New forums, new sweepers, moving threads, etc.

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

  1. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    Er, maybe i've missed some stuff, but a few questions...

    1) Why's rinso a sweeper on the roleplay group forum now?
    2) Why ONLY rinso on the fools guild?
    3) Why was a thread of mine moved without any notification or discussion, or did I miss that. Why not other threads of equally jokey natures?

    not angry about any of that, just curious
  2. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    been talking to doors about this...

    a few more things:

    Is the 'fools guild' forum going to be for ANYTHING 'silly' or 'funny'? If so, we've just shot ourselves in the foot.

    I thought it was clearly going to be for Email chain letter jokes, pool party threads, and role playing as discworld characters?

    Eg, the things that annoy us few tight asses but the great unwashed don't have a problem with.

    Now, if my thread about gherkin shurikens is going to get moved there, why not ben's thread about email jokes? This seems to be the exact OPPOSITE of the point as I understood it to be.

    I'm starting to think this is a bad idea and the boardanian forum will suffer as a result.
  3. Orrdos God

    I'm not sure I see a need for a fools forum at all really.

    We've already got a good few forums without adding one specifically for joke threads (or, some of them at least).

    Joke threads are part of the everyday ongoings on the board, and I can't see a point in seperating them from the main forum.

    I suppose what garner says is true, if anything should go in them at all, make it chain jokes.
  4. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    that was the point, i thought.

    the stuff that we've frowned on in the past would go to its own special forum, and us elitist bastards can drink tea with our pinky fingers sticking out in the main forum where we only engage in socially acceptible silliness.
  5. fairyliquid New Member

    [quote:7801592ab9="Garner"]that was the point, i thought.

    the stuff that we've frowned on in the past would go to its own special forum, and us elitist bastards can drink tea with our pinky fingers sticking out in the main forum where we only engage in socially acceptible silliness.[/quote:7801592ab9]

    If thats the case you may want to move most of bordania to the fools guild... :eek:

    It wasn't that big of a deal on the old boards, okay there were a few silly threads but if you didn't like them they were ignored. We dont want to spread everything out to much otherwise it gets frustrating hopping between forums all the time looking for a thread.
  6. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    exactly.

    we had a pretty narrow list of what we didn't want to see at all, or what should only be found in a clearly indicated thread.

    Roleplay games/pool parties and jokes you got from your email... that was really about it.

    random silliness is a vital part of what makes boardania fun. gherkin shurikens, glowing badgers and pissing monkeys are boardanian.

    threads like "The Mended Drum" where everyone gets to pretend to be the librarian, or 'The Joke Thread' are specialist threads that shouldn't be hijacked because they're dedicated for a set purpose.

    The point of a 'fools guild' forum was to give the non-boardanian silliness a place to go where it could live in peace and frolic in the care free halcyon days of it's youth.

    It was NOT, so far as I understood it, to put EVERYTHING funny/silly in. God save us, if that's the case then we might as well do away with the boardanian forum and half the guidelines to boot.
  7. Electric_Man Templar

    I've said it before, there's no point in a new forum which will be populated by about 2 or 3 active topics at any one time, and won't detract from other threads in the boardania forum.

    At this point I'm starting to wonder if there might be worth in merging some of the book forums together. The traffic in them is very minimal, I expected them to be filled up a bit more by now. At the moment they just look empty and unwanted, and also make the page longer than it needs to be. I like things simple, having too many forums just makes you unsure of where to post.

    Looking at it now, I'd suggest merging Wizards, Witches and Death together and merging the other three together too. That way we would have the more magically inclined books in one forum, and the less-magically inclined in the other, we could also put the Tiffany books in the 'Magic' forum too.

    edit: also, I don't understand why there is only one mod in the fools guild, and two in the rp group, the point about moderators is that they shouldn't be restricted in the forums they work with, I thought we'd agreed that already? otherwise we'll edge closer towards havin mod 'rankings'
  8. Maljonic Administrator

    I think Rinsewind is a mod of the role playing forum by mistake, I'll change that now. I got distracted after making the fools' guild and forgot to add everyone else as moderators too. I didn't put your thread in there though, I thought you did it yourself, guess someone else must have? Just move it back if it's not meant to be there. :)
  9. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    can we do subforums? if so, then a two tier structure would be best. it allows for a tidier front page and doesn't involve a labyrinth of clicking to get where you want to be.

    say one overforum for 'Books' with a description like 'here you c an find individual forums for specific books and sub-serries!'

    the fools guild, if needed, can be shoved under the boardanian forum, as can the roleplay group forum really.
  10. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    heya Mal, thanks for clearing that up.

