The slow death of forums *see OP for Admin warning and update 28/02/18*

dunworth1

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

2. Moderation ...... On occasion a moderator would lock a thread on the basis that it is likely to go off topic or venture into discussion of something that is not allowed (say for legal reasons).
To me this is a preemptive strike.
Quite a few might deserve a reminder, but to lock a thread without anything wrong being posted, seems to say more about the moderator than the posters.
I would like to see this strongly discouraged.


.

I think this is a valid point it happens quite often

it limits the debate in my opinion as the thread gets locked

Discodog

I have doubts about setting a minimum number of posts before you can post feedback. Surely, if you want to encourage new users, we want the place to be welcoming & invite new users to feedback ?

goz83

Threads which don't have a home very often land in After Hours. The problem here is that AH is very often the last place a general discussion thread should be. It's the jokers thread and nobody can expect a serious discussion. There should be a general chat forum which can be used by people who don't want every other thread to be turned into a joke.

Discodog

Aegir wrote: »

One problem I see, is that posters will often see a forum or thread, read some of the absolute ****e people post and just decide that it isn't worth the effort in posting.

Often you end up with a thread where 80% of posters have the same opinion and anyone who disagrees is then pretty much attacked relentlessly until they decide to just ignore it and walk away, so rather than debate or lively discussion, you end up with an echo chamber where only one opinion is allowed. It's even worse if the mods also have the same opinion as the 80%.

Totally agree. Mods should be told to watch out for this. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

GreeBo

Discodog wrote: »

Totally agree. Mods should be told to watch out for this. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Unfortunately a lot of the time the mods are of the same opinion as the masses.

Boom_Bap

GreeBo wrote: »

Unfortunately a lot of the time the mods are of the same opinion as the masses.

I agree.....wait...boll0x, I fell for it

bluefinger

I read the site a lot but since the newer layout with drop down menu I don't really post. Not sure why, but i found this thread and similar ones very interesting as I would not like to see the site die but it does seem to face a lot of challenges.

Would just like to echo what has been said previously the home page might as well be a link to my control panel. When i come to boards now 99% of the time i will scroll to the top and then control panel. Maybe another tab on the home page with something akin to the old landing page with all the forums and sub forums. Just had a look there and I've never once used the trending or thanks tab.

Dubl07

I'm generally quite happy with the site and visit many times per week. It's an interesting sounding board for local, national and international members.

One simple improvement might be an algorithm to lock the account of a user who has a post count of under say 50, from posting if they get reported by more than X other people in a given period on a thread/board/sitewide, with the account only able to be unlocked by a mod. It might prevent some trolling and give mods some extra time offline or to do their own things. If it were abused by an individual or small group to lock someone out for innocuous posts the repercussion could be visited upon the abusers.

Ave Sodalis

Discodog wrote: »

Totally agree. Mods should be told to watch out for this. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

How would you moderate that though? Other than stopping people from turning nasty, there's not much you can do, unless if an opinion is held by a certain percentage of people it can't be challenged. That would kill discussion very quickly.

Discodog

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

How would you moderate that though? Other than stopping people from turning nasty, there's not much you can do, unless if an opinion is held by a certain percentage of people it can't be challenged. That would kill discussion very quickly.

Would it come under soapboxing ? I don't think anyone objects to counter argument provided it isn't aggressive & puts the poster off the forum. Maybe a polite message from the Mod to say that all opinion is welcome.

Boards can seem a very complicated place & I think that new posters should be cut a bit of slack. I have seen good mods do this. I wonder how many ever read the charters - or even know what a charter is ?

GreeBo

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

How would you moderate that though? Other than stopping people from turning nasty, there's not much you can do, unless if an opinion is held by a certain percentage of people it can't be challenged. That would kill discussion very quickly.

Agreed its hard as its human to look fondly on people who agree with you, but often the standard of posts from users who are part of the masses fall short of what would be allowed from a poster who happens to disagree.

I mentioned it earlier, but Motors & Cycling are two forums where I notice this a lot.

If you are in the Cycling forum and disagree with the sentiment in the OP you will typically end up with "Oh my god, do you even have a licence?!" type replies.

Similarly, in Motors if you, for example point out that the cyclist in the OP was actually correct then you will get equally useless replies.

In both cases these types of replies will attract many "Thanks" yet i'd argue they are personal attacks against the poster and adding nothing to the conversation. They are very rarely acted upon in my experience.

