# Other forums



## Dave W (Jul 29, 2018)

While some of the posts on here have indeed been very supportive, I maintain my stance that there is greater support and information elsewhere. And as far as independence goes it may be worth a look at what food producers and pharma companies support DUK, (Google DUK sponsors) and to go even further explore how some of the consultants that DUK use have been funded in their research. DUK has undoubtedly contributed financially and usefully to research and publicity about diabetes in the UK thanks to contributions; including mine! However in my view at least, DUK has tended to be somewhat wedded to the bog standard NHS/NICE ‘Heathy Eating’ litany which is now becoming increasingly questioned and disproved. On the up-side DUK do seem at very long last to have accepted that a low carb diet does work for T2D, contrary to NHS/NICE dogma. Next step; and it may be a big one for DUK, will be to acknowledge that high fat too isn’t the bogie that it has been promoted as.

Now as someone said, the ‘other site’ does have some advertising, but it is minimal so there is some commercial connection, but the general content is very wide ranging, very informative with some quite deep analysis of diabetic issues.
I found DUK a day after I was diagnosed and was grateful for the information I found, but the young GP suggested that that if I wanted further help I should look at the ‘the other site’, and I’m eternally grateful to her.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Jul 30, 2018)

"The other site" is a commercial operation: Diabetes Digital Media Ltd, company #*07975193.  *

You can check out their accounts at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07975193/filing-history 

They seem to have made a profit of about 250K in FY17, and finished the FY with 369K in the bank. 28 staff. They had about 80K in Bitcoin, which was stolen from them in Dec 17.

Nothing wrong with that, and personally I found it quite useful as a source of general D-related info.  But worth bearing in mind that money-making seems to be a motivation.


----------



## Northerner (Jul 30, 2018)

Dave W said:


> While some of the posts on here have indeed been very supportive, I maintain my stance that there is greater support and information elsewhere. And as far as independence goes it may be worth a look at what food producers and pharma companies support DUK, (Google DUK sponsors) and to go even further explore how some of the consultants that DUK use have been funded in their research. DUK has undoubtedly contributed financially and usefully to research and publicity about diabetes in the UK thanks to contributions; including mine! However in my view at least, DUK has tended to be somewhat wedded to the bog standard NHS/NICE ‘Heathy Eating’ litany which is now becoming increasingly questioned and disproved. On the up-side DUK do seem at very long last to have accepted that a low carb diet does work for T2D, contrary to NHS/NICE dogma. Next step; and it may be a big one for DUK, will be to acknowledge that high fat too isn’t the bogie that it has been promoted as.
> 
> Now as someone said, the ‘other site’ does have some advertising, but it is minimal so there is some commercial connection, but the general content is very wide ranging, very informative with some quite deep analysis of diabetic issues.
> I found DUK a day after I was diagnosed and was grateful for the information I found, but the young GP suggested that that if I wanted further help I should look at the ‘the other site’, and I’m eternally grateful to her.


You are making the mistake that this forum's membership is entirely wedded to every pronouncement and policy of Diabetes UK. It is not, and never has been, nor do Diabetes UK in any way enforce its position on the members. DCUK has an agenda, as a commercial entity, to provide a large marketing database for its advertisers and is active in the promotion and marketing of its own products and services. I have no objection to this, and as I said it is up to people to decide which site suits them better. Suffice to say that, had you made a similar criticism on the other site it would have been promptly deleted and your account removed.

I've moved this discussion out of the thread started by another member as it is diverting attention from their question.


----------



## Vince_UK (Jul 30, 2018)

Dave W said:


> While some of the posts on here have indeed been very supportive, I maintain my stance that there is greater support and information elsewhere. And as far as independence goes it may be worth a look at what food producers and pharma companies support DUK, (Google DUK sponsors) and to go even further explore how some of the consultants that DUK use have been funded in their research. DUK has undoubtedly contributed financially and usefully to research and publicity about diabetes in the UK thanks to contributions; including mine! However in my view at least, DUK has tended to be somewhat wedded to the bog standard NHS/NICE ‘Heathy Eating’ litany which is now becoming increasingly questioned and disproved. On the up-side DUK do seem at very long last to have accepted that a low carb diet does work for T2D, contrary to NHS/NICE dogma. Next step; and it may be a big one for DUK, will be to acknowledge that high fat too isn’t the bogie that it has been promoted as.
> 
> Now as someone said, the ‘other site’ does have some advertising, but it is minimal so there is some commercial connection, but the general content is very wide ranging, very informative with some quite deep analysis of diabetic issues.
> I found DUK a day after I was diagnosed and was grateful for the information I found, but the young GP suggested that that if I wanted further help I should look at the ‘the other site’, and I’m eternally grateful to her.





Eddy Edson said:


> "The other site" is a commercial operation: Diabetes Digital Media Ltd, company #*07975193.  *
> 
> You can check out their accounts at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07975193/filing-history
> 
> ...


Strangely enough at my last GP's visit I was told exactly the same thing.
The Low Carb programme on there and their informative media is absolutely first class. I have used it myself in the early days.
As a commercial operation rather than a charity donation based one it has to perform, be relevant and current.  Costs and staffing levels will be controlled and KPI's firmly in place. The profits are certainly not excessive in any shape or form and if it provides a useful service all well and good.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Jul 30, 2018)

I agree that the red site does have some useful content - though I have been alarmed in the past at some products being offered for sale / promoted (eg cinnamon) for which there seems to be little evidence.

