I was wondering on the possibilities and practicalities of adding a field for Professional Body a forum user is a member of.
Sometimes advice can be narrowed down if it is known a forum member is a member of a specific body. I appreciate this may have implications with certain bodies. The field would be optional anyway.
My thought was prompted by the recent discussion on Sage costs. I wondered if the person asking the question was a member of the ICB. My reply would have been based on that. I looked through previous posts by this member and couldn't find any indication so just gave a generic answer.
Looking at a profile of a member could simplify things. Especially when some of them talk about "Level III" and other qualifications - this could be anything, ICB, IAB, AAT....
Incidentally member is probably not the best word to use. (ooh err, missus - Beavis and Butthead laughter in the background). Belonging to a professional body might be more appropriate as you don't achieve member status with some of these professional bodies until you reach a certain level.
__________________
Never buy black socks from a normal shop. They shaft you every time.
I appreciate what your saying and know the thread that you're talking about (Now with a lot of gaps where discussion once was).
As an overall feeling though I don't think that we should start thinking about any change that might start segregating the members into sub groups. At the moment we have ICB, IAB, AAT, ATT, ACCA, CIMA, IFA, AIA and even one or two ICAEW's all conversing quite merrily on equal terms.
For bookkeeping questions the answers should be universal enough to cover any body and if the question is specific then people do tend to state the body that they are a member of.
The thing to ask yourself is if you were answering a question would you be so forthcoming if you knew it was being asked by, for example, a chartered accountant? Your answers are no less valid regardless as to who you are talking to.
There's also an issue where people are not members of a body may become less open to asking questions for fear that their lack of a professional body may cause issues when asking questions.
If you start putting badges on people then we would be building a psuedo class recognition system into a currently hierarchy free forum.
In short, my vote is that this one is not a good idea even if it could have had some useful, though limited, uses for some quite specific circumstances which I do fully appreciate.
Right, next message...
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
I agree with Shaun on this one. The other thing is from a technical point of view given that this is a hosted script I doubt there is the flexibility that you are talking about to change such details. It would be different if it was a scrit hosted on ones own server. The joys of SAAS.
Have to agree with Kris Luther, that whole incident from yesterday is now behind us and I was hoping that we have now moved forwards in a constructive manner.
This thread was a different matter. And I for one have actually voted against the idea of peoples supervisory body being part of their profile unless they decide to make it part of their signiture such as people like Lor (Lorraine) have in order to advertise her AAT status.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