    I'd very much like to know who moved my 'so' thread and why they felt the need to do this without notification or asking.

    As for the sub forums, would that be possible?
  11. fairyliquid New Member

    [quote:8a9126e6b0="Electric_Man"]I've said it before, there's no point in a new forum which will be populated by about 2 or 3 active topics at any one time, and won't detract from other threads in the boardania forum.

    At this point I'm starting to wonder if there might be worth in merging some of the book forums together. The traffic in them is very minimal, I expected them to be filled up a bit more by now. At the moment they just empty and unwanted, and also make the page longer than it needs to be. I like things simple, having too many forums just makes you unsure of where to post.

    Looking at it now, I'd suggest merging Wizards, Witches and Death together and merging the other three together too. That way we would have the more magically inclined books in one forum, and the less-magically inclined in the other, we could also put the Tiffany books in the 'Magic' forum too.

    [/quote:8a9126e6b0]

    Thats my problem with the fools guild...I think once it is moved there, people will forget about it.

    I think EM has a point merging some of the book forums...no one is really sure what to post in them at the moment because it was discussed in the previous boards and people dont want to go back and have the same discussions again.

    I like Garners idea of subforums...it might make things a little easier to understand and a little less tedious to sift through.

    edit: name...oops :roll:
  12. Electric_Man Templar

    [quote:d634f34eed="Garner"]can we do subforums? if so, then a two tier structure would be best. it allows for a tidier front page and doesn't involve a labyrinth of clicking to get where you want to be.

    say one overforum for 'Books' with a description like 'here you c an find individual forums for specific books and sub-serries!'

    the fools guild, if needed, can be shoved under the boardanian forum, as can the roleplay group forum really.[/quote:d634f34eed]

    If it's possible, then that would be a good idea, and yes, the roleplay forum would be best under the boardanian one.

    If we're keeping some vestige of the 'Fools Guild' we need to clarify what is supposed to be in there.
  13. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    Rincewind is in wales. possibly being attacked by old bald men who spontaneously become his enemy.

    Electricman suggested merging the book threads.

    This is just a clarification.
  14. fairyliquid New Member

    [quote:1429a601ee="Garner"]Rincewind is in wales. possibly being attacked by old bald men who spontaneously become his enemy.

    Electricman suggested merging the book threads.

    This is just a clarification.[/quote:1429a601ee]

    Electric_Man/ Rincewind...same difference.

    I fixed it now, thanks for pointing it out though.
  15. Electric_Man Templar

    [quote:2703042e57="fairyliquid"]Electric_Man/ Rincewind...same difference.[/quote:2703042e57]

    *takes extreme offence*

    M'Lud, I present to the jury a catalogue of offense of disimilarity, including, avatars, names, spelling mistakes, smell and rat-onna-fac├ędness.
  16. Maljonic Administrator

    We can't have sub forums as standard, I think the code can be hacked to allow this but that obviously involves some work. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with it the way it is though; the main forums, Introductions and Boardania, are right at the top and everyone is posting in them. The book forums are easy for new people to understand; most people don't object to scrolling a page up and down to see stuff, I think we just got used to posting everything in one place. Our forums now are still very straight forward and uncomplicated compared to most out there; I think it's a little early to say there's not enough stuff in the different books forums, it's only been three weeks.

    Of course we can move stuff around any way we like, the fools' thing could go right at the bottom so it's out of the way - or be got rid of all together? :)
  17. fairyliquid New Member

    [quote:a237317aac="Maljonic"]We can't have sub forums as standard, I think the code can be hacked to allow this but that obviously involves some work. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with it the way it is though; the main forums, Introductions and Boardania, are right at the top and everyone is posting in them. The book forums are easy for new people to understand; most people don't object to scrolling a page up and down to see stuff, I think we just got used to posting everything in one place. Our forums now are still very straight forward and uncomplicated compared to most out there; I think it's a little early to say there's not enough stuff in the different books forums, it's only been three weeks. [/quote:a237317aac]

    The problem at the moment is none of the old members want to discuss books they have already talked to death on the old boards and none of the new members want to begin a new discussion. I think we need to do something to spark some discussion there or merge some of the forums until there is something going on and then splitting them up.