I lurked a bit years and years ago, but was always a bit surprised/confused that they didn't make much attempt to be clear that they were not Diabetes UK, nor connected to the charity. I'm not sure if they've cleaned that up since.

Of course each site will have its own style and feel, based largely on the posters/members and the moderation style. It's good to have choices so that people have options and can find places that suit them.

I prefer the atmosphere here.


----------



## khskel (Jul 30, 2018)

Can't deny that the other site has useful content but regarding the respective forums l prefer the style and atmosphere here.


----------



## Bubbsie (Jul 30, 2018)

Northerner said:


> DCUK has an agenda, as a commercial entity, to provide a large marketing database for its advertisers and is active in the promotion and marketing of its own products and services.


Yes of course has an agenda  it has to have one...every forum has...otherwise there is no point to their existence...I doubt it's purely commercial as intimated by some of the replies here...commercial yes...but not just to turn a profit otherwise I would expect their coffers to be overflowing...their 'profit' seems to be reasonably modest if @Eddy Edson's figures are accurate ...it provides a great free service...it's low carb programme is second to none...I have never been asked to contribute a penny towards their running costs...or felt coerced/pressured to buy any products advertised there...many members myself included are members of both...if we get what we need from whatever source we choose... charitable or commercial...objective achieved.


----------



## grovesy (Jul 30, 2018)

Bubbsie said:


> Yes of course has an agenda  it has to have one...every forum has...otherwise there is no point to their existence...I doubt it's purely commercial as intimated by some of the replies here...commercial yes...but not just to turn a profit otherwise I would expect their coffers to be overflowing...their 'profit' seems to be reasonably modest if @Eddy Edson's figures are accurate ...it provides a great free service...it's low carb programme is second to none...I have never been asked to contribute a penny towards their running costs...or felt coerced/pressured to buy any products advertised there...many members myself included are members of both...if we get what we need from whatever source we choose... charitable or commercial...objective achieved.


I believe their Low Carb programme is no longer free to new people.


----------



## travellor (Jul 30, 2018)

It seems to me a very niche site.
Very focused on pushing what they sell.
Everything on there costs, and the markup isn't exactly low.

This site seems provides far more encouragement to an individuals actual needs, and promoting an individual based solution. Much better atmosphere here.


----------



## Vince_UK (Jul 30, 2018)

I have never been asked to pay for anything whatsoever.
Just been on it actually and the low carb programme is still free.
I beleive we use whichever resource is best for our individual needs and I tend to use both.


----------



## grovesy (Jul 30, 2018)

Vince_UK said:


> I have never been asked to pay for anything whatsoever.
> Just been on it actually and the low carb programme is still free.
> I beleive we use whichever resource is best for our individual needs and I tend to use both.


I have seen many posts from people saying when they go to sign up they are asked to subscribe.


----------



## Bubbsie (Jul 30, 2018)

This is not a competition...we are each free to chose whichever 'venue' suit our particular needs...it isn't a question of one being better than another...we each have our own preference...it's about choice...I have never been asked to pay for any of the low carb information...again...we are each free to choose whatever suits us best.


----------



## Bubbsie (Jul 30, 2018)

grovesy said:


> I have seen many posts from people saying when they go to sign up they are asked to subscribe.


Subscribe to what grovesy...I have just had some friends join the other site...there was no charge to join DCUK's own low carb programme.


----------



## travellor (Jul 30, 2018)

I'll sure a link to the "other site" will clear up any confusion about the charge of £30 to join.

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/low-carb-program.154437/

The suggestion by members does indeed appear to be not to pay.


----------



## Robin (Jul 30, 2018)

grovesy said:


> I have seen many posts from people saying when they go to sign up they are asked to subscribe.





Bubbsie said:


> Subscribe to what grovesy...I have just had some friends join the other site...there was no charge to join DCUK's own low carb programme.


I think like a lot of apps, there is a free 'Lite' version, but the full one costs £30.


----------



## Emma Lowery (Jul 30, 2018)

I think that the red site is certainly useful and I have used it to get information at times. I prefer this forum personally as I find it to be clearer in how it is laid out and there are not so many different sub categories. Also I find that people are less judgemental here and often opinions can be a little harsh on the red site.


----------



## Bubbsie (Jul 30, 2018)

Robin said:


> I think like a lot of apps, there is a free 'Lite' version, but the full one costs £30.


That sums it up nicely Robin...I have never payed for any low carb advice there...you can manage perfectly well on the information on site without any additions...the whole point is about choice...what we choose to do...how we choose to manage our diabetes & what we feel most comfortable with...well put.


----------



## grovesy (Jul 30, 2018)

Bubbsie said:


> That sums it up nicely Robin...I have never payed for any low carb advice there...you can manage perfectly well on the information on site without any additions...the whole point is about choice...what we choose to do...how we choose to manage our diabetes & what we feel most comfortable with...well put.


I think it must as Robin has said. 
I just view the site, and know I have read many complaints about them wanting a subscription  fee, when it is touted as free.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Jul 30, 2018)

I lost interest in hanging out there when I figured out it was pretty much a commercial thing - aggregate a community, sell them to advertisers, sell stuff to them, maybe get some investors in, maybe flog it to Google & then roll around in big piles of cash like Scrooge McDuck. Or whatever. Digging into the directors didn't give me a lot of confidence.

Like I say, it does have usefully-organised starter content & no doubt a lot of the people associated with it are decent & committed. But I'd always have some doubts about motivation & I don't really feel the need to be "monetized".


