The change of format, and frequent bans for callous (but honest) replies drove some eminent contributors away (PNL amongst others, for example).
Now those lacking formal qualification have been targeted, and some will doubtless leave (I may be one of them).
Who's next. Are sift going to pitch ACA against ACCA, or ATT/CTA against ACA/ACCA. Surely CIMA are a prime target next. No real bedfellows.
AAT - who are we kidding. We don't need any barely trained accounts people on AWeb.
Bookkeepers are just taking up space.
And poor old Tom, working in industry. Easy pickings.
Who do you reckon is next to go?
Replies (84)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
I quite liked it, we were down in early March taking daughter's stuff to Nottingham where she now lives, we turned around and came back up and stopped overnight in Durham, visited cathedral in morning (which is stunning) had hot chocolate with mallows in coffee shop up near cathedral then went over to Stadium of Light and then home to Edinburgh after. A Grand Two Days Out. (and now likely to be our sole 2020 holiday)
Thanks for the "deference" - I was lucky enough to be an undergraduate when WT Baxter was the prof - it was a privilege to have been one
Thanks for the "deference" - I was lucky enough to be an undergraduate when WT Baxter was the prof - it was a privilege to have been one
Thanks for the "deference" - I was lucky enough to be an undergraduate when WT Baxter was the prof - it was a privilege to have been one
Thanks for the "deference" - I was lucky enough to be an undergraduate when WT Baxter was the prof - it was a privilege to have been one
At university I read more journal articles by Baxter than by any other individual, back then they were /had been usually published in TAM or the ICAEW magazine (when both were worth reading).
I'd like to challenge the logic of the original question.
Steve is asserting that we are targeting unqualified accountants and trying to drive them from the site along with AATs, ATTs, CIMA members and bookkeepers.
Nothing can be further from the truth. We are trying to be a site that caters for the whole spectrum of the accounting profession and can accommodate interactions with outsiders who have issues they want to raise. That's always been our objective.
What I would like to see is a respectful, grown up conversation around all of the issues that matter to members where we can accommodate differing perspectives and points of view. That's how we learn new information.
I do remember times gone by for both the good things and the bad. But having returned to the front line, I could see a growing level of snark and had clear evidence from multiple sources that it was steering visitors away from getting involved.
That's the only thing we want to drive from the site, and the co-operation of longstanding community members in that effort would be greatly appreciated.
You literally posted a question yesterday that, despite your backpedalling, said that unqualified were a problem.
This is the real problem with this site. It states that it is for the accountancy profession, but berates people for telling "outsiders" that they need professional advice. (Which is the best advice for most outsiders because they don't know enough to understand answers or present all relevant information) It claims to be for the whole profession but has a leading staff member post a query saying unqualifieds are an issue.
Yes, there was roughness to responses in the old days. I'm not going to deny that. But i think the growing level of snark is down to frustration with this site consistently failing to be what it claims to be.
I'm going to give you some advice, which feels weird as it looks like you're much older than me, but here goes.
When my wife and I used to argue about trivial tings, I would argue back, there would be a lot of back and forth and the argument escalated and dragged on. Even when I was in the right, and had a completely valid argument (which was all the time if she was honest), for some reason she didn't want to listen. She wanted to feel aggrieved and whinge to her pals on the phone about how unfair it all was.
I learned the trick to not prolonging these bizarre engagements was to just leave her to it. She goes off in her huff, stamps her feet a bit and whinges to someone who'll listen, but ultimately cools down much quicker as I've not added fuel to her rage by arguing. She normally slinks back not long after with the sort of tone that acknowledges she's been a bit of a screwball without actually saying so.
I'd suggest you adopt a similar approach here.
Every time you have an input it adds duel to the existing thread, and leads to another thread being opened up for further arguments to be had. You've already stuck your foot in a steaming pile of [***]. Sit down and take your shoes off rather than spreading it around everywhere as the stink is driving folk away.
"I could see a growing level of snark and had clear evidence from multiple sources that it was steering visitors away from getting involved".
Here's how I see it; there's been a growing level of dissent, from a variety of contributors, who've grown sick and tired of seeing posts appear, which have been replied to, only for the (anon) OP to delete the post, within hours. There's been a growing level of dissent, from a variety of contributors, who see naivety, beyond belief, in some of the (downright ridiculous) enquiries, which have been raised.
There's a growing dissent John, from a variety of contributors, who are sick and tired of you never being wrong. We all have our shortcomings. It just takes b4lls to admit to them, on occasions.
You want a different conversation to the posters
Posters are concerned with accountants who are incompetent, incapable of basic research and look like beginners BUT who are acting for clients.
They damage the profession.
Qualifications are irrelevant. Skill and competency are relevant.
Small sized practices come across this issue much more than the guests you had on board.
Posters are concerned with accountants who are incompetent, incapable of basic research and look like beginners BUT who are acting for clients.
They damage the profession.
Qualifications are irrelevant. Skill and competency are relevant.
Small sized practices come across this issue much more than the guests you had on board.
I agree with this sentiment, Paul, and I would hope that that's John's intention too, however his recent question was interpreted. Cowboy accountants who are incompetent, incapable of basic research and look like beginners BUT who are acting for clients do indeed damage the profession, and that, surely, is where the debate should be aimed. (Apologies for going off thread and onto another.)
(Apologies for going off thread and onto another.)
If that's worthy of an apology, then I need to apologise for carrying the thoughts from both the threads you mention over into threads about IHT, property losses and anywhere else I've commented today!
Unbelievable! Also, following Paul Cowley's comment way above this one I now realise that some of my posts have been moderated. This is on the other,other thread where I rewrote the odd verse from a Genesis song which was some of my finest work. That has gone along with some ancillary comment from DJKL. I may have to repost!
"Deleting knocked off Genesis is just the beginning."
Nice one!
Looks like we are now at Exodus!
Leviticus sounds like a Harry Potter spell for leaving or lifting, Numbers is where all of us on here ought to shine.
Ancillary is a very polite way of describing my comments, it suggests they might have purpose.
As I just explained to Steve, the post was not deleted, it was caught by our automated filtering system for the use of a word that would offend American readers.
We will continue to let the debate continue as long as it is conducted in a civil manner that conforms to our community terms and conditions.
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/terms-and-conditions-of-use
And of course USA readers can have every need to understand the UK accountancy trade and conflicts therein.
Whoops is therein an affront to USA understanding?
The irony of this thread is it shows up the complete idiocy of the Aweb model, where there are more than just a few responses.
I posted a response, late last night (well, late for me anyhow) and it now appears within today's conversations. More a comment and observation. Certainly not a compliant m'lord.
John claims to want better behaviour and an end to the rudeness. Why then, I wonder, has the following remark not been removed despite two reports:
“ As you're just an idiotic troll I'll end there.”
I used to be a regular on here and even met some of you up in London for a get together. At its best AWEB can be brilliant ... I was able to completely restructure the fee income for my business using data given freely by over 40 members back in 2011. Like every forum it does, however, have a dark petty side and always did going right back pre-Sift. The difference now is that other on-line resources have matured and to be honest they come without the hassle. In the same way that Facebook has removed the need for club forums and their petty cliques, Google etc have made access to reference information so easy that unless you crave on-line company then I'm not sure why you would devote your precious time here or anywhere else.
Yet on one measure - number of questions being asked - Aweb appears to be thriving (compared with itself, say a year ago).
Disclaimer: I haven't done any analysis to confirm or refute that statement.