    I dont think there is anything wrong with the layout or how much is on the screen but people will be more inclined to go into a forum and give opinions if others have done so before them. At the moment, most are laying empty and not many people want to go in and start it off.
  18. Hsing Moderator

    To be honest, I don't check each forum every day, not having much reading time left these days. I suspect lots of people don't, and I suppose that's what a forum lives from, though. Mending a few of them together might work.

    And actually I thought, if we keep the Fools Guild, the Joke thread would fit quite well, as there are already a few emailed jokes in it that are relatively known, too. Am I wrong? If a new forum isn't used because people are afraid it might kill their threads, it may not have been such a good idea.

    If we decide not to keep the Fools Guild because its hard to judge when a thread should be removed there and when not, we might just be going back to telling people to refrain to the threads dedicated to Jokes/ smashing people etc. As to the *A smacks B around the head with fish and hides under table*-exchanges, they often didn't start out as such, and one or three exchanges in an otherwards "serious" thread didn't hurt too much, as far as I remember; some of these quotes were quite funny. It was when it totally got out of hand, occupied seven or eight pages or filtered into other threads that people too offense.

    I suppose, in the future there will still be pool parties develop out of a "normal" thread, and we might be better off with telling to handle such things either carefully or keep them restricted to one thread striclty, or let it be, depending on how the majority finally votes on such things.
  19. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    I personally like the layout, and intend to be more active in the DW novels' forums when we have got stuff like the FAQ sorted out. I haven't had a lot of free time lately, and I tend to spend the weekends (when I'm actually at home) destressing by playing computer games.
  20. Electric_Man Templar

    Roman K wishes it to be known that he disapproves of a Fools Guild forum (he still has access to MSN and e-mail through his movile phone), and also wishes this story to be regaled:

    [quote:64c24ee9fc]Once upon a time there was a forum called the Morrowind Summit.

    This forum was a joyous place, but yea, there were those who posted silliness and stupidity solely for their sake, to the point of one letter posts.

    So the great moderators gathered, and decided to give the hordes a section to be stupid in. Thus, The Spam Pit came to be.

    And thus it flourished, and IQ was closer to room temperature than to anything else.

    Until one day the moderators realized that good people never registered because of the new section.

    Plus, those willing to stay were of the sort generally found in Counter Strike forums.

    And so, on that fateful day, the Pit was deleted, with all that was in it.

    But it was soon apparent the pit was one of the nails in the summit's casket. A big nail.

    I feel the Guild will bring exactly what weve been trying to avoid all this time.

    [/quote:64c24ee9fc]
  21. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    I have to say, I'm really unhappy with the attiude that ArthurDent showed in response to Ben's post about the casting thread in that forum. I also think, having re-examined the situation a bit, that we should not encourage utter nonsense of any sort. I'm in favor of rethinking the fools guild completely, and just having strict guidelines on what we don't want in the boardanian forum.
  22. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    I think this requires a debate. I don't know what I think, and would like to hear some arguments for and against.
  23. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    and i STILL want to know who moved my "so" thread...
  24. Orrdos God

    I still don't see any point in the fools guild.

    Stupid threads have as much place in the main forum as any other. It's not all going to be high brow intellectual debate all the time.

    The truly horrific threads, like pool parties, shouldn't have a place anywhere, never mind a whole forum.

    The joke thread, that's fine in the main forum as well, so far as I'm concerned.
  25. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    *nod* this did seem like a good idea early on, but having seen it in practice i'm steadily growing more and more against it.

    Anyway, more from roman on this topic:

    Roman K says:
    The boards are like our home, of sorts. Some things aren't tolerated. We can't say that those things can be done in the basement, right? It's either in the house or it isn't. Deciding the details is another matter.
  26. Tephlon Active Member

    [quote:7e160cd191="Garner"]*nod* this did seem like a good idea early on, but having seen it in practice i'm steadily growing more and more against it.
    [/quote:7e160cd191]
    Agreed, This seemed like a good idea, but now that we have it, I think it should go as soon as possible.