----------



## Bubbsie (Jul 30, 2018)

Eddy Edson said:


> I lost interest in hanging out there when I figured out it was pretty much a commercial thing - aggregate a community, sell them to advertisers, sell stuff to them, maybe get some investors in, maybe flog it to Google & then roll around in big piles of cash like Scrooge McDuck. Or whatever. Digging into the directors didn't give me a lot of confidence.
> 
> Like I say, it does have usefully-organised starter content & no doubt a lot of the people associated with it are decent & committed. But I'd always have some doubts about motivation & I don't really feel the need to be "monetized".


There's money involved in all diabetes 'work/research'...be it commercial or charitable...none of them can fund themselves...DCUK is run by commercial money there's no doubt about that...DUK has to be funded many of their sponsors are commercial...Google...BUPA & Tesco's to name but a few...none of them would be able to offer a service without committed funds from whatever source...unfortunately as trite as it sounds money does indeed make the world go round.


----------



## travellor (Jul 30, 2018)

Eddy Edson said:


> I lost interest in hanging out there when I figured out it was pretty much a commercial thing - aggregate a community, sell them to advertisers, sell stuff to them, maybe get some investors in, maybe flog it to Google & then roll around in big piles of cash like Scrooge McDuck. Or whatever. Digging into the directors didn't give me a lot of confidence.
> 
> Like I say, it does have usefully-organised starter content & no doubt a lot of the people associated with it are decent & committed. But I'd always have some doubts about motivation & I don't really feel the need to be "monetized".



I agree entirely, It seems to me only have interest to one very fixed focus group, the ethos seems to be to get them in, get the rest out, then sell their details on for testing/trials, and to promote books from like minded sites.
Facebook is similar if you look.
I've just have a quick look at the low calorie forum, it's almost like it's bombed in almost every post, no support, just the creed that low calorie is bad for you, do low carb instead.
Even posts referring to Professor Taylor's studies get dismissed out of hand by some, and no active moderation to control the forum responses when they go that way.

What were the profits for the site last year, if it was £250k this year?

Is the business model working?


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 30, 2018)

To me it’s whether you prefer Nescafé or Kenco coffee. There isn’t any real difference apart from the commercial aspect, which I personally dislike. I’m not keen on the separation of T1 and T2 either - we can all learn from each other. As far as advertising and promotion goes, use your brain - Tesco and other supermarkets have an expanding Vegan section, but you’re not forced to eat it.

But it’s whatever floats your boat. I prefer the atmosphere on this forum, and it’s freedom from official DUK policy in the past.


----------



## Bubbsie (Jul 30, 2018)

travellor said:


> I agree entirely, It seems to only have interest to one very fixed focus group, the ethos seems to be to get them in, get the rest out, then sell their details on for testing/trials, and to promote books from like minded sites.
> Facebook is similar if you look.
> I've just have a quick look at the low calorie forum, it's bombed in almost every post, no support, just the creed that low calorie is bad for you, do low carb instead.
> Even posts referring to Professor Taylor's studies get dismissed out of hand by some, and no active moderation to control the forum responses when they go that way.
> ...


You should address those concerns with DCUK...I'm sure they'd be happy to answer them.


----------



## travellor (Jul 30, 2018)

Bubbsie said:


> You should address those concerns with DCUK...I'm sure they'd be happy to answer them.



Why, I didn't start this thread, it's just my personal opinion, I'm no expert, I don't have any interest in joining, those are my reasons why. It's a free discussion isn't it? All I'm saying is I prefer the atmosphere on this forum.
And as was said, they allow discussions like this one, which is good.


----------



## Bubbsie (Jul 30, 2018)

travellor said:


> Why, I didn't start this thread, it's just my personal opinion, I'm no expert, I don't have any interest in joining, those are my reasons why. It's a free discussion isn't it? All I'm saying is I prefer the atmosphere on this forum.


Have a look at @mikeyB's post I think that about sums things up for me...in line with the comments I have already made...money is at the heart of all of the forums as distasteful as it may be on health related issues.


----------



## Ruby/London (Jul 30, 2018)

This is like deja vu for me.  For my sins, I moderated a Glasgow discussion forum for years - and all through the independence debate.  I have never fathomed why people have to create online allegiances like this and make them public?  This issue was so toxic that people joining both forums would do so using different names to avoid been seen as in some way disloyal.

Unless something is obviously misleading or dangerous in the advice it is putting out there, surely, as adults, we are capable of making sensible choices about the information we access and contribute to without needing to make a issue out of it?  Personally, as someone who has been involved a wee bit in website design, I can't abide red text - no matter how good the information might be. 

... As the women in the advert says, when informed by her teenager daughter that her friend's mother is really cool ... good for her/it!


----------



## Bubbsie (Jul 30, 2018)

Ruby/London said:


> This is like deja vu for me.  For my sins, I moderated a Glasgow discussion forum for years - and all through the independence debate.  I have never fathomed why people have to create online allegiances like this and make them public?  This issue was so toxic that people joining both forums would do so using different names to avoid been seen as in some way disloyal.
> 
> Unless something is obviously misleading or dangerous in the advice it is putting out there, surely, as adults, we are capable of making sensible choices about the information we access and contribute to without needing to make a issue out of it?  Personally, as someone who has been involved a wee bit in website design, I can't abide red text - no matter how good the information might be.
> 
> ... As the women in the advert says, when informed by her teenager daughter that her friend's mother is really cool ... good for her/it!


That made me laugh Ruby...well said.


