New version Recruiting Web site

[drfhoule]

The new version of the CF Recruiting Web site is now live at a new address:
http://www.forces.ca
Check it out, and use the survey section of the site (under Contact Us) to express your opinion.
It's a work in progress since CFRG Multimedia Services were given only 2 weeks to redesign the site, but I daresay we've done a very good job so far. 

 

[drfhoule]

We, at CFRG Multimedia Services, appreciate your feedback and don't forget to fill out the site's survey under "Contact Us".  www.forces.ca 

 

[aesop081]

We

maybe you should tell us just who the heck is "WE"

 

[Remius]

Well, looking at "WE"'s profile there is an e-mail.  The e-mail indicates multimedia.  They are the people who run the website for the recruiting group. 

 

[kincanucks]

They are good people and work very hard on getting the message out so if you have the time visit the site and leave your comments

 

[kincanucks]

As a former recruiting Detachment Commander who despised the old site and its ability to confuse applicants I would like to pass on my congratulations on a job well done.  Multimedia has done an excellent job, again.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

+1

I had a quick look.  It appears very professional, clear and there's something for everyone, including information aimed at spouses.  Well done indeed - it is a huge improvement!

 

[Gunner]

I'm not so sure.  Why does the soldier have to boot in the door of the house, can't he just knock? 

 

[Remius]

Why knock when he has an Infantry key?

Overall pretty good.  A few innacuracies.  I passed them through your feedback link but I'm sure with all the changes going on these will get sorted out with time.

Fantastic opening video.

Well done multimedia as always.

 

[aesop081]

They are good people and work very hard on getting the message out so if you have the time visit the site and leave your comments

I most certainly will....

 

[warspite]

It's so beautiful ;D
No really though I do think that this site is a major improvement over the old one. It just grabs the attention...

 

[Shamrock]

Wow, very well done indeed.  Excellent combination of grit and polish. 

Certainly makes me want to join.

 

[PViddy]

A huge improvment over the last site.  well done to all.

cheers

PV

 

[17thRecceSgt]

Heck of a lot better.  Well done, its a much better "first impression" to the people who (and who doesn't these days?) use the ' Net as a first POC with heck, most everything these days.

Clean look.  I liked it. 

 

[Rice0031]

Damn, even *I* was "wowed". And I'm not usually wowed by most websites.
And clean(er) navigation, too!
Me likes

 

[Magravan]

I left feedback as well, but just to cover the bases, the RegForcePay PDF is an old one, from 2003. Otherwise, the site looks awesome, seems more easily navigated than the old one and is just better all around. I'm very pleased with the efforts of the group who made this website.

 

[geo]

Uhhh....
pay table indicates it's dated 2005.....
why do you say it's from 2003?

 

[Magravan]

Presumably because they've updated it from the time that I looked at it yesterday to today. Or because you've got it cached somewhere, and it is going from that file instead of the new one. Either way, the PDF that I encouraged my friend to look at yesterday was inaccurate to modern standards.

Edit:

It's still loading as 2003 for me.

http://www.forces.ca/v3/media/pdf/RegularForcePay.pdf
http://www.forces.ca/v3/media/pdf/PrimaryReservePay.pdf

The date on the side of those 2 PDFs are 2005 for you? It still says 2003 on mine. (And I have a copy of the 2005 saved on another computer, which I checked to see if I was going crazy or not)

 

[LIKELY]

Still is linking to the 03 Pay Guide.

 

[Magravan]

I -really- love the "Browse all jobs" button. That was a sorely needed addition to those of us who already know what we want, and are just doing further research. If I could vote, I'd give it high marks.

Edit:

I do believe that the issue with the pay rates and the differences seen are that Geo might be using George Wallaces' link, which points to the correct version at the old site. The one that I linked to (and checked), was the one that is linked on the new website itself.

Anyone direly needing said information between now and the time that they update can go by George's link.