• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

ICC Survey Regarding Bulletin Boards

Anybody else get the ICC Survey?

ICC sent me a survey regarding their "bulletin board" (and I use the term loosely) system. It looks like they've finally realized the new system stinks and they are soliciting comments as well as trying to find people to help design a new system. I declined to be involved in the redesign process, as I think the change was driven purely by greed. Now that is has failed they want the people they screwed to help fix it?

My comment in their 'leave a comment box":

As you are well aware, you completely screwed up when you moved to the new web site format.Whoever suggested the idea, designed the idea, reviewed the idea and approved the idea should be fired or reassigned, as they obviously have no idea what your members want, nor any grasp on how people interact on the web.

You torpedoed your site and all of your contributors have moved on the other sites (ok, well, we're all on the same site). I seriously doubt that moving to any other message system will bring back the activity you once had.

Whose idea was it to reinvent the wheel? vBulletin is a well-established bulletin board/messaging system used by thousands of sites throughout the world. If what you implemented was actually a good idea, don't you think somebody else would have created it already?

I think the move was purely monetary; an attempt to make people purchase a membership to participate in discussions veiled in the disguise of a poorly designed new web site. That's why my last option would be to return to your site if there are other sites available to accomplish the same goals.
Click to expand...
 
Email from ICC Customer feedback

I just received the following email from the ICC:

Share your ideas, Mech

As you may be aware, our ICCSafe.org was redesigned with the addition of our new Communities of Interest and new Discussion Boards to improve the interaction among our Members. As we continue to experiment with this format, it's clear that these tools are not as effective as we had hoped. As we review all options for new tools, we know many of you prefer our former bulletin board.

We need your help. Since you were a participant in our former bulletin board, we would like you to participate in a short survey to help us better understand what you need from our discussion boards.

Some of you have been vocal about what you missed on our discussion boards. We have taken notes – want one discussion board, don’t require ICC Membership to use, highlight the newest postings, include email notification of new postings and more. We want to continue this exchange of ideas. Our goal is to change our discussion boards to match your needs.

Please take a few moments to complete our short survey, linked below. We want this area of our site to be a valuable tool to the code community, not just for ICC members.

TAKE SHORT SURVEY

We appreciate your time and input!

Sincerely,



Michael Armstrong

SVP, Membership and Outreach Services

==================================================================================

So if the ICC allows non-members to participate in the bulletin board, would anyone go back?
 
I'm feeling left out.....I didn't no stinkin survey. sheesh.

I think the whole thing is pretty funny.
 
Yep,

"

Share your ideas, Uncle Bob

As you may be aware, our ICCSafe.org was redesigned with the addition of our new Communities of Interest and new Discussion Boards to improve the interaction among our Members. As we continue to experiment with this format, it's clear that these tools are not as effective as we had hoped. As we review all options for new tools, we know many of you prefer our former bulletin board.

We need your help. Since you were a participant in our former bulletin board, we would like you to participate in a short survey to help us better understand what you need from our discussion boards.

Some of you have been vocal about what you missed on our discussion boards. We have taken notes – want one discussion board, don’t require ICC Membership to use, highlight the newest postings, include email notification of new postings and more. We want to continue this exchange of ideas. Our goal is to change our discussion boards to match your needs.

Please take a few moments to complete our short survey, linked below. We want this area of our site to be a valuable tool to the code community, not just for ICC members.

We appreciate your time and input!

Sincerely,

I just wish they would put the old BB back; just like it was; and, I miss our old friend; "The Webmaster".

Everyone should say "Put it back; exactly like it was!; and pay Uncle Bob $60,000.00 per year to be the Webmaster" :D

Uncle Bob

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't go back even if they restored it to it's previous life. May sound petty but..........

First time the horse kicks you, it's the horses fault.
 
It will never be the same.

ICC crawled into bed with the federal government, now they have to live with their decision.

It's kinda like that John Conley song ("Old School") where the lady leaves her high school sweetheart, friends, and hometown to chase down money and glamour, but realizes later that money and glamour isn't all that great so she tries to come back to her high school sweetheart, friends, and hometown only to find out that nobody wants her anymore.
 
I received the survey and may respond back, not sure yet.

I was really vocal back when they made the switch by sending emails to the board telling them why it needed to be open to more than members. I did get emails back from the board, but mainly they dumped the issue back to a lower person who basically told me this is the way it is and going to be. Join ICC was what they wanted me to do. So I'm locked out and have never seen the "new" discussion board.