----------



## travellor (Jul 30, 2018)

Ruby/London said:


> This is like deja vu for me.  For my sins, I moderated a Glasgow discussion forum for years - and all through the independence debate.  I have never fathomed why people have to create online allegiances like this and make them public?  This issue was so toxic that people joining both forums would do so using different names to avoid been seen as in some way disloyal.
> 
> Unless something is obviously misleading or dangerous in the advice it is putting out there, surely, as adults, we are capable of making sensible choices about the information we access and contribute to without needing to make a issue out of it?  Personally, as someone who has been involved a wee bit in website design, I can't abide red text - no matter how good the information might be.
> 
> ... As the women in the advert says, when informed by her teenager daughter that her friend's mother is really cool ... good for her/it!



There is always a herd mentality.
Sensible choices quite often disappear, when the need to be seen as part of a group takes over.
It gives a sense of belonging.
All you have to do is look at the "likes".
When it becomes circular, and the same small group universally like every post another member has made, regardless of what the post is, you see the herd mentality has developed.


----------



## Northerner (Jul 30, 2018)

travellor said:


> When it becomes circular, and the same small group universally like every post another member has made, regardless of what the post is, you see the herd mentality has developed.


I'm tempted to 'like' that


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch (Jul 30, 2018)

As others have stated it's a matter of preference. I'm not keen on the other place. I prefer the style, format and other members on here


----------



## Bubbsie (Jul 30, 2018)

Northerner said:


> I'm tempted to 'like' that


Obviously


----------



## Amigo (Jul 30, 2018)

travellor said:


> There is always a herd mentality.
> Sensible choices quite often disappear, when the need to be seen as part of a group takes over.
> It gives a sense of belonging.
> All you have to do is look at the "likes".
> When it becomes circular, and the same small group universally like every post another member has made, regardless of what the post is, you see the herd mentality has developed.



That was at precisely the point my interest dwindled. I don’t do ‘herd’.


----------



## Ruby/London (Jul 30, 2018)

travellor said:


> There is always a herd mentality.
> Sensible choices quite often disappear, when the need to be seen as part of a group takes over.
> It gives a sense of belonging.
> All you have to do is look at the "likes".
> When it becomes circular, and the same small group universally like every post another member has made, regardless of what the post is, you see the herd mentality has developed.


----------



## Ralph-YK (Jul 30, 2018)

travellor said:


> I'll sure a link to the "other site" will clear up any confusion about the charge of £30 to join.
> 
> https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/low-carb-program.154437/
> 
> The suggestion by members does indeed appear to be not to pay.





Robin said:


> I think like a lot of apps, there is a free 'Lite' version, but the full one costs £30.


One of the posts in the thread mentions freemiun.  You get a bit of it for free, to get you hooked. Then you have to pay £30 to get the rest.
From what's said in the thread, you are def asked for money. If you don't pay what you get is limited.

I've not come across anything on the DUK website that you have to pay for.  And of course the forum is entirely free (as in lunch. I hope there's actually free speech too).  Something you do have to pay for is the Diabetes UK helpline.  When the peer support was still running, that had the option of using email, which was free.
There is some info that you can in printed form for free.

It's actually an interesting, how does the forum managing with no subscription/donations nor advertising.


----------



## Ralph-YK (Jul 30, 2018)

Amigo said:


> That was at precisely the point my interest dwindled. I don’t do ‘herd’.





Ruby/London said:


>


On one (unrelated) forum I visited, you get a thread of 20 posts, 19 of which would say exactly the same thing. Repeatedly.  It was a really active group.


----------



## Diabetes UK (Jul 30, 2018)

Ralph-YK said:


> I've not come across anything on the DUK website that you have to pay for.  And of course the forum is entirely free (as in lunch. I hope there's actually free speech too).  Something you do have to pay for is the Diabetes UK helpline.  When the peer support was still running, that had the option of using email, which was free.
> There is some info that you can in printed form for free.
> 
> It's actually an interesting, how does the forum managing with no subscription/donations nor advertising.



Indeed this forum is free. It is supported by the generous donations from DUK supporters and the volunteer moderators and hosts who kindly give up their free time to ensure the smooth running of the forum.  

The only cost for the DUK Helpline, is the cost of the phone call which is a standard, local rate. They also operate through email, live web chat and more recently, respond to queries through social media as well - all of which are free. As you mention, DUK information is free - leaflets that can be printed can also be posted from the Helpline team free of charge. As a charity, of course money is required to be able to provide these services or run this forum, else we would need to ask for payment. We rely on the kind donations from supporters, and as was mentioned, some corporate partnerships who fund specific projects, to enable us to make sure that a range of support options are freely available to everyone. Unlike a commercial company, this is not profit-driven and funds go back into developing services, campaigning for change, funding research or supporting healthcare professionals to improve their practice.


----------



## AJLang (Jul 30, 2018)

Bubbsie said:


> Have a look at @mikeyB's post I think that about sums things up for me...in line with the comments I have already made...money is at the heart of all of the forums as distasteful as it may be on health related issues.


This forum was set up by an indivual diabetic because she knew nobody else with diabetes and felt that there must be others in the same situation. It was absolutely not set up with regard to profit. If you're going to post something contentious please get your facts straight.


----------



## Matt Cycle (Jul 30, 2018)

I'm Type 1, I like sport, I don't need to lose weight, I don't follow LCHF, I don't think all carbs are evil.  Having been a member of both forums (albeit the other one only for a short while) and aside from the unpleasantness which was the main reason I left that one there wasn't much on there to keep me interested and having just had a look it hasn't changed and it seems a number of T1's feel the same.  Although the odd k**bhead and zealot appears on here  I much prefer this one.