Beasty

Discodog wrote: »

Totally agree. Mods should be told to watch out for this.

This highlights though that, particularly in some of the busiest forums, mods are not going to be actively monitoring every discussion. The important thing to remember is to report anything you think warrants mod intervention. That may range from moving a thread to a more appropriate forum, or reporting disruption from re-reg trolls. If we're given the heads up, we cannot then claim ignorance of what's going on.

Now the mod's view may differ from that of the person doing the reporting, and I've seen mods responding in the reported post forum to that effect, but at least that puts the onus on mods to actually review the report, be it a complaint, request or suggestion.

alexlyons

I used to be a bit more active in years gone by but life took me away, however coming back now so a Couple of points based on the posts since Beasty's summary.

The point about threads being locked to early. Could you allow them to colour code them in the title/background/etc or less obvious an edit to the title as a policy for mods, so users new the thread was "on a warning"

Sub forums - could this be a filter you could turn on/off... logistically with development it may not work but if you went into motors with the filter turned off, you'd see all posts including those in the sub forums... might help with activity?
In terms of posting, it could be similar to "Apple Discussions" where if you are posting the the main forum, you're forced to select by way of a drop down, if the post should be in the main forum or a specific sub forum..?
Would ensure they are all still used but may help draw traffic in.

As for layout, and how it is effecting traffic due to too many clicks to get to forums/sub forums - could this be a skin??

Muahahaha

Can I make a suggestion about reviving the Politics Cafe. If it was such a time sink for Mods with re-reg trolls then why not bring in a rule that says posters must have 50 or even 100 posts to their name before they can post in the Cafe. Surely that would get rid of the trolls, I doubt they are going to spend all that time posting in other forums to be eventually allowed to get to post in the Cafe.

That and open it up to all posters without having to ask for permission. And maybe for some of the mods to realise that discussion on politics is always going to be robust and emotional but that we are all adults here and so long as no one is getting personally abused then leave things be.

_Dara_

the_pen_turner wrote: »

why would you want to remove names. what harm are they doing.
unless they are offensive then leave them. .
let the past be the past


changing to numbers would be a nightmare to follow. 2112414 says this 4194819 says that . it would ruin any thread and the ability to follow it

Owta Control wrote: »

Genuinely, why bother? A lot of users want to read posts by posters that are no longer around...we have to take note of numbers now...people close their accounts...they shouldn't be erased from boards history

This came up in a feedback thread before, a good few posters there felt very strongly that they wanted to distance themselves from their old accounts and that you should be able to erase usernames. Thought they'd be identifiable from a combo of username and posts. Seemed kinda paranoid to me but there you go.

Inviere

Site Growth/New Forum Creation

I don't know about anyone else, but personally, I've come to see the way Boards handles new forum creation as hugely limiting for the site. In principle, yes, flagging user support/objection to new forum ideas is a great way to gauge interest, and assess viability before the fact. However, how that's being handled, is, imo, all wrong. We have the Forum Requests forum for this very task, however, it is in essence, a backwater town in a huge country, where very few people visit. New forum ideas are getting hugely limited exposure, and potentially great ideas for forums are going missed by swathes of people, barring the few who visit Forum Requests.

Ultimately, I see this as being a hugely limiting factor in the future growth and expansion of the site. Entire subjects are going uncatered to, and users are simply going elsewhere to discuss things that could be discussed here. Now, I'm not suggesting an "if you build it, they will come approach", that's equally limiting on the other end of the spectrum, but our current model is hopelessly ineffective. I'd suggest the mothballing of the Forum Requests forum, and instead, allow each individual category to handle it's growth via a more localised approach; perhaps each category could have it's own "Helpdesk", whereby things like Forum Requests are handled. The upshot of this is, the users of the that category, would be far more likely to be exposed to the ideas put forward for forum growth; these users will be clued into the subject matter, they will be more likely to vote/give feedback, and ultimately a better picture of viability can be drawn. Again, as it stands, the decentralised Forum Requests forum is a place that a seeming handful of people go it; that just doesn't cut it anymore.

Secondly, I think new forum ideas need a lot less focus on meeting stringent criteria like support in x days, number of votes etc...yes, they're good barometers, but they shouldn't be used like black or white paint either. I think the site would do well to move to a more trial based model, whereby a forum can be given a chance to grow in the real world, outside of relying on people to bother voting/giving feedback. If you build it they will come is not a surefire method of success, however, if you don't build it, you can be sure they definitely won't come...that's pretty certain. If something is a good idea, run with it, trial it out, let the Cmods of whatever appropriate category keep an eye on it for a bit, if it works, great, if not, great also, it was tried & didn't pan out; retire the forum & move on. Nothing has been lost, but something has been gained. TLDR, relax the requirements, put more emphasis on real world trials.

