New forums, new sweepers, moving threads, etc.

Discussion in 'THE TEMPLE' started by Garner, Sep 10, 2005.

  1. Pixel New Member

    Roman does have a valid point in one respect - I don't know how the other "Harper-Collins ex-patriates" feel, but I do find that I think twice about posting something here that I had already posted "back there" - though I do try to overcome this for the very reasons that cause Roman to be worried - newbits can quite possibly be put off by the idea of starting something new, but will happily join in an ongoing discussion, empty fora do look a bit daunting, etc. Maybe all of us HC ex-pats should go and reread one of the books (preferably a different one for each of us :) ) and start a thread, even if it is something we have all covered before.

    Oh, and Grace - it's nice to see that someone else knows the correct plural of "forum"!
  2. Electric_Man Templar

    Before I begin, I'd like to apologise to Roman if I misconstrue anything that he said, but I believe we are of a like mind on this matter. My replies are of course still my opinion only and not his.

    [quote:8940f21ace="Buzzfloyd"]New activity has been consistent since we last discussed this a few weeks ago. It is not at the same rate as the main forum, but since the topic for discussion is [i:8940f21ace]highly specific[/i:8940f21ace], it would be illogical to expect anything different. You are being too impatient, in my opinion. And I like to think my opinion is usually quite sensible.[/quote:8940f21ace]

    Ok, when are we justified in being impatient? How long would you be prepared to wait for the forums to fill up with activity?

    [quote:8940f21ace]No. But simply being a collection of Discworld fans without providing fora for Discworld discussion would be unwelcoming to potential new members, and would give the impression that this is not really a site for Discworld fans.

    I don't see that no one posts in them. I see that people do post in them, just not at the same rate one would expect of the single universal forum. That is not a fault; it is to be expected. What the sections give us is ease of locating subject-specific discussions and good places for newbies to air their views and discuss Discworld without the other stuff muddling things up.[/quote:8940f21ace]

    The proposal is not to have no sections for Discworld discussion, but to not have so many. It would still be clear as to where to post about them.

    [quote:8940f21ace]I think you will find that a lot of newbies have seen that discussion [i:8940f21ace]is[/i:8940f21ace] taking place, have joined in, and have started their own threads. Generalising to support your point and suggesting people are stupid for not seeing it is not rational, and does not prove anything.[/quote:8940f21ace]

    The flip of the coin is that you can't prove that they are posting as much as they would if the forums looked fuller.

    [quote:8940f21ace] [quote:8940f21ace]Saying that people will post if they have something to post is unrealistic. [/quote:8940f21ace]
    I disagree. That is exactly what has been happening.[/quote:8940f21ace]

    It's been happening at the same rate the whole time, I haven't seen a particular increase in the rate of posting recently, nor have I seen a decrease. It's still going at the same (slow in my opinion) rate as before.

    [quote:8940f21ace]Your assumption being that everyone, like you, assumes no reply will be forthcoming in those sections. In fact, not everyone believes that, hence the discussion that [i:8940f21ace]has been taking place[/i:8940f21ace].[/quote:8940f21ace]

    I think it's not a bad assumption to think that a forum with few replies, would look like a place where you would be less likely to get a reply. That's just straight logic.

    For me it no longer matters one fig as to what forum a post is in as to whether I reply or not. The important bit is the content. But as a new person you do want somebody to reply, for them to notice that you are there. I'm not talking about the people who will jump up and start asking "a/s/l?" to everyone, but even the calmer ones still want to be noticed. If you think the post won't be read by so many people, then you'd be disinclined to post.

    [quote:8940f21ace][quote:8940f21ace]The Discworld book sections are wastelands, with the odd ghost town here and there. No one will want to settle in a ghost town, and a desert doesn't exactly attract the settlers, now does it?[/quote:8940f21ace]
    Hyperbole, and, in my opinion, false.[/quote:8940f21ace]

    Eh, it's just a comparison, taken slightly to an extreme

    [quote:8940f21ace]As I have said before, my experience is that change is [i:8940f21ace]more[/i:8940f21ace] offputting to the newbie population than quieter fora. Seriously! No one has seen fit to address this point yet, but I think it's very important. We've talked a lot about how we want to attract newbies. A low rate of traffic in sub-fora does not drive away newbies (especially when they are aware that the site itself is relatively new), but constant chopping and changing reasserts uncertainty just when they thought they were getting to know the place. Not only is it [i:8940f21ace]unnecessary[/i:8940f21ace] but it is also [i:8940f21ace]damaging[/i:8940f21ace], in my opinion.[/quote:8940f21ace]

    It's not constant chopping and changing. It's one chop. Then after that, slow expansion if/when site traffic grows. As is usual for any site.

    How would this create uncertainty? The site would be managed in the usual way that sites should be managed. You don't create a large empty site then fill in the gaps a few years later. You create a small compact site for the content you have, then add sections for any additional content.

    [quote:8940f21ace]Well no, but that's not the point. If I say "the sky is blue", my saying so does not [i:8940f21ace]make[/i:8940f21ace] it blue, but that doesn't make the statement false. The point of the statement is not to enforce anything but to acknowledge it. Things are getting more active in the subfora. They will continue to do so. Get the bee out of your bonnet.[/quote:8940f21ace]

    As I said before, activity is still at the same rate as before. I'll also point to my last paragraph, there still isn't enough to justify the amount of space.

    [quote:8940f21ace][quote:8940f21ace]As for the older members actively trying to spark new discussions, that's not going to happen. [/quote:8940f21ace]
    You must be a prophet or something... How do you know? It already has started, and I have a list of subjects I wish to start topics about. I've been trying to find my copy of TCOM to reread it before starting a thread. If you want to scoff and say it'll never happen, you can; but just because some things take time, it doesn't mean they won't happen.[/quote:8940f21ace]

    But when? You've said yourself that you are too busy with work currently. In the meantime the forums remain fairly empty.