----------



## Bubbsie (Jul 30, 2018)

AJLang said:


> This forum was set up by an indivual diabetic because she knew nobody else with diabetes and felt that there must be others in the same situation. It was absolutely not set up with regard to profit. If you're going to post something contentious please get your facts straight.


You have the wrong end  of the stick here AJ...there's nothing in my post that infers...suggests or states DUK are a profit driven organisation...it is funded by sponsors...those sponsors are commercial enterprises...that is what my post and other posts here have said...even @Hannah DUK from DUK acknowledges the need for funding 





Hannah DUK said:


> some corporate partnerships who fund specific projects, to enable us to make sure that a range of support options are freely available to everyone.


...perhaps you need to read the posts again and get your facts right...without funding forums would not be able to operate...whether they are commercial or charitable.


----------



## Ruby/London (Jul 30, 2018)

If you're here, you're here and if you're there, you're there and if you post on both forums, then something must be working for you  I am not sure why people are using energy to post about a forum they don't like ...


----------



## Matt Cycle (Jul 30, 2018)

Ruby/London said:


> I am not sure why people are using energy to post about a forum they don't like ...



Exercise.


----------



## travellor (Jul 30, 2018)

Ralph-YK said:


> One of the posts in the thread mentions freemiun.  You get a bit of it for free, to get you hooked. Then you have to pay £30 to get the rest.
> From what's said in the thread, you are def asked for money. If you don't pay what you get is limited.
> 
> I've not come across anything on the DUK website that you have to pay for.  And of course the forum is entirely free (as in lunch. I hope there's actually free speech too).  Something you do have to pay for is the Diabetes UK helpline.  When the peer support was still running, that had the option of using email, which was free.
> ...



Lets mention the advocacy

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/how_we_help/helpline/your-rights

Free service, 0345 number, included in most call packages


----------



## Flutterby (Jul 30, 2018)

This thread reminds me of the Aldi advert "I like this one but I like this one too" 

There are plenty of diabetics (I know it should be PWD, politically incorrect!) to go round. Everyone use whichever forum you want or pick and mix, tis a free country (or so we are led to believe)


----------



## Ruby/London (Jul 30, 2018)

When did the competition start?  Is there a cash prize?


----------



## travellor (Jul 30, 2018)

Ruby/London said:


> When did the competition start?  Is there a cash prize?



Maybe a badge?
I suspect Matt Cycle was right, the odd zealot appears on here, recruiting, and showing us the error of our ways!


----------



## Ruby/London (Jul 30, 2018)

... and the winner of  the "my forum's better than your forum" competition is -  the discerning poster who optimises their forum choices, without the need to disparage or rubbish the forum choices of others.

Sorry folks, can't take this seriously ...


----------



## Flutterby (Jul 30, 2018)

Ruby/London said:


> ... and the winner of  the "my forum's better than your forum" competition is -  the discerning poster who optimises their forum choices, without the need to disparage or rubbish the forum choices of others.
> 
> Sorry folks, can't take this seriously ...



When my sister and her best friend used to have this sort of "debate" my dad, with his dry humour, would say "my Granny's got more hairs on her chin than yours" One day, the friend overheard and asked, "has she?" I have never forgotten that!

By the way, no disrespect intended to the original poster, it's just all got a bit daft.


----------



## travellor (Jul 30, 2018)

Ruby/London said:


> ... and the winner of  the "my forum's better than your forum" competition is -  the discerning poster who optimises their forum choices, without the need to disparage or rubbish the forum choices of others.
> 
> Sorry folks, can't take this seriously ...



Is anyone (other than the op) serious?

I do hope not, that would be sad.

(Actually, maybe the op wasn't, maybe it was just chucking a firework through the letterbox)


----------



## Carolg (Jul 30, 2018)

Amigo said:


> That was at precisely the point my interest dwindled. I don’t do ‘herd’.


Dare I press like, will I won’t I, Och to hell, I am a loner of sorts but here goes...


----------



## Carolg (Jul 30, 2018)

Carolg said:


> Dare I press like, will I won’t I, Och to hell, I am a loner of sorts but here goes...


Come on folks, can we aim for a herd of at least 10 likes


----------



## travellor (Jul 30, 2018)

Carolg said:


> Come on folks, can we aim for a herd of at least 10 likes


That's the beauty of this site. 
No likes are visible to anyone.
It's as if they never existed.
Every site should be the same.


----------



## rossi_mac (Jul 30, 2018)

I like the tartan one.


----------



## travellor (Jul 30, 2018)

rossi_mac said:


> I like the tartan one.



Never mention the clan.......!


----------



## rossi_mac (Jul 30, 2018)

There can be only one!!!!


----------



## travellor (Jul 31, 2018)

I intend to burn out!

Not die in my sleep, I want to see it coming.


----------



## Bubbsie (Jul 31, 2018)

travellor said:


> That's the beauty of this site.
> No likes are visible to anyone.
> It's as if they never existed.
> Every site should be the same.


Really?...well I can see you have 61 likes...that's clearly visible.


----------



## travellor (Jul 31, 2018)

Bubbsie said:


> Really?...well I can see you have 61 likes...that's clearly visible.


No ones are visible on the  forum page I see thankfully.
Maybe there is a way to turn them off.


----------



## Amigo (Jul 31, 2018)

travellor said:


> No ones are visible on the  forum page I see thankfully.
> Maybe there is a way to turn them off.



They’re on your profile page.


----------



## Bubbsie (Jul 31, 2018)

Amigo said:


> They’re on your profile page.