    [quote:7e160cd191="Roman K"]
    The boards are like our home, of sorts. Some things aren't tolerated. We can't say that those things can be done in the basement, right? It's either in the house or it isn't. Deciding the details is another matter.[/quote:7e160cd191]

    Nicely said, Roman. Let them in the house (main boards/Boardania), just as long as they don't get any paint on the furniture, I'm okay with a silly thread once in a while.


    Regarding the book-threads:
    If/when I have the time I will try and do one or two introductions and start up a discussion. I've just read "Johnny and the Dead" and I liked it, so that one may be the first.
  27. Pixel New Member

    I've spent the last three weeks with limited-to-non-existent internet access, and I am trying to catch up, so please bear with me if I am repeating something said in another thread/forum.

    [quote:93c070f36d="Orrdos"]I still don't see any point in the fools guild.[/quote:93c070f36d]
    I've been trying to understand the reasoning behind this forum, from the rather fuzzy description, and I agree, there is no point to it.

    [quote:93c070f36d="Orrdos"]Stupid threads have as much place in the main forum as any other. It's not all going to be high brow intellectual debate all the time.[/quote:93c070f36d]

    Right - looking at it logically, a thread called "The Boardanian Society for Putting Cats in Control" could be considered, in the context of a Terry Pratchett board, as a stupid thread - but people picked up the idea, ran with it for a while, and then it fell into disuse - what has a place on the main forum is whatever enough people are currently interested in to keep it going - when they lose interest it will die of its own accord.


    [quote:93c070f36d="Orrdos"]The truly horrific threads, like pool parties, shouldn't have a place anywhere, never mind a whole forum.[/quote:93c070f36d]

    I'm not sure exactly what the definition of "pool parties" is, so I cannot really comment on this, but by analogy I would assume that flirting would come under the same category - this gets embarrassing in a general thread, especially when it is undirected "trawling", but even a new thread just for two people clutters up the board - what are PMs for if not for [i:93c070f36d]private[/i:93c070f36d] matters?

    [quote:93c070f36d="Orrdos"]The joke thread, that's fine in the main forum as well, so far as I'm concerned.[/quote:93c070f36d]

    Even a "role-playing" thread such as the one which caused a fuss a while ago (when we were actually in theory role-playing [i:93c070f36d]ourselves[/i:93c070f36d] or at least our perceived Boardanian personnas) should not be a problem [i:93c070f36d]as long as it stays in its own thread![/i:93c070f36d] - taking a game which some people may not want to be involved in (and therefore should not be even to the extent of using them as extras) and trying to colonise other parts of the board is clearly not acceptable.

    Edited to correct - three weeks, not five

    Second edit to clarify - addition of "therefore" in last paragraph
  28. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    flirting is not to be condoned. publicly flirting, especially on the fucking internet, is attention seeking behavior. i personally do not need to get e-hugs and coquettish hints of other peoples sex lives in order to get a stirring in my own loins, and I find it very distasteful if other people DO need that sort of exhibitionism.

    if you want to get attention, you need to do so in socially acceptible ways. Setting someone's house on fire is attention seeking, but so is planting a very nice garden.

    so, until the day when the emotionally crippled and needy take over and pry these boards from my cold, dead hands...

    if you need to flirt or talk about how big you like your cod pieces or whatever, go talk to temple maiden on the stamps forum, or juggicide on the old boards, because these are people who've publicly stated they approve of flirting and if you'd rather associate with them than us, I ain't gonna stop you.

    as for pool parties... if they stay in their own threads, fine. i ignored the cat society thread. I ignored the canine society thread. they don't interest me, and if something important transpires, people will tell me.

    if things reach a point where the main forum is being actually polluted by 'undesirable' threads, then we need to address it, but an official casting thread is not a problem or an issue. an official favorite book thread is not a problem or an issue.

    it's two dozen casting threads all on the same page that are a serrious problem
  29. Delphine New Member

    I don't really like the idea of a foum just for total crap. I agree that the jokes thread is fine in Boardania. I also agree that pool parties are just bad anyway.