    [quote:8940f21ace][quote:8940f21ace]That involves effort and, if these things have been said by them before, will feel like wasted effort, and as such won't happen. [/quote:8940f21ace]
    I disagree. I have already seen discussions where older members have repeated things they said before. A lot of people are happy to reiterate opinions on literature they love, even if they don't want to keep answering polls about which is their favourite character. And it clearly isn't wasted effort if there will be new responses. Some people state opinions to get others' feedback, not simply to declaim.[/quote:8940f21ace]

    Yes it has happened, but not to a great enough extent to justify the amount of forums currently given to the topics. Yes I'm repeating myself here but it is the pertinent point.

    [quote:8940f21ace][quote:8940f21ace]Same issue with the smaller sections being empty applies to the old as well as the new members, by the way, not to mention that we come from a board where we were, quite frankly, used to ignoring the little sections. They were there, but hardly anyone paid attention to them.[/quote:8940f21ace]
    So? That was not to do with the nature of the fora but with the nature of the community. Those subsections were alive and kicking and saw plenty of hot discussion for a long time after I joined. The repeated efforts of trolls and the state of the community as a whole - which saw, over time, a slow down of [i:8940f21ace]all[/i:8940f21ace] posting - affected the smaller fora. This board is [i:8940f21ace]very new[/i:8940f21ace], and to make fatalistic pronouncements before we've even got ourselves together and started to pick up speed is rather premature and unhelpful, in my opinion.[/quote:8940f21ace]

    It's not fatalist. It is about trying to attract new people to the site. Roman and I think that empty forums discourage people from joining, you think that it doesn't (and others have opinions either way also).

    That is my prime concern, and my views on attracting people to a website is based on my belief in good website design, which involves creating a site to fit your content and not forcing content to fit your site.
  3. Maljonic Administrator

    I totally agree with everything Grace has said, in fact you said everything I would have said myself last night if I had the clear headedness to state my feelings in such a way, not to mention the patience to rake over old coals.

    The only things I want to add are, why do a minority of old members keep putting words and thoughts into people's minds and mouths they haven't even met yet?

    None of the new people ever talk about being put off by the way the message boards are set out, so where is this information coming from?

    Also, as well as visitors being put off by things being moved around and, in this case as is being suggested, topics removed altogether, the major search engines take a very dim view of disappearing URLs. All our main pages are properly ranked now (as of about a week ago), pretty highly too, but if we start removing stuff and googlebot, msn, yahoo etc start returning 404 errors (page not found) because we've deleted them, we will get penalised and marked down for inconsistances in our content.

    The longer we have a forum called 'The Witch Books' (along with our site title) for example at the same address: http://www.terrypratchettbooks.org/forum4.html, the higher up related search results it will become.

    If we keep arsing about, chopping and changing our addresses, like we're running a personal homepage on a free webspace account and not a professionally run site with a proper domain name, we'll get pushed further down the results of searches and be taken less seriously as a website, by bots and human visitors.
  4. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Agian, I'm not sure what is the best course of action on the forum moving.

    And again, Even *if* we shorten the amount of forums we still have the problem of someone posting.

    What we [b:6dec4410ea]need[/b:6dec4410ea] to do is make some effort and post about an authour we love.

    Roman said it won't happen, but why? It's not impossible. The only reason it won't happen is becuase we can't be bothered to make it happen.

    This is a new site, and if we want to capture the feel of the old site we have to make an effort to repeat stuff. We there willing to repost in the intro thread, even though we'ed repeated stuff before. If every member, both old and new made an effort to make one new post or thread, maybe once every two weeks, the forums would soon fill up.

    It's not that much to do. It's not impossible. There is no reason for it 'not' to happen. Only if people don't want it to happen. In which case, there isn't much point moving the forums. Whats the point of having one big forum with 15 crappy threads instead of 3 furoms with 5 crappy threads. We need to make good threads. Thats what people will reply too.
  5. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    [quote:17d7b0b980="Electric_Man"][quote:17d7b0b980="Buzzfloyd"]New activity has been consistent since we last discussed this a few weeks ago. It is not at the same rate as the main forum, but since the topic for discussion is [i:17d7b0b980]highly specific[/i:17d7b0b980], it would be illogical to expect anything different. You are being too impatient, in my opinion. And I like to think my opinion is usually quite sensible.[/quote:17d7b0b980]

    Ok, when are we justified in being impatient? How long would you be prepared to wait for the forums to fill up with activity?[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    I dare say you will balk at this, but I would expect to wait about a year, or at least nine months, before deciding it wasn't working and considering a change. And you are never justified in being impatient; by definition, impatience is an overreaction.

    [quote:17d7b0b980="Electric_Man"]The proposal is not to have no sections for Discworld discussion, but to not have so many. It would still be clear as to where to post about them.[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    I don't want to miss any points in case you feel I haven't fully addressed anything, but all I have to say to this is that I am aware of what the proposal is. I was trying to answer Roman by explaining why it is important to have the subfora.

    [quote:17d7b0b980="Electric_Man"][quote:17d7b0b980]I think you will find that a lot of newbies have seen that discussion [i:17d7b0b980]is[/i:17d7b0b980] taking place, have joined in, and have started their own threads. Generalising to support your point and suggesting people are stupid for not seeing it is not rational, and does not prove anything.[/quote:17d7b0b980]

    The flip of the coin is that you can't prove that they are posting as much as they would if the forums looked fuller.[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    But given that they are posting, and that the current layout was preferred by the majority when we chose it, I don't see a reason to change it. In other words, if there is a hypothetical problem with both ways, but it's still working this way, that is not an argument for change, especially when there are other arguments against change.


    [quote:17d7b0b980="Electric_Man"][quote:17d7b0b980="Buzzfloyd"] [quote:17d7b0b980="Roman_K"]Saying that people will post if they have something to post is unrealistic. [/quote:17d7b0b980]
    I disagree. That is exactly what has been happening.[/quote:17d7b0b980]

    It's been happening at the same rate the whole time, I haven't seen a particular increase in the rate of posting recently, nor have I seen a decrease. It's still going at the same (slow in my opinion) rate as before.[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    By 'increase in activity', I meant only that there had been more, not that it had been faster. There is no reason I'm aware of to expect it to be faster. And I agree with you that the rate is slow; if you read my posts in this thread, I keep making the point that it should be [i:17d7b0b980]expected[/i:17d7b0b980] to be slow. Let's make an analogy.