Or just a simple click on any members avatar will suffice Amigo if anyone else here apart from travellor is interested


----------



## travellor (Jul 31, 2018)

I've never looked at anyone's profile page, including my own.


----------



## Amigo (Jul 31, 2018)

Bubbsie said:


> Or just a simple click on any members avatar will suffice Amigo if anyone else here apart from travellor is interested



Yes that’s really what I meant Bubbsie. I only check profiles for any background information if I think it might help or inform the advice I give. It’s up to us how much we choose to divulge on there of course.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Jul 31, 2018)

travellor said:


> That's the beauty of this site.
> No likes are visible to anyone.
> It's as if they never existed.
> Every site should be the same.



Likes are a useful tool for people to support or encourage other posters even when they don't feel they have anything they particularly want to add to the conversation. Unfortunately, as you have said before, they can also have a fairly detrimental effect, where some people join together to form 'mutual like cooperatives' always liking each other's posts to artificially boost their count treating it as if it were some sort of competition or ranking system, which is not the intention of the function at all. I've certainly seen this happening on other forums.

What interests me about this discussion, is not only the positive nature of having choices, but also the line that seems to be blurring between organisations and their forums. It has been heartening to see members standing up for the information and support they receive here (and it's only natural - why would they still be members if there was nothing here they found useful!). The OP seemed to suggest that Diabetes UK's links with some corporate sponsors (perhaps cereal manufacturers or food industry) will definitely be having a direct effect on the posts that individual members of the public make here. Other people are uneasy about the for-profit nature of the company behind DCUK and that is enough to deter them from engaging with that forum and other resources on the site. Still other members are happily members of both and are either defending the information and support found in each or had experiences that led them to prefer one over the other.

As @AJLang stated, this forum was initially run on an absolute shoestring completely editorially independent of DUK - set up by one person with a passion, and with a tiny amount of sponsorship by DUK to support hosting. It is only relatively recently that DUK have been supporting the forum more substantially and have helped to raise its profile and spread the support and information it gives to many more people.

A casual flick through the boards clearly shows the independence of content remains. No member or moderator here has to sign a charter to comply with any position on anything diabetes-related. If members think DUK are doing good things, they can join projects or campaigns. If members think DUK have dropped the ball, or are not doing enough - they are able (and frequently do!) say so. Believe me, if there were any kind of 'party line' that needed to be toed, and all posts needed to be checked to make sure only official DUK-sanctioned advice was offered, my position as a moderator would be much MUCH busier and I would not be doing it - on principle.

Personally I'm pleased that choice and options exist - and I'm pleased that this forum is supported by a big organisation that can promote it, encourage it, and spread it's support to more people. I am also really pleased that they take a light touch, and that we can still post whatever we want, within reason, and within user guidelines that keep this place supportive and running smoothly.


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Jul 31, 2018)

I use both sites................this was my first forum though after DAFNE Online......

there's different crowds, but its all much the same to me......


----------



## Martin Canty (Jul 31, 2018)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> It has been heartening to see members standing up for the information and support they receive here (and it's only natural - why would they still be members if there was nothing here they found useful!)


That's exactly why I no longer frequent the ADA forum; it was not supportive & there was a lot of in-fighting regarding peoples stances on topics.

This forum has (for the most part) a very even, supportive tone.... Yes, we can disagree with subjects & approaches to managing D, but generally we approach the discussions with respect. However, in recent months, I have seen a shift to a rather contentious style of discussion; the latest example resulting in an potentially interesting discussion being shut down after unfounded accusations being banded about.....


----------



## Ralph-YK (Jul 31, 2018)

I get notifications if an individual post of mine is liked, and by whom. If I check the post, all likers for that post are listed.
I'm sure at some point I could see that others posts had been liked.
On a profile, I think it just tells you total likes.
I remember on a tech forum some years ago some people took the forum auto "sub naming(?)" (noobie, well known member, guru etc) as a ranking.  It's just an arbitrary reflection of the number of posts made.
[Edit] Yes, I've just spotted someone has three likes on a post, and by whom.


----------



## Ralph-YK (Jul 31, 2018)

I'm not sure how much it's how I remember it compared to other sites, and how different it is.  There has definitely been a change in the profile pictures I see.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Jul 31, 2018)

Ralph-YK said:


> I remember on a tech forum some years ago some people took the forum auto "sub naming(?)" (noobie, well known member, guru etc) as a ranking.  It's just an arbitrary reflection of the number of posts made.



Indeed. And forum software forums (!) where various forum admins compare notes about the software itself often have threads on how to prevent people cluttering their forums with countless pointless '+1' or 'I agree' or 'Yes' posts purely to artificially inflate their own post count. 

Quite why people get competitive in this way is a complete mystery to me!


----------



## Martin Canty (Jul 31, 2018)

I must say that in my 2958 posts I have never really considered the 2469 likes (which is 83% of my total number of posts)


----------



## Ralph-YK (Jul 31, 2018)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Indeed. And forum software forums (!) where various forum admins compare notes about the software itself often have threads on how to prevent people cluttering their forums with countless pointless '+1' or 'I agree' or 'Yes' posts purely to artificially inflate their own post count.


Oh, some places have rules on that. One word posts (or pointless ones) can get you removed/banned from that section of the forum.
As can persistent posts saying "I've sent you a pm". Or " pm me".


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Jul 31, 2018)

Ralph-YK said:


> Oh, some places have rules on that. One word posts (or pointless ones) can get you removed/banned from that section of the forum.



