The College of Optometrists

I recently posted a reply to a question on PRPTalk suggesting they also post on another forum. This post has since been removed - WHY?

The post was removed because the College site does not link to other chat forums.

How rediculous!!!! This forum is for information including the use of other sites if that's what is required. Censoring this at best is childish and at worst communist!!!

It's pretty clear to see this forum hasn't quite taken off as the college would have liked. It isn't as user-friendly or informal as theoptom.com so I can't see it being a big success. But hey, never mind.

they were warned! It does make you wonder who owns the college?

Well...the College belongs to its members, but of course it is run by individuals.

Well...the College belongs to its members, but of course it is run by individuals.

The College response sdoes semm a little strange since there remains a post on PRP talk that explicitly recommends an alternative forum.

Well...the College belongs to its members, but of course it is run by individuals.

The College response does seem a little strange since there remains a post on PRP talk that explicitly recommends an alternative forum.

Thank you for the replies.

To be constructive, the main problems that I have with this site are: 1. It is extremely difficult to log on to and to navigate this site. Surely with the amount of money the College receives from members they could have invested more into IT expertise to get the forum correct on the first attempt; 2. Since is only accessible to optometrists registered with the College it does not allow responses from experienced non-members, many Dispensing Opticians, orthoptisits or ophthalmologists who would be able to provide substantial advice on many of the topics that arise from qualified members as well as pre-reg students; 3. Sites such as www.theoptom.com should be encouraged as they provide a unbiased advice based on day to day experience of primary care practice; 4. A mechanism to provide feedback to the College from members with regard to possible improvements to the sited, one would at least expect an option to edit posts; 5. It would be extremely useful to both the profession and the public to include a short résumé of the College members and their role in the College to provide an indication of how they were allocated their posts and what expertise/experience they have. 6. Since I am a paying member of the College, I would like an explanation from the College as to the cost involved in buying the rights to monoptic.com and the reasons and rational behind its abandonment.

I would hope that the College take these constructive criticisms on board and provide a forum that is as open, informative and unbiased plus one that is provides open access to other eye care professionals in designated areas in a manor currently provided in a manor as other forums such as ww.theoptom.com.

I look forward to the reply.