    Who, or what, are we trying to cater for with it? It seems like the only stuff that we can be sure is too stupid for the main forum is stuff we've never really liked in the first place. It's like we're opening our doors to all the people who like pretending to be a hot babe in a bikini, or playing online tag, or posting as Death all day.

    Is there a limit to the stupidity? Could someone make a thread called "nfnfkdnvcjkdss" about random letters? Could someone start a leet thread?

    That "Last post wins" thread is an example... If the fools forum is filled with that kind of worthless shit I can't imagine a lot of people would want to go in there at all.

    The distinction is blurry anyway. Garner's thread was moved there for some reason. It was silly, but I thought it was fine in the main forum. If things like that, just random silliness, has to go in there, then the main forum will start to look a bit empty. It's not like there's a Scale of Foolishness we can use to determine what goes where.

    Was it the pool parties/roleplay thing that started this whole idea? Because I don't think we'll suffer hugely without having pool parties at all. Most roleplay is, as Pixel said, bearable in moderation. The kind that develops naturally is sometimes really funny. And all the tripod stuff is a kind of roleplay anyway. So I don't think the Fools Guild is necessary.
  30. Maljonic Administrator

    Okay, the Fools' Guild will be removed then if no one objects? Don't think we need a big hoohaa and vote on it, just a couple of 'I agrees' will do seeing as it's such a trivial thing. :)

    P.S. Can move the thread that's in it to the DDs?
  31. Electric_Man Templar

    I agree, as does (from this thread, in reverse order):

    Delphine
    Garner
    Pixel
    Tephlon
    Orrdos
    Roman_K
  32. Maljonic Administrator

    Okay, it's done.
  33. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    thanks for the tidying up, mal. it was an idea that looked good on paper, but i think we just need to keep the standards clear enough and do things the same way we always have
  34. Maljonic Administrator

    I agree, but sometimes you just never know till you try. :)
  35. Garner Great God and Founding Father

  36. Bob New Member

    [quote:66dbcbed86="Garner"]I'd very much like to know who moved my 'so' thread and why they felt the need to do this without notification or asking[/quote:66dbcbed86]

    There is a moderator log, the admin has access to it. I dunno if he can make it public, but you could put it in a section only moderators can view if you don't want non-sweepers to view it.

    ~B:wink:B~
  37. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    no no, i'll just randomly blame the other mods and on occasion smite them angrily.
  38. Electric_Man Templar

    Right, resureecting a point I made that got lost amid all the fools guild stuff...

    [quote:dd3f03ad83="Electric_Man"]At this point I'm starting to wonder if there might be worth in merging some of the book forums together. The traffic in them is very minimal, I expected them to be filled up a bit more by now. At the moment they just look empty and unwanted, and also make the page longer than it needs to be. I like things simple, having too many forums just makes you unsure of where to post.

    Looking at it now, I'd suggest merging Wizards, Witches and Death together and merging the other three together too. That way we would have the more magically inclined books in one forum, and the less-magically inclined in the other, we could also put the Tiffany books in the 'Magic' forum too.[/quote:dd3f03ad83]

    Thoughts, comments etc?
  39. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    [quote:9d7a4e9d50="Buzzfloyd"]I personally like the layout, and intend to be more active in the DW novels' forums when we have got stuff like the FAQ sorted out. I haven't had a lot of free time lately, and I tend to spend the weekends (when I'm actually at home) destressing by playing computer games.[/quote:9d7a4e9d50]
  40. Electric_Man Templar

    Right, I said this in response to an e-mail that it'll be fine once we get a few more discussions on the forums.

    [quote:4d1791505e]Indeed, and the problem is that there are only 5 or 6 people who are actually participating in any discussions.

    Grace says that she will join in once she has time, but one person (even if it is Grace) won't make that much difference.

    The policy should be to have a few forums, and then expand them if/when they get busy. Not have lots of forums and then hope.[/quote:4d1791505e]
  41. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    What would be your suggestion then? A single discussion forum for all books and Discworld related items? The quantity of threads we currently have would look like a decent amount in just one forum. Or do you think they still need splitting up a little?
  42. colonesque10 New Member

    I don't really see a problem as it is now. I agree that some of the threads are a bit bare but the front page with all the forums on is about the right size to me. If we were to reduce the amount of forums it would probably be allright to keep the avatar and introductions forum, the boardania forum, then have one for all DW Terry Pratchett books (or maybe even split that into two, for the first 15 and then the next however many) then have one for all othe Terry Pratchett books and then the D&D and other RPG forum. Personally I would leave it as it is but thats just me being lazy. ;)
  43. Electric_Man Templar

    Currently there are 22 threads in the 6 forums. I think if you split it in two, that would be 11 each... which would still be too few really. The forums would still look a little desolate.