Yes 'likes' were designed by software engineers to help with that, because (in theory) they were being collected as a result of genuinely helpful or supportive conduct by the community at large. Sadly though, as has been mentioned, on some forums 'likes' simply caused a different problem and have fallen foul of coordinated mischief and misplaced competitive behaviour.


----------



## Bubbsie (Jul 31, 2018)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> and I'm pleased that this forum is supported by a big organisation that can promote it, encourage it, and spread it's support to more people. I am also really pleased that they take a light touch, and that we can still post whatever we want, within reason, and within user guidelines that keep this place supportive and running smoothly.





everydayupsanddowns said:


> Indeed. And forum software forums (!) where various forum admins compare notes about the software itself often have threads on how to prevent people cluttering their forums with countless pointless '+1' or 'I agree' or 'Yes' posts purely to artificially inflate their own post count.
> 
> Quite why people get competitive in this way is a complete mystery to me!


I once had a pm from a member to explain the 1000 likes they had been awarded overnight by a member unknow to them...they thought I might be concerned...since I had no interest I did not bother to reply


----------



## Amigo (Jul 31, 2018)

Competitive scoring charts have no place on health forums in my view. A ‘like’ should be a genuine expression of agreement or appreciation regardless of the author of the post.


----------



## Bubbsie (Jul 31, 2018)

Amigo said:


> Competitive scoring charts have no place on health forums in my view. A ‘like’ should be a genuine expression of agreement or appreciation regardless of the author of the post.


Agree unequivocally Amigo...although I have liked your post...for the right reason I hasten to add.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Jul 31, 2018)

Amigo said:


> Competitive scoring charts have no place on health forums in my view. A ‘like’ should be a genuine expression of agreement or appreciation regardless of the author of the post.



Absolutely @Amigo. Competitive like-farming, or competition of any sort (my HbA1c is better than your HbA1c blah blah blah) are entirely unhelpful and have no place on forums like this IMO.


----------



## travellor (Jul 31, 2018)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Absolutely @Amigo. Competitive like-farming, or competition of any sort (my HbA1c is better than your HbA1c blah blah blah) are entirely unhelpful and have no place on forums like this IMO.



Another reason why I like this forum.
Just good, helpful, support.


----------



## Ruby/London (Jul 31, 2018)

If this was fantasy football I'd definitely be up for a bit of competition between different forums.  Amigo hits the nail on the head; health should not be a competitive issue.  Personally, I think it is quite distasteful rubbishing any site that has been set up to help people because it is not to a person's particular liking.  Why would anyone want to undermine other people's choices when they are looking for and needing help and support?  Sadly, I think this "have a go" discussion undermines the good work of both sites.


----------



## Ralph-YK (Jul 31, 2018)

Ruby/London said:


> health should not be a competitive issue.


" 'Your shoulder hurts!'  You don't know what pain is, let me tell your about my knee..."


----------



## Ruby/London (Jul 31, 2018)

OMG, I  had a brother in law like that.  If someone had a stomach ache he had an ulcer!


----------



## trophywench (Aug 1, 2018)

LOL - to begin with they used Diabetes UK logo on everything - so DUK had to *make* them remove it since it was copyright - so to begin with they started by trying to ruddy well scam people which has never sat well with me.  Yes I lurked on there - but unfortunately one day when the Low Carb police (aka the Moderators) were on the warpath and I posted to comment that not every single T2 ever needs to go mega low carb and that each T2 needs to 'Test, Review and Adjust' to their own individual bodily tolerances - my post was removed within about 30 seconds and I was banned.  I did idly wonder one day last year what the state of play was on there but I am still banned, neither am I allowed to re-register since I still have the same email address and I'll be buggered if I'm going to change THAT.

Furthermore some years ago Warwick University - who were doing shedloads of medical research in the field of diabetes produced a training guide for T2s.  Sort of, like DAFNE for T2s.  They were approached by that lot to ask if they could promote it?  This was actively being considered by the Uni and it was mentioned to the lay diabetes user group at the medical school to see what the group thought about it.  We pointed out that it was a purely commercial site and expressed surprise at their approach.

Turned out the site wanted the Uni to PAY for the privilege!  Hence - it never went any further.  Where the hell did they expect a uni medical school to get the funds from to do that?


----------



## Ruby/London (Aug 1, 2018)

Charities try to raise memory in all sorts of ways to support their work.  I don't see anything offensive in that.  I also don't see why people accessing information and support have to be drawn into the politics of two operating health sites.  I don't see how that helps forum members at all.


----------



## trophywench (Aug 1, 2018)

AJLang said:


> This forum was set up by an indivual diabetic because she knew nobody else with diabetes and felt that there must be others in the same situation. It was absolutely not set up with regard to profit. If you're going to post something contentious please get your facts straight.



Well before some bright spark invented the concept of internet forums, there were self help and interest groups collectively known as News Groups.  There was one entitled Alt/support/diabetes and some people originally met on there - Australian bloke called Alan Shanley was one, a guy called Trinkwasser another, and a lady by the name of Pattidevans another one.

Furthermore Bubbsie there is a diabetes forum and website which was started before this one, by a volunteer and funded personally by him.  The name was Diabetes Insight - but he suddenly lost all interest so said he was closing it all - hence some of the members decided to start their own and thus diabetes-support.org.uk was born - funded and owned by Patti personally and programmed by a Type 1 journalist (nowt involving diabetes, still isn't involved in diabetes journalism) called Terry.  No advertising, no commercial involvement whatsoever and still funded but later - and still - by all the members, not just Patti herself.  It is NOT 'just all about money' at all.

