ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
18 November 2007 | 2017 Visits | Rating: 3 (maximum:5)
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
18 November 2007 | 2018 Visits | Rating: 3 (maximum:5)
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
18 November 2007 | 2019 Visits | Rating: 3 (maximum:5)
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
18 November 2007 | 2020 Visits | Rating: 3 (maximum:5)
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
18 November 2007 | 2021 Visits | Rating: 3 (maximum:5)
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
18 November 2007 | 2022 Visits | Rating: 3 (maximum:5)
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
18 November 2007 | 2023 Visits | Rating: 3 (maximum:5)
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
18 November 2007 | 2024 Visits | Rating: 3 (maximum:5)
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
18 November 2007 | 2025 Visits | Rating: 3 (maximum:5)
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
18 November 2007 | 2026 Visits | Rating: 3 (maximum:5)
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
Regards.
cases
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
cases with very little information
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
Regards.
cases
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
cases with very little information
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
Regards.
cases
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
cases with very little information
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
Regards.
cases
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
cases with very little information
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
Regards.
cases
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
cases with very little information
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
Regards.
cases
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
cases with very little information
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
Regards.
cases
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
cases with very little information
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
Regards.
cases
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
cases with very little information
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
Regards.
cases
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
cases with very little information
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
The wrong side of KARMA (-kudos)!
This is not serious, Neil. If you are not going to provide enough detail on the cases, you shouldn't submit a case. Even if it is worth 300 karma points :-(
You have submitted three cases in a row, but with so little details that they are not worth our time looking at them.
Maybe people at epractice should reconsider how these mechanisms can be reviewed, to avoid that the quality of submissions is affected.
Regards.
cases
I agree with your opinion: Cases in ePractice.eu need to fulfil high standards in order to be attractive for all members. We are therefore currently working to improve these cases you refer to, in order to be able to offer complete and valuable information as soon as possible also with these cases.
cases with very little information
The last days there are more new cases with very little information. When I posted a case with what I thought was an average amount of information, I immediately received a -friendly- e-mail from the ePractice editors saying that I should give more information (which I did). I hope the editors notify all persons who post cases with (to) little information -in a friendly way- and ask them to give us more information about their cases. We can give cases with very little, sometimes virtually none, information a low rating. Maybe there should then be a possibility to rate the case again if and when the contributor in question has provided us with more information. There is a danger however in putting to much emphasis on cases we think are not worth reading. People might be hesitant to contribute their cases in fear of being "shot down". We need all the cases and all the info we can get. So...pleas people, keep contributing cases but please do so with a sufficient amount of information.