    So at this point I would say that there should be just one, with a review of the situation once there are more topics.
  44. colonesque10 New Member

    [quote:848bf58186="Electric_Man"]Currently there are 22 threads in the 6 forums. I think if you split it in two, that would be 11 each... which would still be too few really. The forums would still look a little desolate.

    So at this point I would say that there should be just one, with a review of the situation once there are more topics.[/quote:848bf58186]

    What? Just one for all the DW books? I'd be happy with that although it would make the front page look a little bare in my opinion. :)
  45. Electric_Man Templar

    The problem is the forums would be bare, which discourages people from posting as it looks like no-one looks at them. Maybe, just maybe as many as two, although I would like to see the threads split as equally as possible between the two if that was the case.

    I don't actually see a 'compact' front page as a problem. It will make it much simpler to find things, and eliminate the need to scroll down and search through topic headings as much.
  46. colonesque10 New Member

    [quote:f5411c4b07="Electric_Man"]The problem is the forums would be bare, which discourages people from posting as it looks like no-one looks at them. Maybe, just maybe as many as two, although I would like to see the threads split as equally as possible between the two if that was the case.

    I don't actually see a 'compact' front page as a problem. It will make it much simpler to find things, and eliminate the need to scroll down and search through topic headings as much.[/quote:f5411c4b07]

    I can see your point and I agree with it in parts but i'm just not sure it's that much of a problem. I agree that people aren't going to post in a thread bare forum until maybe a new book comes out but they don't have to. In the end if they want to talk about a specific book then the will and hopefully should post in that forum. :)
  47. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    I'm inclined at this point to agree with ben a bit. at the very least, his rationale seems sound. we have forums that are unused and have, in the past, scantioned crap posts because 'it adds topics'

    if we have to force posts in there, then they probably weren't necessary in the first place.

    still, as kenny says, this really isn't a massive problem to the boards either.
  48. Tephlon Active Member

    It would also pull up the Temple forum, which is a plus.
    I heartily agree with E_M, Just dump everything books/DW in a books/DW forum, then if it takes off, we can split it into 2 or 3 forums.

    Right now, the traffic doesn't warrant the number of forums, and it "scares off" people (Why post in a nearly empty forum?)
  49. Maljonic Administrator

    I'm more inclined to agree with colonesque on this; I think it's fine just the way it is, and I still don't think we've given it enough time anyway. I think it looks better if we do have all the different places visible and clearly marked, showing that we cover all the topics and books. I don't see why having a couple of topics with not much in them at the moment is going to scare anyone off; they can see right away, as soon as they get here, how many people are registered, how many people are posting each day and that the Boardania section has tonnes of posts in it - so I don't think it does us any harm having them, and think it may even be worse for us if we get rid of them.

    We still have less sections than the original boards if you don't count the Temple sections, which are unique to this site and can't really be compared. Even including them we have the same amount.

    We are talking about 13 sections here, it's not a lot; another site I post on that is very popular has 50 sections.

    Some of the Harry Potter forums have over 20 sections, which isn't at all uncommon for a forum. We haven't had any new people complaining that it's too cluttered as far as I know, or that there's too many sections to cope with because it's blowing their mind. I also think we might be glad of the extra space when we have a few thousand members, which might not be that far off. I think our boards will look pretty silly with everyone crammed into just 3 sections, not at all what people are used to seeing on a message board, and will put people off more than having a couple of sections low on topics.
  50. Hsing Moderator

    I agree on Colonesque and Mal. We've been here for two months now, and naturally, the book related forums fill slower than those were you can post your opinion on the matter, or whatever you have to add, from the top of your head.

    Even if an half empty forum may make a newbit hesitate to start something, finding him-/herself in one big forum where only few threads on the first page are Pratchett-related because of the usual buzz may have the same effect. Its not harder to post in an almost empty forum than bursting into one where the active discussions of the regulars are all about something else.

