Initial Site Feedback


#21

I don’t have any issue with that but please warn them of potential rough edges and request feedback.


#22

One thing you can do is when you are in a category, let’s say the California region, you can sort the post by tags, so you can sort by Initial Attack and all you will see is post regarding Initial Attacks. You can also go to the parent category of Wildfire Incidents and sort by tags so you could view Initial Attack posts nation wide.


#23

We overhauled the settings on the load balancer and routing. If you continue to have issues loading the site, please let me know but I am hoping that we have resolved the issue that folks were experiencing yesterday.


#24

All is working on my end now. No log in issues at all form any device. The home page is looking nice and clean and easy to navigate. Good job! It’s looking great.


#25

Is there a way to reorganize the groupings of the discussions, So that the IA is at the top and not hazard mitigation or something else??


#26

Not sure if you’ve gotten the chance to take a peek at the help category yet but I made a post talking a little bit about how I recommend navigating the forum. Essentially there are a few dropdown menus towards the top that you can use to sort the forum. As an example from the home page(Where you can see Wildfire Incidents, General Discussion, Fire Mitigation ect.) you can click on the “tags” menu and sort by Initial Attacks if you would like(The only tag we have on topics currently is continuing fires but it’s the same idea) and you will see all of the initial attack posts. I’m not sure if that is what you are looking for but I hope this helps.


#27

Ok…I’m in! This will definitely take some getting used to but it’s good to see we’ve got the ball rolling.


#28

Great. I heard similar comments from a couple of other users but got good feedback after a bit. I’m really interested to hear your ideas on how to make it shine.


#29

Is it possible to add another line to the IA Template? The few IA’s I have made over the weekend I have added a line for the Agency website. Its nice to add this so Folks can go directly to InciWeb, or RRU’s linked site for example…to read for their own Intel. If you reference the RRU-Tornado IA you can see at the bottom where I added a line. Thanks in advance.


#30

Definitely! I’ll add it right now.


#31

Great, Thanks. I think adding the agency website if available will reduce unnecessary questions.


#32

In the Initial Attack thread, I think we should carve off a separate area for questions and comments.

This leaves the IA and Continuing Incident threads to Incident info only. Which will keep the thread clean from discussions.


#33

I think I like the new layout. logging in for the first time today. i think it is easy to navigate the different areas and topics.


#34

Good to hear! Still finalizing a few things but feedback helps. Hopefully it will be easier for everyone to understand how the forum is laid out. Additionally this allows us to have the Initial Attack template auto fill inside new posts for IA posts so no more copy and pasting.


#35

I agree with all your points. It feels more intuitive to navigate. It will also be nice to not have to copy and paste the IA template every time. It feels more familiar now the way you have it laid out.


#36

I like the new features… agree with D, much easier to navigate. I’m not familiar with Discourse at all…is it possible to reply to just a single post with sub-comments like they have on Facebook? I think that would make threads flow a lot smoother. It was always something I would have liked to see when we were using v-bulletin.

Also agree we need to keep IA and Q&D separate… I know people don’t care for it but I think we would find that threads would rapidly become chaotic and devolve.


#37

The other thing I would like to see from a Mod standpoint is the ability to see who is logged in/online…then you know if someone is around and will be responsive or if they have disappeared and are not likely to post again or reply to PM’s


#38

This is from a PM I sent, I wanted others input so I am posting it hear:

So I agree, I envision that a small fire with very little info like the MVU fire I posted yesterday would go in the Q and D area with ??? on it. Ex. 2 acre fire in MVU off I-8 with header showing, any one else have any info? It would look like this: CA-MVU-I8??. Then as more info comes in and Aircraft are assigned and the fire starts ramping up with a size up and good ROC someone would start an IA Thread. When the IA thread is started the ?? would come off. Then after the first full 24 Operational Period it can go into the Continuing Fire Thread if it is now an extended attack fire. We would keep the Q and D open for questions and the continuing thread would only be for valid Fire Updates. How does that sound?

If any small fires pop to in MVU or RRU I will post in the Q and D and we can see how it goes.

Additional Info:

Question from Wildfire-Intel_Admin

I think that sounds pretty good. The only concern I have is people posting small fires and forgetting to update the category or having multiple threads about one fire because the Q/D topic was not removed/updated.

My Answer:

Yes, understood, 2 Threads are good in the sense that one is for Discussion and Questions and the other is for Fire Info. If we don’t like it then that is okay. 1 Thread will get very bogged down with minutia and it will become hard to sift through the actual fire info. After the fire becomes continuing the IA is really not needed and can be locked or shut down Some fires will Die in Q and D, Some Fires will Die in IA, and some will go into Continuing for days or weeks. If it goes Continuing then the IA becomes unnecessary.


#39

I made an admin change and am testing a comment-like reply directly to a topic reply


#40

and testing again