Please please separate the games from discussion, am I the only one?

All the way through this I perceive something like. 'I find this site (thread? whatever) inconvenient. I want it run to suit MY preferences'. So precious and inward looking rather than the general common good. Really can't equate this with the average age and life experiences of the majority of us who contribute so helpfully on GN in general. Strange indeed.

Kim19 - removing Games from the discussion forums seems common sense to me. They are games not discussions. I'd say it was more inward looking to say there must never be change. How would that work if there had never been improvements made ever?

Kim19

All the way through this I perceive something like. 'I find this site (thread? whatever) inconvenient. I want it run to suit MY preferences'. So precious and inward looking rather than the general common good. Really can't equate this with the average age and life experiences of the majority of us who contribute so helpfully on GN in general. Strange indeed.

Not at all, I am suggesting that it might get more members if it didn't appear to be all games and little conversation/support. Surely that wider membership might bring new friendships and is therefore for the general common good?

Gransnet is a forum for way more than Chats. Just look at the topic titles.
I assume everyone means Chats when they say Discussions?
There are so many more thread titles under Chat than there are under Games.
Is this getting exaggerated a little as so many Grans are getting carried away on a wave of indignation?

Puzzler61

Gransnet is a forum for way more than Chats. Just look at the topic titles.
I assume everyone means Chats when they say Discussions?
There are so many more thread titles under Chat than there are under Games.
Is this getting exaggerated a little as so many Grans are getting carried away on a wave of indignation?

I'm not clear on what you actually meanpuzzler
Discussion is discussion, what ever the forum title.
I'm not indignant, just find the organisation of titles and games together well, disorganized

I agree with you Namsnanny but I don’t think we’re getting anywhere with this thread - just round in circles (which we’ve been around before).

Puzzler61

Gransnet is a forum for way more than Chats. Just look at the topic titles.
I assume everyone means Chats when they say Discussions?
There are so many more thread titles under Chat than there are under Games.
Is this getting exaggerated a little as so many Grans are getting carried away on a wave of indignation?

Gransnet is not a forum, it's a website. There are several website headings, Forums, Grandparenting, Coronavirus, Menopause etc.
Forums are for discussion, whether Chat or other topics, there are many to choose from.
Games are something different, they belong in their own website heading along with all the other headings.
If they can provide a website heading for Coronavirus heading I don't see why Games can't have one.

It'll be interesting to see if HQ ever respond to this positively. We used to ask regularly for an edit button. No joy.

Games is listed in the Forum headings, as are Chat, News and Politics, AIBU, etc, etc, etc. I don't think it should be given a special status. It serves some gransnetters' needs just as the other forums do.

Isn't equality a buzz word nowadays. This is equality of opportunity's reality.

I should have said platform not forum, but you know what I mean.

Not as knowledgeable as others on this thread when it comes to web design, but it does occur to me that the section headings such as Health, Style and Beauty and so on are information-only and do not allow interaction. So creating a new section for Games would require a creation of a whole new sub section that behaved like a Forums, allowing interaction. Which I suspect isn't trivial.

Health, Style and Beauty and so on are information-only and do not allow interaction.

They do allow interactions.

Baggs HQ responded positively at 13.46.

Baggs

^Health, Style and Beauty and so on are information-only and do not allow interaction.^

They do allow interactions.

I said I wasn't knowledgeable I stand corrected, sorry!

?

Health, Style and Beauty

Perhaps I should try some interaction on there, it may help me.

No! They aren't interactive.
Baggs and Alegrias - I think that you are talking at cross purposes.

Alegrias is referring to the site subsections which have absolutely nothing to do with 'Talk'.
Those sections are pretty pointless. I'm not entirely sure what they are for.
Glorified ads? A way of getting around 'chat room' rules? Something to do with being a 'public service'? I don't know.

Whereas Baggs, however is referring to the 'Talk' subheadings. Which of course, are interactive.

I hope that this makes sense, and that I am right in understanding what is going on!

So - if you click on the 'burger' menu - you get a list which starts with Forums (interactive), and then other stuff like Legal, Grandparenting etc.
They are not interactive.

Sorry, me again. Yes, those non-Forum areas seem to be glorified ads.
For instance, 'Books' is all about Harper Collins' output.

I was a bit worried by the section on the LadyCare Magnet

Style & Beauty is dominated by Caroline Hirons; self-styled beauty guru whose star is waining quite spectacularly according to our sister site.

Alegrias1

I was a bit worried by the section on the LadyCare Magnet

Oh, I haven't seen that, but I believe that it is in snake oil territory

Sago this thread crops up with regularity, but you may be pleased to know this one is the longest I’ve seen in a while.
Am interested to see if anything comes of it.
You never know, as many campaigned for a quote facility and we did get one, now we need an edit button.

Lemongrove the quote facility was touted as being one of the benefits of buying into 'Mumsnet Premium', for which one pays £5 per month.
I'm not sure if that has come into fruition; but I very much doubt if we will get it gratis

Argh, sorry, I meant the edit function. Sorry, sorry, sorry!

Aha! Thanks, FC.