    You have a pocketful of cash (lucky you!) with an even statistical distribution of denominations. The cash represents thread topics. You have a system to sort the cash where you make piles of: coppers (introductions forum); silvers (Boardania forum); and gold/pound coins (any Discworld discussion forum). You sort the cash into piles; as you go, you notice that the silvers pile is quickly becoming higher than any other, and that the golds pile is significantly lower. "It must be because the system is wrong!" you cry. No. It's because fewer coins fit the category of golds than fit any other category. The rate that that pile increases will always be slower than the other piles, but over time, there would still be a significant number of coins in the pile.

    [quote:17d7b0b980="Electric_Man"][quote:17d7b0b980]Your assumption being that everyone, like you, assumes no reply will be forthcoming in those sections. In fact, not everyone believes that, hence the discussion that [i:17d7b0b980]has been taking place[/i:17d7b0b980].[/quote:17d7b0b980]

    I think it's not a bad assumption to think that a forum with few replies, would look like a place where you would be less likely to get a reply. That's just straight logic.[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    Firstly, those fora do not actually get fewer replies. I would say the distribution of threads with many replies to those with few replies is about the same as in the other fora; there are just fewer threads. At any rate, as I said, even if the assumption were a good one, it's clearly not the assumption that newbies have been making, since they have been posting in the Discworld fora (and at a higher rate than the older members). So the point is moot.

    [quote:17d7b0b980="Electric_Man"]For me it no longer matters one fig as to what forum a post is in as to whether I reply or not. The important bit is the content. But as a new person you do want somebody to reply, for them to notice that you are there. I'm not talking about the people who will jump up and start asking "a/s/l?" to everyone, but even the calmer ones still want to be noticed. If you think the post won't be read by so many people, then you'd be disinclined to post.[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    Why are you assuming that this mythical newbie cares what forum a post is in any more than you do? I have been a regular member on at least six other messageboards. My experience is that, yes, [i:17d7b0b980]all[/i:17d7b0b980] members want to be noticed; but, aside from a moronic few, they try to post subjects in the appropriate fora, and imagine that all members read all fora. If a newbie is concerned about being noticed in a high-traffic forum, they will post something relevant to that forum. Usually, the ones so concerned with being noticed will [i:17d7b0b980]also[/i:17d7b0b980] post to other fora. The quieter ones will often start by posting in low-traffic fora deliberately, because it is easier to be sure that your topic is appropriate in a specific-subject forum, and that you will get on-topic answers instead of being told off. Several people here have said they did exactly this.

    I appreciate your concerns, but I don't believe the newbie you imagine is a representative one.

    [quote:17d7b0b980="Electric_Man"][quote:17d7b0b980="Buzzfloyd"][quote:17d7b0b980="Roman_K"]The Discworld book sections are wastelands, with the odd ghost town here and there. No one will want to settle in a ghost town, and a desert doesn't exactly attract the settlers, now does it?[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    Hyperbole, and, in my opinion, false.[/quote:17d7b0b980]

    Eh, it's just a comparison, taken slightly to an extreme[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    Thanks for defining hyperbole for us... Actually, hyperbole technically refers to any figure of speech, not just a comparison, but the point is still there. To me, the extent of the exaggeration becomes slightly ludicrous. Besides, as said, I do not believe that the Discworld book sections are 'wastelands', and I find it baffling that Roman should suggest that they are. I think he's exaggerating to emphasise his point; in other words, using hyperbole.

    [quote:17d7b0b980="Electric_Man"][quote:17d7b0b980]As I have said before, my experience is that change is [i:17d7b0b980]more[/i:17d7b0b980] offputting to the newbie population than quieter fora. Seriously! No one has seen fit to address this point yet, but I think it's very important. We've talked a lot about how we want to attract newbies. A low rate of traffic in sub-fora does not drive away newbies (especially when they are aware that the site itself is relatively new), but constant chopping and changing reasserts uncertainty just when they thought they were getting to know the place. Not only is it [i:17d7b0b980]unnecessary[/i:17d7b0b980] but it is also [i:17d7b0b980]damaging[/i:17d7b0b980], in my opinion.[/quote:17d7b0b980]

    It's not constant chopping and changing. It's one chop. Then after that, slow expansion if/when site traffic grows. As is usual for any site.[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    That depends what kind of site. I'll let Mal's points stand on that subject. Also, it's not 'one chop', is it? You've just said it would be followed by other changes, expanding the available fora over time. Why not just leave them the same over time? I do not believe there is a detrimental effect to newbie activity from the current set-up. However, I do believe change has a detrimental effect on newbie activity.

    [quote:17d7b0b980="Electric_Man"]How would this create uncertainty? The site would be managed in the usual way that sites should be managed. You don't create a large empty site then fill in the gaps a few years later. You create a small compact site for the content you have, then add sections for any additional content.[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    It would create uncertainty by causing change. Newbies are usually uncertain about which is the appropriate forum for a subject (unless the fora are handily specific, as most of ours are). If the layout is changed when they are still unused to the place, uncertainty is increased. I am not sure what your reason is for saying that regular change is the 'usual way' or the right way to manage a site. In my experience, it is not usual for professional sites to totally alter their structure every three months or so. And our site is neither comparatively large nor empty. Also, what you are describing as normal management is not what you are proposing; you are describing expansion, but proposing contraction.

    [quote:17d7b0b980="Electric_Man"][quote:17d7b0b980]Well no, but that's not the point. If I say "the sky is blue", my saying so does not [i:17d7b0b980]make[/i:17d7b0b980] it blue, but that doesn't make the statement false. The point of the statement is not to enforce anything but to acknowledge it. Things are getting more active in the subfora. They will continue to do so. Get the bee out of your bonnet.[/quote:17d7b0b980]

    As I said before, activity is still at the same rate as before. I'll also point to my last paragraph, there still isn't enough to justify the amount of space.[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    As I said before, by 'more active' I mean 'there is more activity', not 'the rate of posting is faster'.

    [quote:17d7b0b980="Electric_Man"][quote:17d7b0b980="Buzzfloyd"][quote:17d7b0b980="Roman"]As for the older members actively trying to spark new discussions, that's not going to happen. [/quote:17d7b0b980]
    You must be a prophet or something... How do you know? It already has started, and I have a list of subjects I wish to start topics about. I've been trying to find my copy of TCOM to reread it before starting a thread. If you want to scoff and say it'll never happen, you can; but just because some things take time, it doesn't mean they won't happen.[/quote:17d7b0b980]

    But when? You've said yourself that you are too busy with work currently. In the meantime the forums remain fairly empty.[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    This December, I have Accountancy exams to sit. After that, I will have more free time again. You may not have noticed, but my activity on the site as of September has been decreased. This is due to study and coursework. However, you don't have any exams to do. Why don't you reread a Discworld book and start a thread on it, since you are concerned about the low rate of Discworld discussion? Or is Roman right in suggesting that none of the older members will do something that involves the dreaded expending of effort?

    [quote:17d7b0b980="Electric_Man"][quote:17d7b0b980="Buzzfloyd"][quote:17d7b0b980="Roman_K"]That involves effort and, if these things have been said by them before, will feel like wasted effort, and as such won't happen. [/quote:17d7b0b980]
    I disagree. I have already seen discussions where older members have repeated things they said before. A lot of people are happy to reiterate opinions on literature they love, even if they don't want to keep answering polls about which is their favourite character. And it clearly isn't wasted effort if there will be new responses. Some people state opinions to get others' feedback, not simply to declaim.[/quote:17d7b0b980]

    Yes it has happened, but not to a great enough extent to justify the amount of forums currently given to the topics. Yes I'm repeating myself here but it is the pertinent point.[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    That is only your opinion. In my opinion, it [i:17d7b0b980]has[/i:17d7b0b980] been to a great enough extent to justify the amount of fora currently given to the topics, especially since there are other reasons to justify having those fora, or else we wouldn't have chosen them in the first place. Since we only have our opinions on this, we must resort to other points to support our views. My points involve observation of newbie behaviour on several messageboards over time; as far as I'm aware, your points and Roman's involve the imagining of a hypothetical newbie who happens to act in a non-representative way. I make the point that we should not [i:17d7b0b980]expect[/i:17d7b0b980] the filling of the subfora to be fast; your counterpoint, apparently, is that you [i:17d7b0b980]do[/i:17d7b0b980] expect it to be fast. You make the point that it is logical to expect more answers to a new thread in a forum where new threads garner a higher average of responses; my counter-point is that threads in the subject-specific fora trigger the same average amount of responses as in the miscellaneous fora, there are only less of them due to the fora being subject-specific. Mal's points about Google rankings are very important ones of which I was unaware, but which only serve to add to what I've been saying.

    [quote:17d7b0b980="Electric_Man"][quote:17d7b0b980="Buzzfloyd"][quote:17d7b0b980="Roman_K"]Same issue with the smaller sections being empty applies to the old as well as the new members, by the way, not to mention that we come from a board where we were, quite frankly, used to ignoring the little sections. They were there, but hardly anyone paid attention to them.[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    So? That was not to do with the nature of the fora but with the nature of the community. Those subsections were alive and kicking and saw plenty of hot discussion for a long time after I joined. The repeated efforts of trolls and the state of the community as a whole - which saw, over time, a slow down of [i:17d7b0b980]all[/i:17d7b0b980] posting - affected the smaller fora. This board is [i:17d7b0b980]very new[/i:17d7b0b980], and to make fatalistic pronouncements before we've even got ourselves together and started to pick up speed is rather premature and unhelpful, in my opinion.[/quote:17d7b0b980]

    It's not fatalist. It is about trying to attract new people to the site. Roman and I think that empty forums discourage people from joining, you think that it doesn't (and others have opinions either way also).[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    I think Roman's remarks about ghost towns were pretty fatalist in tone. And if you think the current set-up is bound to fail, well, that's a fatalist attitude. However, it's a fairly irrelevant point. I will say again, though, that the subfora are [i:17d7b0b980]not[/i:17d7b0b980] empty. And you are arguing with the choice of one word rather than addressing my actual point.

    [quote:17d7b0b980="Electric_Man"]That is my prime concern, and my views on attracting people to a website is based on my belief in good website design, which involves creating a site to fit your content and not forcing content to fit your site.[/quote:17d7b0b980]
    I think you are not applying your knowledge appropriately, as I said above; and the matter of Google ranking is a crucial one in attracting people. We are also concerned with keeping people here once they get here, and I think the current setup is more conducive to doing so.


    Edit: missed an apostrophe.
  6. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    [quote:35b6cd21be="Rincewind"]Roman said it won't happen, but why? It's not impossible. The only reason it won't happen is becuase we can't be bothered to make it happen.[/quote:35b6cd21be]
    That was Roman's point; according to him, none of us will ever be bothered to repeat ourselves.

    [quote:35b6cd21be]Whats the point of having one big forum with 15 crappy threads instead of 3 furoms with 5 crappy threads. We need to make good threads. Thats what people will reply too.[/quote:35b6cd21be]
    Exactly.
  7. Orrdos God

    Yeah, I'm going to go with Grace on this one. There's no real need to go messing about with the layout at this stage in the game.

    They will fill up eventually, maybe not today, maybe not tommorrow, but someday.

    I'd also like to say that some people have appeared to be "fatalist" about this whole board since the day we first floated the idea of moving here.
  8. Hsing Moderator

    Regarding that issue - I've put on the essay on witches I promised back in August. It may also be a good example why it takes so long to produce an archive full of witty stuff - I've been sitting on this for the last two nights.
  9. Pixel New Member

    About three hours ago, I decided to do a little kick-starting on the minor fora, and went to the HC board to try and find a thread I had started on a suitably Discworld subject to repeat the first post here.