The recent request for a new VR forum is an example of where the current model of forum creation is badly, badly letting the site down. The request was put in at the beginning of August 2017, it quickly met the required vote numbers, and as of today, 17th of January 2018...more than five months later, the forum request sits in the Forum Request forum, locked, and seemingly abandoned. I'd never point the finger at anyone in particular for that, but there's literally no excuse for it, and I'd lay the blame firmly in our current forum creation model. It should have been noted that there was significant user interest in such a forum, and it should have been trialed months ago.

Anyway, again, I'm not sure who'd agree with the above, but I see it as a major issue affecting the site mod/long term. We're not keeping up, and are missing opportunities for creating lively forums with strong communities, simply because nobody in a backwater forum whose existence many aren't aware of, didn't +1 an idea. It needs to change imo.

gandalf

Thanks Beasty that's a lot of work you have undertaken. What would be great is to get timescales for each of the items from the relevant owners.

I believe getting feedback back as an open discussion platform asap would be a very positive step forward and an easy win for management. The only restriction I'd see as appropriate is having a minimum post count in place before users can participate which should deal with a majority of the rereg trolls. If the mods/ admins / staff engage with the users as they have in this thread I wouldn't see the forum being as painful for them as it obviously has in the past. The key to feedback working is open communication from the management both voluntary and paid.

James Brown

I think 'not up to standard' is not a decision any Mod/Admin should be deciding without hard rules, unless there are clear charter breaches, (insults/libel/adverts etc.). It makes forums a virtual nanny state and can easily pass for what is often taken as Mod bias.

I'm in a dilly of a pickle currently where I'm infracted for complaining about Fianna Fail And Fine Gael too much...in the Politics forum.
Before I draw the ire of any powers that be, I'm not disputing the infraction here, I'm raising it as an example.

As others have pointed out, when it's becoming difficult to post, would you be arsed?

I think a good rule of thumb would be no repetitive spam, no personal insults, nothing illegal. And leave all the surmising and pondering out of it. If people don't like your comments they can ignore you.
Nobody wants to discuss in an echo chamber and especially not in a chemically neutered forum*, (*see Politics Cafe).

Owta Control

_Dara_ wrote: »

This came up in a feedback thread before, a good few posters there felt very strongly that they wanted to distance themselves from their old accounts and that you should be able to erase usernames. Thought they'd be identifiable from a combo of username and posts. Seemed kinda paranoid to me but there you go.

If you want to distance yourself... don't post again...it's that simple or at least change your habits....if you keep posting in the seem forums people will know who you are...as you well know.

tomwaterford

Tbf it would be a good option to have when closing account to delete your posts etc

I'd deffo take it.....like obv be too much work to delete quoted posts etc....


but should be an option to delete all your history....they do it to the so called chore sex guy...with no problem

Owta Control

Think this thread has gone down the rabbit hole...
changing closed account names to numerics... getting rid of "chat" threads as it offends the eyes of minority who don't like seeing them on their feed,
Posters wanting boards to moderate the ignore feature instead of letting the individual do it themselves.... seriously....some amount of handholding and spoon-feeding is wanted by a few in here....this is the very reason why actual good suggestions get lost in the dross.

CelticRambler

Boards.ie is one of my few go-to forums these days, and I don't feel that I've suffered from any of the "problems" reported elsewhere (other than the site being unusable on my phone, but I that's OK because I rarely use my phone for th'internet.

Candie wrote: »

I think the too many forums thing is a definite issue, but I imagine quite a few of them would be less obscure and likely more frequented if they were easier to stumble across via a less dense menu system with more than four categories.

What I would like is the option to hide (sub)forums that I really have no interest in, never visit but that fill up the three pages of recent threads. I don't think there are too many forums (each to his own, and all that) but the presence of (e.g. from the home page right now) threads on Soccer, Golf, Athletics, Horse-racing, Vodafone, Rugby, Puzzles and Quizzes, Cool Vids & Pics & Links, MMA, Bank of Ireland, X-box, Fantasy Sports, more Fantasy Sports, more Soccer, