Forum Changes Part Deux

Whatever

I, for one, did not forget. Therefore, James, have you spoken to the powers that be about the concerns expressed about the changes to the forum (particularly for those who do not have subscription)?

Brad Forrister

Whatever,

We have discussed the idea of selling Forum access separate from a newsletter subscription, but it doesn't dovetail very well with what we're trying to accomplish with the change. Therefore, we won't be offering the Forum as a stand-alone service. We hope you can find a way to subscribe to one of our newsletters so you can continue in the Forum community.

Our decision to make the Forum a subscriber-only service is a little more multi-faceted than the discussion here has reflected. We want to concentrate our staff resources on activities that benefit our paying customers, yes. But we also want to increase participation by our subscribers and increase participation by our attorney editors and other contributors to our newsletters. When we've tried to encourage the these two things, we've run up against concerns about the Forum's wide-open membership policy. We also want to decrease Forum participation by non-HR people.

At the same time, we want to increase the value of the Subscriber's Area of HRhero.com and of the state employment law newsletters that include it as an element of the subscription.

Our decision was that limiting the Forum to subscribers was the most effective way to accomplish these goals.

In the future we may sell a package of online services such as the Subscribers Area of HRhero.com plus the Forum, but not the Forum by itself.

We think the Forum has developed into a marvelous tool for HR folks to share information. We love the level of participation you all bring to it. We hope most of you can stay aboard.

Brad Forrister
VP/Content
M. Lee Smith Publishers

Don D

"But we also want to increase participation by our subscribers and increase participation by our attorney editors and other contributors to our newsletters."

Brad: Some of us have wondered for at least a year why the attorneys, other than an occasional (great) post by AWilliams, don't come to our aid when we hit a sticking point calling for a legal opinion or analysis. Over a year ago, there were as many as 7 or 8 attorneys who would periodically jump in and offer up suggestions and help us solve our HR issues. I also know that there's some sort of mechanism that triggers and let's the editor of the state newsletter know when a question posts from his/her state. That used to generate a response from that lawyer, but no more. I fully understand that their motive is pocketbook connected; nevertheless, we enjoyed their participation and input, not that we always were inclined to agree with it. So, how does this new direction generate 'increased participation' by the attorney editors? What is it about limiting participants that would increase the attorney-editors' involvement? Please don't answer that they are prohibited from giving legal advice on a chat board. We all understand that. The real analysis may be that if we all can get our education FROM and our issues solved BY The Forum, none of us will need to pay an attorney or purchase HR 'help products'. Thanks in advance for your response.

Brad Forrister

The editors are very interested and willing to answer questions that come from their subscribers. They are understandably more reticent about weighing in when they aren't sure who the question is coming from. They're also plenty busy with their law practices. As to the economics of it all, they make their big bucks when they represent an employer who hasn't followed good HR legal advice. Yet they continue to dispense such advice in the newsletters, in other education efforts for clients and non-clients, and occasionally -- and hopefully increasingly -- on the Forum.

Brad Forrister
VP/Content
M. Lee Smith Publishers

Whatever

>
want to
>concentrate our staff resources on activities
>that benefit our paying customers, yes. But we
>also want to increase participation by our
>subscribers

First of all, I am a subscriber. Second, thanx for your response. Third, to add to Don's comments, the beauty of this forum is the quality of the responses from the participants. Unfortunately, we are now going to lose the wisdom of some the participants on this forum. I do not perceive that this a benefit.

cebudragonlady

<"We also want to decrease Forum participation by non-HR people">

Objection ! ~ after over 400 posts, it ought to be very obvious to anyone that I am quite involved with HR . The fact that my employer can't spring for a $277 subscription, doesn't make me any less of an HR professional.


Chari
[email]calter@iopener.net[/email]

Beave

I've noticed that there is much less participation already on the Forum. I'm going to have to think long and hard to justify spending the additional money ($277 now - from last years $197). With less participation and less diversified support of the Forum members, quite frankly there are other HR sites I've visited that have a lot more participation and a more diversified participation group. I LIKE THE PERSONALITIES HERE with it's strong interactions at times but as in all aspects of HR, we have to be able to "change with the times".

Pork

BEAVE: Spring for it! I do not agree with your thoughts of much less participation, already. You must not be clicking on the "gong" to alert you to the fact that someone has just posted, I better check. I have realized an amount of less "sniping" and "anger". I guess we spent to much of that on the channels last week and I for one decided to stay out of the fray. several times this week I started to and then thought better it takes more time to compete for oringinal thoughts and nice ways of saying nasty things.

With 5000 readers and posters any one of us can leave and the time will be filled and the threads will be built regardless of our inability to swing the company for a worthwhile effort.

Our humor may be changed because one of us may not choose to move on with the rest of us. If you know of a stronger HR arena, then you should jump to it and take all other non-subscribers with you. PUBLISH THE LOCATION RIGHT HERE AND NOW. WE WILL ALL BE BETTER FOR IT!

"DANDY PORK" IS SO GOOD!

jmcaa

Beave,
What are the websites of the other "free" forums you were talking about?

Thanks!

System

cebudragonlady: Brad wasn't referring to you but to the rank-and-file ees who come here sometimes.

Whatever & Beave: I've noticed that some regulars are posting less often - I imagine some are on vacation but others are on their way out the door, which is the part I don't like about the Forum conversion.

But at the same time, it's great to see more activity by people who are new or have stood back in the shadows for a while. They say nature abhors a vacuum, and apparently Forumites do, too.

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com

safety

Hey James, I just received my renewal and the price on it was 296.53. In a previous post others were talking about 277. I guess the law letter in KS has added features other states don't have, yellow brick road maybe?

System

Unfortunately, Kansas is one of the few states where we have to collect sales tax on subscriptions, though I'm not sure why. Sorry about that.

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com

Don D

Don't forget Safety; when you peek behind that curtain, it's gonna be James sitting on that stool!