PostedAnonymous has left a new comment on your post "We all have our rights":
When is the deadline to register as a candidate?
**********************
O.K. I have a link to the Town's website on my blog.
I thought of referring the commenter to the link.
I dislike searching the town's web site.?
Last Tuesday Council received a report about the new website ,describing it in superlative terms.
I said I wasn't comfortable with the self-congratulatory tone of the report. I preferred to let people tell us what they think of the service rather than tell them what to think of the service
I daresay some would hear that as negative. Positive,I suppose, would be vociferous participation in the cheer-leading squad.
I noted the Communications Department has a budget of $600,000. And asked if the web site would
produce any cost savings.
The reply was negative .
The advantage of the new web site was better service .
I went into the web site. In the slot where it asked: what are you searching for.?
I typed in.... deadline for candidate registration for municipal election.
Back came the non answer: No results found.
I understand the deadline is September 12th. I wanted to confirm. Didn't
want to give out the wrong information.
But from the town's website no such insight was forthcoming.p
Posts
20 comments:
They claim you have to ask the "Exact " question. I have tried that several times with really basic information - time, date-including year, specifics. The site never generated what I required. If it fails on such mundane matters, I can only hope more important customers fare better.
The town's new website is just as bad as the old one, except it's clearer to read.
But if it's clearer to read and you can't find what you are looking for it just a pail of excrement.
You couldn't find what you wanted; neither could I.
What does this say? A reverse superlative?
Why not click on the rotating banner "Aurora Votes 2014"... takes you to all kinds of information.
I guess we want instant gratification.
Everything you need to know is under 'Vote 2014.'
Sometimes the site works but I'm afraid that none of us can count on it. We might learn with time.
It took 4 yrs to build this site and God only knows the cost. The search criteria is no better than the last website, and not all events are listed.
The secret to success with the town's new website is knowing what to ask for - very specifically.
It's not like Google or Yahoo.
It's more like Googhoo.
IT might be a good idea for them to remove events that have occurred & replace them with those that are pending. I would really like to know how a council meeting will be covered. If rogers is leaving when a closed session takes place, could someone at the table not activate streaming ? We could probably figure it out and follow along.
Crhistopher
Now everyone is a web site critic?
If you can't find what you are looking for, there is also the Ontario Government web site, they are afterall the masters of the universe.
But really, give a fish to someone or teach them to fish? Maybe you folks should learn how to fish.
I agree with Mr Watts' thoughts on Wikipedia. However, I find his closing remarks regarding "barriers to engagement" rather curious, considering his requirement of a log-in to leave comments on his blog. Thus, a dearth of comments.
He applauds those "that engage in debate of town issues," yet suppresses any such exchange on his own blog.
What I find "rather curious" 12:51 is your insinuation that a standard requirement of a login to comment on a wordpress site has "suppressed engagement" opposed to merely establishing the types of engagement that are allowed. My site allows for login using twitter, facebook, google+ and Wordpress itself.
If you expect all websites to adhere to the same comment policy you're setting yourself up for serious disappointment.
I hear you, you don't want to login to comment on my site.
You're the only one that seems to have a problem with that.
The fact that Clr. Buck approved your comment here illustrates that engagement on your own terms was in no way suppressed proving that "engagement" doesn't suddenly ground to a halt because you choose to take your ball and go somewhere else.
What is even more curious is how you consider 296 comments "A dearth of comments".
By all means point us to your website that allows for anonymous commenting so we can judge your vastly superior level of engagement.
12:51
Mr Watts uses his own name & requests that those who wish to be involved on his site register. I do not know if he even displays any names of contributors but he does get to make the rules.
As does Cllr Buck, although you are always demanding more.
It is fine to criticize safely here but you cannot provide a better solution yourself or you would have your own perfect blog.
9:33- I like fishing, but only for so long. When you've been waiting for 4 yrs, for a new/improved website with up to date and easier access to information....I expect it. Someone made a comment that it's not like Google. Well I say...why not? For the money and time spent on this website....It should.
12:51 He only engages with those that leave their name. Anonymous posters need not apply on his blog.
16:19
I wonder why that might be ? Duh......
15:14
Part of the problem might lie in the fact that the over-sight for Aurora's site is provided from Newmarket ?
@14:14
You have just encountered our troll. Periodically it announces departure from all matter political. We live in hope.
"Periodically it announces departure from all matter political."
Hmmm, I think that must be Mr Heard that you're thinking of.
Cllr Buck, I'd like to respond to Mr Watts' comments:
"What I find "rather curious" 12:51 is your insinuation that a standard requirement of a login to comment on a wordpress site has "suppressed engagement" opposed to merely establishing the types of engagement that are allowed."
No, Mr Watts, no "insinuation" here - I plainly pointed out the incongruity of saying one thing and doing another. (BTW, apparently, certain WordPress settings allow 'Guest' comments as well as anonymous ones)
"If you expect all websites to adhere to the same comment policy you're setting yourself up for serious disappointment."
Oh, so there isn't a "standard requirement" for log-in, after all? Right, some do and some don't. No need to worry about the risk of "serious disappointment," though. I reserve serious reactions for serious matters; perusing the Internet doesn't count.
"I hear you, you don't want to login to comment on my site."
Yes, and I hear you - you don't want any feedback unless you can vet the commenter before any approval to publish. For someone always banging on about 'engagement,' you certainly don't encourage it. Don't you want anyone countering your criticisms or parrying your pronouncements? Judging from past episodes, that's understandable, I suppose.
"You're the only one that seems to have a problem with that."
Well, since you can't prove that particular negative - you have no way of knowing how many people, wishing to leave a comment, may have balked at the log-in. There have, in fact, been mention made here on this blog about the log-in requirement of yours. If memory serves, the same unfavourable observation was expressed on the Aurora Citizen blog.
"The fact that Clr. Buck approved your comment here illustrates that engagement on your own terms was in no way suppressed proving that "engagement" doesn't suddenly ground (sic) to a halt because you choose to take your ball and go somewhere else."
Since we're discussing *your* blog, what does Cllr Buck's have to do with anything? Yes, she does 'suppress engagement' in that she doesn't publish every comment, but this is an open forum, for the most part (and I thank her for that). Yours, however, is little more than a monologue. (Frankly, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the ball analogy)
"What is even more curious is how you consider 296 comments "A dearth of comments"."
As most of your posts go uncommented upon, should I dispute that number? How many blog posts, over how many years, resulted in that total? Is that including your previous blog on Posterous? Are you somehow factoring in Twitter responses? What is the ratio of posts to comments, I wonder?
That being said, 296 is a paltry sum - yes, "a dearth." Just consider this blog (with a similar focus, so probably a similar potential audience); Cllr Buck published well over 200 comments in the last week alone. She doesn't approve all comments, and it is supposedly the 'summer doldrums,' with an assumed less attentive following, but that is a healthy number - that is "engagement"!
"By all means point us to your website that allows for anonymous commenting so we can judge your vastly superior level of engagement."
Again, we're discussing yours - well, one of yours; how's the AHA! one coming along? No, I don't have a blog, which means we're pretty well at the same level of engagement, doesn't it? It also means that when it comes to actually doing something versus just criticizing, parallels could be drawn.
Post a Comment