    Even searching based on my old member number (1539 - I suppose it's like what they say about being in the army - you never forget your serial number!) I couldn't find a thread I had started that was relevant (the Garners' first wedding anniversary didn't seem to fit the bill!) - the closest I came was a [i:64b2b12c8c]reference[/i:64b2b12c8c] to a thread I had started, I couldn't remember what the thread was about but it was the one that Elena of Tsort decided to disrupt and thereby generated a new thread longer than the original - and at that point it occurred to me (at the same time as I decided it was time to give up the search because I want to go to bed soon) - maybe things seem to be slow on this board because we do not have the long discussions about what are basically policing matters that we used to have when we had no moderators, because a large number of the threads I had contributed to were of this nature.

    I also kept getting engrossed in the old arguments themselves - especially my contributions - I seemed to manage to vary between some serious and valid arguments, and some utter crap - maybe I should attach a breathalyzer to my computer! :)

    Maybe we should liven things up - each week, Mal could secretly appoint a member to be allowed a second identity and that member could then troll the board in whatever way took their fancy - we could then use the poll feature to vote for "Most imaginative Internal Troll" for each year! :) (External trolls, especially any who got bored with the Harper Collins desert - sorry - site - and came over to bother us would obviously not be eligible!)

    Edited to add: In case I'm not being clear - don't mess about changing the board structure - fill it and make it interesting!
  10. Electric_Man Templar

    There aren't enough swear words to describe how fucking pissed off I am at the moment with these bloody 'fatalist' comments.

    All I have ever wanted is what's best for the community, which involves moaning when I see something that I think isn't right, but apparently that means I want the community to die.

    Hell, let's have a poll, who wants me to stop venting my own opinion and just pretend that I love everything?
  11. Orrdos God

    Relax, deep breaths.

    Allow me clarify.

    There are people who have moaned about every aspect of this board from the word go.

    The shout box, the mod powers, the amount of forums, people daring to post a thread asking for a wee bit of information about the posters, mods moving threads without first posting a plan of action at the town hall for 8 weeks to allow objections to be posted.

    Even moving to these boards in the first place.

    Now, call me hypocritical, no go ahead, but the way that the woman that posted the three facts thread was treated was over the top.

    The reaction to some of the powers the mods have and have used in the past, is a similar situation.

    I'd rather not be a mod than have to ask permission from the community to breathe.

    Now, in regards to the cutting of the number of forums, initially I didn't think that there was going to be as many, but, fuck it.

    It's not going to kill me, I've gotten used to it now, and it doesn't seem to be causing us any particular problems.

    I don't think we need to bang on about it at the moment.

    However, I don't think that Ben was particularly "fatalist" in that one particular regard. But, taken as a whole...

    Everyones entitled to an opinion, on this board more than any other board in the world probably.

    But a constant stream of negative opinions, well, I dunno. I suppose i'm just getting to the point where I'm fed up hearing about how some aspect of the board blows goats.

    It does make it look like it's nitpicking. Almost like it's looking for something to pounce upon.
  12. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Basicaly, it;s about balance. It would be great if every one raised a balanced opinion, But thats not ever going to happen... and probably wouldn'd be that great after all. Though, people taking sock and wholeinbg back from extsadration and founded opinions is always a good thing, Which on the whole people tend to do.

    Ben, on the whole tends to raise 'negative' points but it was him that re-prometed the moving thread-though I was I who made it. Perphaps he doeas raise nagative rather than positive points, but there all valid. and he more than contributes to the postive elements to the board.
  13. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    in a democractic society, the majority must be responsive to the needs of any minority. by being granted a civic right to free choice, the minority is allowed to retain their view/choice/decision.

    thus, roman and ben will always have the civic right to their views.

    unfortunately, squeeky wheels do not always get the grease. the majority feels no need to compact subfora. this is evident and clear. the site owner feels no need to compact subfora. this is evident and clear. the board 'heavies' opposed to compacting subfora outnumber the board 'heavies' arguing for it by at least two to one. this is evident and clear.

    outcome? the subfora will not be compacted. if the minority who argue for it will not accept that, then there will be conflict. sadly, in a democratic society, a minority body must be willing to aquiesce to the majority view on an issue. this is their end of the social contract to uphold.

    Now, i can understand why ben's feeling like he's told not to have an opinion at this point, but that's hyperbolic and unhelpful of him to accuse us of, when he should know it's not true. Ben's perfectly entitled to express anything he wants, but if the rest of the community don't feel that way, he either has to accept it or find some other alternative.

    at this point, i'd say the arguements in favor of compacting subfora are insufficient to justify it. this wasn't a 'vital issue' to begin with, and i sadly suspect that the reason it's remaining a vital issue falls down to certain parties having a need to make change at a time when no change is necessary.

    I suggest we have a vote at this point to settle the issue for now.

    Shall we table the motion to compact sub-fora for a period of time (i'd say at least six months, a year would be better) to allow topics to grow naturally within them. If in that time they haven't shown any significant signs of life, then we can revisit the topic?

    if grace or mal or anyone would like to second that, we'll hear a counter proposal from ben or roman, and put it to a vote. okay?
  14. Pixel New Member

    You did say "anyone", so on the assumption that it therefore doesn't have to be a moderator, I'll second that - if it [i:97afbdd5d3]does[/i:97afbdd5d3] have to be a moderator then ignore me, of course!
  15. Electric_Man Templar

    Answering Grace to start, anything I haven't directly addressed is because I feel that I would be repeating myself in the exact same way as before, not because I'm ignoring it. This is going to be a long post, so I'm not going to make it any longer than necessary.

    There are also probably a few typos, I've done my best to minimise them.

    [quote:5df8c1905e="Buzzfloyd"]But given that they are posting, and that the current layout was preferred by the majority when we chose it, I don't see a reason to change it. In other words, if there is a hypothetical problem with both ways, but it's still working this way, that is not an argument for change, especially when there are other arguments against change.[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    I realise I haven't made this clear in my previous posts, I'm trying to see from the point of view of a person who comes across these forums and then doesn't decide to post and/or join. What would be discouraging them? - That is the way I have been thinking.

