Limiting discussion to official statements

[daddy-o-p40]

jbh001, the whole point of reaching out to peers on tech.lds.org is to learn from their experiences. Unfortunately, many jump in with no relevant experience and dilute the subject matter with water cooler talk.


Hey everyone, this is not an uncommon problem. You see we have a certain level of understanding and thus know the boundaries of the forum.

If you take your knowledge about this forum away, then remove the understandings about technology, you'll start to see how the "email" I mentioned confused so many people.

The communications from CHQ regarding MLS and clerk.lds.org need to speak to a much more general audience (without tech, forum, and even clerk experience.)

Might I suggest a simple change which could help lessen this confusion for the less traveled visitors?

How about changing the forum name from "Clerks and Stake Technology Support" to something like "Clerks and Stake Technology Specialist (Non-Official Discussions)"

That should help.

[Mikerowaved]

The communications from CHQ regarding MLS and clerk.lds.org need to speak to a much more general audience (without tech, forum, and even clerk experience.)

The information found at clerk.lds.org is just that... undiluted policy, guidelines, and training direct from CHQ. In fact, the topmost link in the left margin is reserved for official Letters & Policies to help cut through the rumors, opinions, and hype sometimes found in the Church.

It's only when you click on the Discussion Forum link a little further down that you are directed to the tech.lds.org website which serves a different purpose, which was already described earlier in this thread.

[WelchTC]

We have struggled in the past what to call the stake clerk and STS section of the forums. It does serve two roles. It serves as a place to help clerks with questions about their jobs as well a STS with technology issues. It was a very conscious decision to NOT create a separate forum instance for ward clerks to go to because we felt that there was a lot of good stuff on these forums that they would benefit from. I'm not sure we have the naming right yet but I continue to work with MSR department to enhance it.

Tom

[daddy-o-p40]

Tomw, this is good. We have to remember that unlike before we now have people from all walks of life and all parts of the world being directed to tech.lds.org. Unfortunately, we cannot tell who's who.....so we need write posts/replies that are more inclusive.

Mikerowaved, you just made my point. This is clear to you and the vets of the forum but is not inclusive enough for everyone. Understand that the perception from may is if it comes from a church site it must be official. That is not my interpretation but is what many who are not internet and/or tech vets.

[Mikerowaved]

Mikerowaved, you just made my point. This is clear to you and the vets of the forum but is not inclusive enough for everyone. Understand that the perception from may is if it comes from a church site it must be official. That is not my interpretation but is what many who are not internet and/or tech vets.

You may be right, enriquer. I'm just under the opinion that when most people see a link entitled, "Discussion Forum" they understand it's going to involve a wide group of people with varying backgrounds and levels of experience sharing ideas.