men and women off? I do think that general banal discussions are putting people off (male and female) - it is primarily a climbing forum yet people are verbally abused when asking questions due to grammer / punctution - and the amount of non climbing drivel on here is at times off putting (I also add to this, oh the irony)

Can we have reasoned debates without personal insults when online anonymity removes inhibition? i would like to think we do, generally, its just that the line does get crossed occasionally

Have you seen examples where online abuse is stamped out/greatly reduced? As earlier I stop reading threads when, in my opinion, there is abuse

Did forum activity put you off registering at any point? Do you know people who have cited it as a limiting factor?
I know of a few forum member who are now ex members due to the amount of rubbish spouted on here, you have moved away from the core climbing / walking interests to be an outdoors thread with heavy reliance on general / pub discussions

These are just my random thoughts, from a frivolous poster, one who looks on this site with an impish sense of humour.

Its good that you are asking for feedback, never be scared to act on the feedback given, and don't be scared of change.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...