    Mal said that I'm putting words into newbie's mouths, but so are you both - except you aren't explicitly saying it. I think the potential newbies will think one way, you think potential newbies will think the other. It's a difference of opinion.

    [quote:5df8c1905e="Buzzfloyd"] You have a pocketful of cash (lucky you!) with an even statistical distribution of denominations. The cash represents thread topics. You have a system to sort the cash where you make piles of: coppers (introductions forum); silvers (Boardania forum); and gold/pound coins (any Discworld discussion forum). You sort the cash into piles; as you go, you notice that the silvers pile is quickly becoming higher than any other, and that the golds pile is significantly lower. "It must be because the system is wrong!" you cry. No. It's because fewer coins fit the category of golds than fit any other category. The rate that that pile increases will always be slower than the other piles, but over time, there would still be a significant number of coins in the pile.[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    This analogy actually made me less clear on what you thought on the matter, I already knew and this confused me somewhat trying to get my head round it, until I finally saw that it was another way of putting your point of view.

    [quote:5df8c1905e]I appreciate your concerns, but I don't believe the newbie you imagine is a representative one.[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    And I believe it is, difference of opinion again.

    [quote:5df8c1905e]That depends what kind of site. I'll let Mal's points stand on that subject. Also, it's not 'one chop', is it? You've just said it would be followed by other changes, expanding the available fora over time. Why not just leave them the same over time? I do not believe there is a detrimental effect to newbie activity from the current set-up. However, I do believe change has a detrimental effect on newbie activity.[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    Grace, I believe you know the definition of a chop: it basically consists of removing stuff. I would only want this to happen once. If you expand something, you don't chop it. I don't think the change I am proposing would be detrimental.

    [quote:5df8c1905e] Also, what you are describing as normal management is not what you are proposing; you are describing expansion, but proposing contraction.[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    Again you've misunderstood me. I prooposed a single contraction, followed by expansion when the time came.

    [quote:5df8c1905e]This December, I have Accountancy exams to sit. After that, I will have more free time again. You may not have noticed, but my activity on the site as of September has been decreased. This is due to study and coursework. However, you don't have any exams to do. Why don't you reread a Discworld book and start a thread on it, since you are concerned about the low rate of Discworld discussion? Or is Roman right in suggesting that none of the older members will do something that involves the dreaded expending of effort?[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    Yes I have noticed your decreasing activity, that's why I mentioned that you were busy with work.

    The reason I don't start topics on Discworld books is the same reason that I never have done, I'm not a great literary analyst. I'm perfectly aware of that, it's the reason why I got my worst grades at school in English, and also why I struggled with German A-Level (which involved book essays rather than just the application of the language at GCSE). If I were to start a book discussion, it would suck, because my mind doesn't work in the right way to make it good.

    [quote:5df8c1905e]I disagree. I have already seen discussions where older members have repeated things they said before. A lot of people are happy to reiterate opinions on literature they love, even if they don't want to keep answering polls about which is their favourite character. And it clearly isn't wasted effort if there will be new responses. Some people state opinions to get others' feedback, not simply to declaim.[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    I have joined in the discussions about the books, my contributions are never that good for the aforementioned reasons, but they are there.

    [quote:5df8c1905e] Mal's points about Google rankings are very important ones of which I was unaware, but which only serve to add to what I've been saying.[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    Yes, I was also unaware of them before I posted my last proper post and they are very important. It's the reason why I'm going to say that I no longer feel the forums should be contracted, because without the google ranking there won't be very many people who wander into this site to have an opinion either way about the vitality of these forums.

    [quote:5df8c1905e][quote:5df8c1905e="Electric_Man"][quote:5df8c1905e="Buzzfloyd"][quote:5df8c1905e="Roman_K"]Same issue with the smaller sections being empty applies to the old as well as the new members, by the way, not to mention that we come from a board where we were, quite frankly, used to ignoring the little sections. They were there, but hardly anyone paid attention to them.[/quote:5df8c1905e]
    So? That was not to do with the nature of the fora but with the nature of the community. Those subsections were alive and kicking and saw plenty of hot discussion for a long time after I joined. The repeated efforts of trolls and the state of the community as a whole - which saw, over time, a slow down of [i:5df8c1905e]all[/i:5df8c1905e] posting - affected the smaller fora. This board is [i:5df8c1905e]very new[/i:5df8c1905e], and to make fatalistic pronouncements before we've even got ourselves together and started to pick up speed is rather premature and unhelpful, in my opinion.[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    It's not fatalist. It is about trying to attract new people to the site. Roman and I think that empty forums discourage people from joining, you think that it doesn't (and others have opinions either way also).[/quote:5df8c1905e]
    I think Roman's remarks about ghost towns were pretty fatalist in tone. And if you think the current set-up is bound to fail, well, that's a fatalist attitude. However, it's a fairly irrelevant point. I will say again, though, that the subfora are [i:5df8c1905e]not[/i:5df8c1905e] empty. And you are arguing with the choice of one word rather than addressing my actual point.[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    Okay, we've already seen that that word is making my blood boil. To go back to the point that you think I missed - [i:5df8c1905e]we're still the same community![/i:5df8c1905e] Members come and go, but the basic make-up of the community is still the same. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that certain habits cross over.


    [quote:5df8c1905e]I think you are not applying your knowledge appropriately, as I said above; and the matter of Google ranking is a crucial one in attracting people. We are also concerned with keeping people here once they get here, and I think the current setup is more conducive to doing so.[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    The google ranking is the crucial one yes. However if we could change the layout without affecting the google ranking, then I would still be for it. However that is no longer the case, so I'm not.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    [quote:5df8c1905e="Orrdos"]Relax, deep breaths. [/quote:5df8c1905e]

    I replied an hour after I first read your post, I wanted to sleep but I was that pissed off that I couldn't without releasing some of tha anger first.

    [quote:5df8c1905e]There are people who have moaned about every aspect of this board from the word go. [/quote:5df8c1905e]

    Who? I haven't moaned about [i:5df8c1905e]every[/i:5df8c1905e] aspect, I have even on occasion praised certain things about the board, of course it's nice and easy to forget those times.