I'm certainly happy to stay here, but I do have to admit that I'm not as active here as I was on the old ICC board and I'm not sure why that is so.
 
* * *

I have not taken any survey, but I would not want to go back!

I believe ICC to be a necessary evil, and [ for the time being ]

they have cornered the market on the codes. FWIW, I will

not be participating in any surveys.



That said, if Jeff [ and ONLY Jeff ] decides that he no longer

wants to, or cannot provide this board to all of us, then I will

cross that bridge when and if I get to it.

I also concur with fatboy! We haz been kicked purty hard

already. :mad:

* * *
 
Fatboy,

Maybe I just like to get kicked :) , but.....

If the ICC really tries to make things better and addresses other problems (I think the broken code change process is lots worse than the website and bulletin board problem) we need to participate. The worst thing that could happen is someone in Washington decides that since a private group can't do codes, the Feds are going to take everything over.

I say wait and see, participate as we can and see what happens. We have had lip service before, but maybe they are going to really start getting their act together.

BTW, my email was addressed to my screen name on this bulletin board not my name and I don't use this screen name anywhere else. How was everyone else's email addressed?
 
MarkRandall said:
Packsaddle, I am curious about your comment on the Federal government. I would like to know what has changed in that respect.
Click to expand...
ICC lobbied heavily to be specifically mentioned in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

However, getting in bed with the federal government (especially THIS administration) comes with a very high price.

This adequately explains ICC's recent shift in ideology from basic life safety standards (i.e. fire, structural) to new "green" and "sustainable" standards.
 
Well, I just took the survey and blasted ICC's 'Communities of Interest'. I told them I would not be back and called it like it is, a 'pay to play' BB without many members.

Dear Sue....................sure, here's my survey.........
 
How about someone who "can get on" the new forum; taking a look and giving us some feedback; on what is happening there?

How many post? Participation? etc.

Uncle Bob
 
Uncle Bob said:
How about someone who "can get on" the new forum; taking a look and giving us some feedback; on what is happening there?How many post? Participation? etc.

Uncle Bob
Click to expand...
Since i had to log on when I was doing my certs a few months back, I took a look. Dead.
 
Not much out there on the ICC Communities of Interest, Uncle Bob. It looks the same and has about the same sort of response it has since it started.

BTW it only took me 8 minutes to get to the communities of interest after I started trying to log in. The ICC site is working great.
 
Bottom line for me is that the exchange of information should be free. Granted there is some expense in maintaining a bulletin board, but having done it myself I know it's not monumental. ICC charges for membership and for the books themselves; I think they have a duty to provide for discussion at no charge.

If actual ICC employees were providing interps on the site when questions were posed, I could see it being members only.

Essentially you could provide the same service they were providing by creating your own yahoo group.
 
I took the survey. I also take part in a national planners' board since I am also a zoning guy. Also belong to a private inspector's forum since I do those too. Between this board and those I don't have much time for others. I am not bitter about it, but I still think that board had more active participation and was a broader sample of this particular "community of interest" (where have I heard that b4?)
 
TimNY,

"If actual ICC employees were providing interps on the site when questions were posed, I could see it being members only."

I've called ICC and asked a code question; and the response was "We were discussing that the other day; and couldn't figure it out either."

When a code question was put to the "old ICC forum" it was cussed and discussed; with code section quotes, real world examples, and ideas from professionals who worked with, and had real world expeirence with that code section; including Engineers, Architects, Builders, Contractors, Manufacturer's and Organization Reps, Building Officials, Plans Examiners, Inspectors; and even a few kibizers.

That's what works; and that's what's wrong with the new ICC forum! "They ain't got; and don't get it."

But, hey, this makes for a good role call for us, :D

Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I took the survey and recommended just re-instituting the old Bulletin Board, as antiquated as it was. Everyone was familiar with it, about the only thing you couldn't do was attach images but everyone soon found out that they could sign up for free hosting services to embed images. I told them that if they did just revive it that most everyone would come back, even those mad at them for the change. Frankly I find these half UBB half HTML boards like vBulletin difficult, my preference would be full HTML or plain UBB Code like the old Bulletin Board.

Many fora have updated to take advertising, lots on money can be made with Google AdSense if you are formatted right, but neither the ICC nor these fora take advertising. I even told them that many like old things, many of us keep our old wives even when newer models are available, sometimes older is better, we are creatures of habit. Older codes are certainly better than the newer codes as all are finding out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top