    That way, they have at least a place where they can be sure they are right, plus the discussions are easy to find when you're new.

    By the way, when I started as a newbit on the old boards years ago, I posted in the smaller forums first, in the book related discussions, because I felt the smaller forums where kind of an acceptance trials for the main one. I found it easier to start there.

    My only worry is that people might get used to look up only the Boardania forum, but... we have two spiffy functions informing you about new posts in [i:85282ceeb5]every [/i:85282ceeb5]forum when you log in.

    If it is partly about how it looks on a discussion board when there are only 22 threads which are strictly book related... There are many more Pratchett related threads in the main forum. There are the quizzes. There are the articles. Thanks to Mal and others, there is plenty of material for the Pratchett fan dropping by. Of course it would be great if more of us posted even more terrific stuff... but "how it looks" shouldn't be our main concern. I do think it will come as time goes by.
  51. Electric_Man Templar

    [quote:e11903b56d="Maljonic"]I'm more inclined to agree with colonesque on this; I think it's fine just the way it is, and I still don't think we've given it enough time anyway. I think it looks better if we do have all the different places visible and clearly marked, showing that we cover all the topics and books. I don't see why having a couple of topics with not much in them at the moment is going to scare anyone off;[/quote:e11903b56d]

    They will see an empty forum, which they will presume is practically unread and think twice before posting anything in that forum for that reason.

    [quote:e11903b56d]they can see right away, as soon as they get here, how many people are registered, how many people are posting each day and that the Boardania section has tonnes of posts in it - so I don't think it does us any harm having them, and think it may even be worse for us if we get rid of them.[/quote:e11903b56d]

    As above really, they'll think that people only go on the Boardania forum and presume that that is the only place where their posts will be seen and will only post topics relevant to that section.

    [quote:e11903b56d]We still have less sections than the original boards if you don't count the Temple sections, which are unique to this site and can't really be compared. Even including them we have the same amount.

    We are talking about 13 sections here, it's not a lot; another site I post on that is very popular has 50 sections.

    Some of the Harry Potter forums have over 20 sections, which isn't at all uncommon for a forum. We haven't had any new people complaining that it's too cluttered as far as I know, or that there's too many sections to cope with because it's blowing their mind.[/quote:e11903b56d]

    The old board had the same problem, forums with too few posts that were practically unread. In the end they got spammed so much that there was more spam threads than proper (not that that will be a problem here).

    This is not any other forum, it doesn't matter how they organise their forums because they have different dynamics, different posters, different histories

    [quote:e11903b56d] I also think we might be glad of the extra space when we have a few thousand members, which might not be that far off. I think our boards will look pretty silly with everyone crammed into just 3 sections, not at all what people are used to seeing on a message board, and will put people off more than having a couple of sections low on topics.[/quote:e11903b56d]

    Ah, well that's why that when we do finally get more posts in the one or two forums that we condense it too, we can review the situation and expand the amount of forums if needed. I think a few thousand members is some time away, in any case that isn't the point, the point is what is best for the look of the board NOW, we can change what it looks like when traffic increases.
  52. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    To be honest, I think this is too hasty. The very fact that the topic matter of each forum is strictly limited makes them bound to fill up slower. I think there is a healthy amount of material in each forum, given the amount of time we've been here.

    As a member of several forums, and someone who can remember their newbie days on each, I would submit that a newbie is far more likely to get confused and leave if the forum layout keeps chopping and changing than if some bits see more activity than others.
  53. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    I'm not quite sure of where I stand on the forum condensing, but i do think it would be helpfull if we all made an effort to post more on the forums. I know for many is a case of saying stuff we've already said but what made the old board great was all the brillant is discussions thats we all had there. Some more of that here can only be a good thing.
  54. Ba Lord of the Pies

    Ba thinks Rinso's hit on the answer. Consolidating the forums is only a temporary solution at best. It would be far better to spark off activity in those forums.
  55. Electric_Man Templar

    Right, like we said we'd do before?

    If people actually go ahead and start posting lots of new threads, then fair enough. The forums will be full and there won't be a need to consolidate them.

    But, will it happen? It hasn't so far, and who's to say that they will fill up quickly? In the meantime, we have barren spaces on our board.
  56. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    They aren't barren, and I think it's unrealistic to expect them to fill up quickly. I think the layout is good, and we simply need to give it time. Yes, we said that last time, and look - more threads have been created since then, and the sub-fora are looking better than before! Given that they are specialist fora, they are never going to fill at the same rate as Boardania, and we shouldn't expect them to. I think the tidying instinct needs curbing here; as I said, in my experience, changes to the layout are more damaging to newbie perceptions than quiet fora are.

    Edit for consistency re forums/fora.
  57. Hsing Moderator

    And again, we've been here for two months and a day!
    Considering that, we're doing extremely well.
  58. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Also note the difference between saying we'll do something and actually doing it. People should be making more/some effort to spark/join the dicussions on the boards.

    I've seen one or two post of 'we disscussed this on the old board' nature. We don't have those anymore, and the old board isn't something that we can incorpreate into this one as we're pretty much a banned topic there. Obivously, we can't be expected to repeat the old board or the old discussions but we should encourage new ones here.
  59. Roman_K New Member

    New discussions are not happening. In fact, those in existance are not all that alive. So, we need the sectionization to appear a legitimate Discworld fansite, right? What do the sections give us if people see that no one posts in them? Are most folks are stupid and will be attracted to shiny sections, or will said folks notice that no Discworld discussion is taking place, and as such won't discuss anything themselves?

    Saying that people will post if they have something to post is unrealistic. No one will post a topic if he believes that no reply will be forthcoming, and as such no one will discuss anything. 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?

    Fold the sections into one, if only as a temporary move. Saying that things will get better won't make 'em that way.

    As for the older members actively trying to spark new discussions, that's not going to happen. That involves effort and, if these things have been said by them before, will feel like wasted effort, and as such won't happen. 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.

    That's what's happening here as well, and I'm feeling mighty tired of it.

    edit: Grammar
  60. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    [quote:b9c8995083="Roman_K"]New discussions are not happening. In fact, those in existance are not all that alive. [/quote:b9c8995083]
    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:b9c8995083]highly specific[/i:b9c8995083], 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:b9c8995083]So, we need the sectionization to appear a legitimate Discworld fansite, right? [/quote:b9c8995083]
    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.

    [quote:b9c8995083]What do the sections give us if people see that no one posts in them? [/quote:b9c8995083]
    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:b9c8995083]Are most folks are stupid and will be attracted to shiny sections, or will said folks notice that no Discworld discussion is taking place, and as such won't discuss anything themselves?[/quote:b9c8995083]
    I think you will find that a lot of newbies have seen that discussion [i:b9c8995083]is[/i:b9c8995083] 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:b9c8995083]Saying that people will post if they have something to post is unrealistic. [/quote:b9c8995083]
    I disagree. That is exactly what has been happening.

    [quote:b9c8995083]No one will post a topic if he believes that no reply will be forthcoming, and as such no one will discuss anything. [/quote:b9c8995083]
    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:b9c8995083]has been taking place[/i:b9c8995083].

    [quote:b9c8995083]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:b9c8995083]
    Hyperbole, and, in my opinion, false.

    [quote:b9c8995083]Fold the sections into one, if only as a temporary move. [/quote:b9c8995083]
    As I have said before, my experience is that change is [i:b9c8995083]more[/i:b9c8995083] 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:b9c8995083]unnecessary[/i:b9c8995083] but it is also [i:b9c8995083]damaging[/i:b9c8995083], in my opinion.

    [quote:b9c8995083]Saying that things will get better won't make 'em that way.[/quote:b9c8995083]
    Well no, but that's not the point. If I say "the sky is blue", my saying so does not [i:b9c8995083]make[/i:b9c8995083] 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:b9c8995083]As for the older members actively trying to spark new discussions, that's not going to happen. [/quote:b9c8995083]
    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:b9c8995083]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:b9c8995083]
    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:b9c8995083]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:b9c8995083]
    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:b9c8995083]all[/i:b9c8995083] posting - affected the smaller fora. This board is [i:b9c8995083]very new[/i:b9c8995083], 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:b9c8995083]That's what's happening here as well, and I'm feeling mighty tired of it.[/quote:b9c8995083]
    I disagree. There's stuff I'm pretty tired of too.

Share This Page