    [quote:5df8c1905e]The shout box, the mod powers, the amount of forums, people daring to post a thread asking for a wee bit of information about the posters, mods moving threads without first posting a plan of action at the town hall for 8 weeks to allow objections to be posted.

    Even moving to these boards in the first place.

    Now, call me hypocritical, no go ahead, but the way that the woman that posted the three facts thread was treated was over the top.

    The reaction to some of the powers the mods have and have used in the past, is a similar situation.

    I'd rather not be a mod than have to ask permission from the community to breathe. [/quote:5df8c1905e]

    Yes, you're right, even though you haven't yet mentioned my name yet, I have moaned about each of those things to varying extents.

    Everyone who was there at the time knew that I was against moving to these boards before the Juggicide situation got out of hand. In terms of actual content of what was on the board, I think it was better on the old one before the aforementioned poster turned up than it is currently here. I always thought we would struggle to keep the same standards, especially as we would always struggle to attract new people for some time.

    The reason we left was because of mod's - a lack of. When we appeared here we agreed to make their actions transparent, when they weren't, I piped up. I feel we've made progress each time I have and (forgive me for putting thoughts into other people's minds) I think a lot of people have also felt we made progress. It didn't matter to me which mod made the mistake, it just happened to be you the last time I noticed one.

    [quote:5df8c1905e]Now, in regards to the cutting of the number of forums, initially I didn't think that there was going to be as many, but, fuck it.

    It's not going to kill me, I've gotten used to it now, and it doesn't seem to be causing us any particular problems.

    I don't think we need to bang on about it at the moment.[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    See my replt to Grace

    [quote:5df8c1905e]However, I don't think that Ben was particularly "fatalist" in that one particular regard. But, taken as a whole... [/quote:5df8c1905e]

    Thanks for finally mentioning my name rather than vaguely hinting at 'some people'

    [quote:5df8c1905e]Everyones entitled to an opinion, on this board more than any other board in the world probably.

    But a constant stream of negative opinions, well, I dunno. I suppose i'm just getting to the point where I'm fed up hearing about how some aspect of the board blows goats.

    It does make it look like it's nitpicking. Almost like it's looking for something to pounce upon.[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    Again it's not a constant stream of negative opinions. I have said it's not always neative. Yes I'm more vocal about my negative one's than my positive, but aren't we all?

    Rinso got it right in his post after yours (go him!)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    [quote:5df8c1905e="Garner"]in a democractic society, the majority must be responsive to the needs of any minority. by being granted a civic right to free choice, the minority is allowed to retain their view/choice/decision.

    thus, roman and ben will always have the civic right to their views.

    unfortunately, squeeky wheels do not always get the grease. the majority feels no need to compact subfora. this is evident and clear. the site owner feels no need to compact subfora. this is evident and clear. the board 'heavies' opposed to compacting subfora outnumber the board 'heavies' arguing for it by at least two to one. this is evident and clear.[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    I would say that before Mal's post about the google rankings, it was pretty even, maybe 60:40 to the no-change side, with a few floaters like Kenny hanging around. After that's it's probably 100:0, Roman has said to me on msn that with that point he would concede.

    [quote:5df8c1905e]outcome? the subfora will not be compacted. if the minority who argue for it will not accept that, then there will be conflict. sadly, in a democratic society, a minority body must be willing to aquiesce to the majority view on an issue. this is their end of the social contract to uphold.

    Now, i can understand why ben's feeling like he's told not to have an opinion at this point, but that's hyperbolic and unhelpful of him to accuse us of, when he should know it's not true. Ben's perfectly entitled to express anything he wants, but if the rest of the community don't feel that way, he either has to accept it or find some other alternative.[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    Yes and I will, I always have done. If George Wanker Bush get's re-elected due to the majority of American votes (or however the system works) then I'll accept. If it all goes tits up and his administration gives out the name of every CIA agent in the world then all I can do is look at the people who did vote for him in a meaningful way, but even that won;t change anything, what's done is done.

    [quote:5df8c1905e]at this point, i'd say the arguements in favor of compacting subfora are insufficient to justify it. this wasn't a 'vital issue' to begin with, and i sadly suspect that the reason it's remaining a vital issue falls down to certain parties having a need to make change at a time when no change is necessary.

    I suggest we have a vote at this point to settle the issue for now.

    Shall we table the motion to compact sub-fora for a period of time (i'd say at least six months, a year would be better) to allow topics to grow naturally within them. If in that time they haven't shown any significant signs of life, then we can revisit the topic?

    if grace or mal or anyone would like to second that, we'll hear a counter proposal from ben or roman, and put it to a vote. okay?[/quote:5df8c1905e]

    I'd say the google ranking thing pretty much kills my (and Roman's) argument so there probably isn't a need for a vote. Unless there is a way round the google thing then I would say there would be.
  16. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    on the motion to reorg the boards: if you and roman are removing your motion in the face of the google ranking explaination, then the motion is hereby removed and stricken from the records.

    As for people's feelings in this matter... everyone please line up for trouting.

    This is just a rough and unbiased opinion, but ben you seem entirely too sensitive to that word 'fatalist'. you have, rightly or wrongly, garnered a reputation for obstructionism about this move. we NEED people to point out where there are mistakes, issues, or just stupid ideas, but if you are the only one who does it (or, in cases, the only one who sees a problem with something that everyone else is fine with), then it is natural that your activism on 'negative' points will overshadow and eventually eclipse your priasing and positive points.

    now, i for one do not want to see you keeping schtum about anything that needs addressing on the site, but i think, for your own peace of mind if not the community's, you ought to try to distance yourself from any emotional attachment to the stuff you speak up about. i am NOT saying that you're being unreasonable (nor am i saying you're a model of logic and reason, or a master at debate and arguement), but if you can't sleep over something going on on the boards, then i worry that you're taking it too personally.

    i don't think being called 'fatalist' should have that reaction on someone.

    more to the point, i don't think you were being called a fatalist in the first place, but i dont wanna speak for anyone else. i think doors' comments are the only ones that go that far, but from what i'm reading, you were already getting worked up before he weighed in, which might be what prompted him to be so broad in his speaking.

    anyway, let's all have a nice cup of hot chocolate, tea, or bourbon as is our individual preference, and enjoy the rest of our weekends.
  17. Orrdos God

    Yes, that's basically what I was trying to say, garner.
  18. Orrdos God

    [quote:87fd766cb3="Electric_Man"]The reason we left was because of mod's - a lack of. When we appeared here we agreed to make their actions transparent, when they weren't, I piped up. I feel we've made progress each time I have and (forgive me for putting thoughts into other people's minds) I think a lot of people have also felt we made progress. It didn't matter to me which mod made the mistake, it just happened to be you the last time I noticed one. [/quote:87fd766cb3]

    In what way wasn't I transparent?

    I left notes on what I did, and have done everytime I've used any sort of mod power.

    How that's not transparent, I'm not entirely sure. I would also dispute that it was a "mistake".

    Had I forseen the outcry of my actions, then I'd have probably have reconsidered.

    But I'm still not convinced that anything i've done in a mod capacity has been a "mistake"
  19. Electric_Man Templar

    Fair enough, I phased that a bit badly - the rules regarding what you did weren't transparent rather than the action itself.

    We decided after the event that posts shouldn't be edited for reasons of spelling, so in that regard it could be classified as a mistake if done now. However the rules weren't in place before that so it wasn't at the time. So sorry, I didn't mean to say that you made a mistake.

    My point was though, that if a mod does make a mistake, it should be pointed out.* Also, the mod shouldn't be castigated for a single mistake, because mistakes happen and I don't think that (castigation) has happened either.


    *I should also say here that if [i:f128ba423c]anyone[/i:f128ba423c] notices anything amiss, they should point it out. I occasionally feel like I'm only one of a few who's prepared to do that, much like Garner and Doors felt they were largely left alone to be the police on the old board.
  20. Roman_K New Member

    Right, due to the google ratings, I hereby take back my arguments. I do, on the other hand, feel that little is being done regarding the rather empty sections, and empty sections [i:4cea6d7536]do[/i:4cea6d7536] stay empty, unless a large group of people actively tries to fill them.

    Fatalist? Mayhap. I'm not exactly Mister Hopeful, but I'm also not inclined to a view that sitting around and doing nothing will achieve anything. We've had our fair share of new members, and most folks do find it easier to join existing discussions than starting their own. Perhaps others see it in a different light, but that's the way I see it.

    Now, as the first course of action has fallen, let's move on to the second. I have two or three Discworld-related topic ideas I may post during this week, maybe even today, but I was thinking about our old official discussions. Would bringing them over, as Doors did with his 'When Doors met...' threads be a good idea? There's certainly good content in them, and unless we're going to repeat those discussions at a later point, they will be lost. As to who will do the actual thread copying, I'm willing to take up the task, if it's considered a good idea.

    Opinions?

    Also, unless people other than Grace post topics they wish to discuss in those small sections, then they will remain mostly empty. The only way we now have left is effort, in my opinion. Unless people are inclined to post in the Discworld sections, then that way of thinking will hold, and spread.
  21. Orrdos God

    It's been seen before that an attempt to, for lack of a better word, force people to post about one thing is doomed to failure.

    On the old board, there was a sudden rush for everyone to try and post a highbrow intellectual topic, which led to lots half empty threads kicking about the place and a general feeling of forcedness about the whole thing.

    Generally, a concerted effort to post about, say, discworld only topics is just going to result in feeling that people are only doing it purely for the purposes of making it look like "why yes, we do talk about books!"

    In other words, it's probably not going to work.

    I'd think that it's best to let conversation take its natural course rather than attempt to make everyone go to the "effort" of posting a disc thread.

    If people don't want to post a disc thread, then, fuck it.

    Fine.

    If people do want to post a disc thread, then that is also fine.

    But what I don't think we need is a big push to make everyone participate in a book thread or post a disc thread.

    Cause that'd be pish.
  22. Maljonic Administrator

    I still don't see that there's anything wrong; I don't see a need to 'remedy' anything, it's the way a message board works - the general discussion fills up rapidly and continuously, the specific topics fill up gradually, it's the way it is on all message boards. I don't think we have to keep analysing the way things are working, proffering virtual speadssheets and percentages regarding how many people are posting where and asking for future projections on this, that or the other.

    Obviously more Discworld-related topics will be nice, but there's no need to make some kind of regime out of it like a new year's resolution or something. If you feel like making Discworld topics then do it, if you don't then don't; they'll appear anyway as people feel the need to make them, if it's irritating you that it's taking too long then, by all means, take the bull by the horns and come up with a topic or three.

    It's pretty much what Doors just said, but it's what I think anyway. :)
  23. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    What I'm suggesting isn't to try to force people to post stuff they don't want too but just to encourage people to *actually* make an effort to post stuff they want to but just never get round too.

    There have been times when I re-read a book thats raised and interesting point and I thought 'oh I should post this on the board' but then neigbours came on and i never got round to it. Just the idea that right now (seening as people are unahppy with the state of the forums) it wouldn't hurt if we made an bit of an effort to make sure *if* we have something to say, We say it.
  24. Roman_K New Member

    [quote:41f82cd9f5="Rincewind"]What I'm suggesting isn't to try to force people to post stuff they don't want too but just to encourage people to *actually* make an effort to post stuff they want to but just never get round too.

    There have been times when I re-read a book thats raised and interesting point and I thought 'oh I should post this on the board' but then neigbours came on and i never got round to it. Just the idea that right now (seening as people are unahppy with the state of the forums) it wouldn't hurt if we made an bit of an effort to make sure *if* we have something to say, We say it.[/quote:41f82cd9f5]

    Indeed. This was, in part, my original point. People don't post everything they might have to post, for various reasons. I just felt that compacting the Discworld sections would be a move towards encouraging the posting.

Share This Page