Some people - whether you are prepared to accept this Fact of Life or not - want to repay what they have been fortunate enough to have learned from the World Wide Web at no cost to themselves - instead have lived and continue to live far easier lives with their diabetes and want to help others who have been dealt the same health problems too.  I was one of the Founder Members of DSF and remain a Moderator on it concurrently as well as being a Supporting Member of Diabetes UK, OUR Charity, since 1972 and a member of this forum.  DSF has never followed the Eatwell Plate either - and we also had a specific Preg section which has helped numerous ladies started very quickly after it was founded.  The first such babies must have been at Junior school by the time this forum started a preg section! LOL

Here endeth the History and Facts of Life lesson for today.


----------



## Vince_UK (Aug 1, 2018)

Ruby/London said:


> If this was fantasy football I'd definitely be up for a bit of competition between different forums.  Amigo hits the nail on the head; health should not be a competitive issue.  Personally, I think it is quite distasteful rubbishing any site that has been set up to help people because it is not to a person's particular liking.  Why would anyone want to undermine other people's choices when they are looking for and needing help and support?  Sadly, I think this "have a go" discussion undermines the good work of both sites.





Ruby/London said:


> Charities try to raise memory in all sorts of ways to support their work.  I don't see anything offensive in that.  I also don't see why people accessing information and support have to be drawn into the politics of two operating health sites.  I don't see how that helps forum members at all.


This is exactly how I view things I am afraid.
I also feel that there is some confusion developing between Sites and Forums.
We, as human beings, have the intellectual ability  to make choices in life. We go to where we, as individuals, believe we can gain the most benefit that is the best for us.
Not everyone will agree with our choices or direction we follow but that is up to each one person surely.
I use both sites and glean from each information I feel I could use, my choice. Forums, I have only ever posted on this one, again my choice. I did use the other forum very briefly but I found it difficult to navigate through and I couldn't access it from Shanghai.  If there is  a programme which I find beneficial and it costs me £29.99 to use the tools then so be it. My choice as to whether I pay or not. As they say there is no such thing as a free lunch everything has to be paid for or funded on some way or another.  No one forces us to do anything. Both sites will have supporters and detractors, we should leave it at that and accept differences in opinions.
However, this approach that my apple is redder and more juicey that yours I find totally unneccesary and absolutely unhelpful. 
I have therefore, taken the decision to take a break and wish everyone the every best for their futures in whatever they do.


----------



## Bubbsie (Aug 1, 2018)

trophywench said:


> Well before some bright spark invented the concept of internet forums, there were self help and interest groups collectively known as News Groups.  There was one entitled Alt/support/diabetes and some people originally met on there - Australian bloke called Alan Shanley was one, a guy called Trinkwasser another, and a lady by the name of Pattidevans another one.
> 
> Furthermore Bubbsie there is a diabetes forum and website which was started before this one, by a volunteer and funded personally by him.  The name was Diabetes Insight - but he suddenly lost all interest so said he was closing it all - hence some of the members decided to start their own and thus diabetes-support.org.uk was born - funded and owned by Patti personally and programmed by a Type 1 journalist (nowt involving diabetes, still isn't involved in diabetes journalism) called Terry.  No advertising, no commercial involvement whatsoever and still funded but later - and still - by all the members, not just Patti herself.  It is NOT 'just all about money' at all.
> 
> ...


Here endeth the lesson?...really...history TW this is not how things are nowadays...any site takes money and one on this scale costs a lot of money...we all pay for what we get...one way or another...sponsors...charitable tax breaks...whether we like to accept the irony of charity costing money...a lot of money that IS the reality nowadays...gone are the days of the cosy network groups...the small independent pioneers...I agree with @Ruby/London and @Vince_UK … what does it matter where we get our information from...whether we choose to pay extra for that or not...individual choice is what it's about for me & others...a fact of life lesson...no...it's in the past TW...lets leave that where it belongs and move forward as we should.


----------



## Ruby/London (Aug 1, 2018)

Come back soon, Vince and I hope you get better inflight meals this time.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Aug 1, 2018)

Bubbsie said:


> Here endeth the lesson?...really...history TW this is not how things are nowadays...any site takes money and one on this scale costs a lot of money...we all pay for what we get...one way or another...sponsors...charitable tax breaks...whether we like to accept the irony of charity costing money...a lot of money that IS the reality nowadays...gone are the days of the cosy network groups...the small independent pioneers...



I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. I can think of several current social media initiatives and websites which continue to be run voluntarily either entirely or almost entirely without external financial support. In fact there was a hoohah a few years back regarding the financial goings-on behind the scenes for one UK based social media initiative which was subsequently 'reclaimed' for want of a better word by the community and continues to run on a voluntary basis.

I agree that as the scale of sites and projects grow it becomes more challenging to run and maintain them on a purely independent voluntary basis but it IS still happening. Those days are not as long gone as you suggest.

However, as @Vince_UK points out there's a great deal of difference between funding sources of websites and the actual content of forums themselves - a forum being supported by a company/charity and a forum being dismissed ('_there is greater support and information elsewhere_') because of uneasiness over some of the sources of donations to DUK. Or another forum being dismissed because it is part of a commercial enterprise. We need to respect other organisations and places, and judge them on our own experience.

I think we all agree that choice is a good thing. And that people are absolutely free to choose whichever forum or forums suit their particular needs, content and conversational style.

This thread has been interesting, but seems to have become rather circular in nature, and because some members have expressed concern that it exists at all, I am going to close it.


----------

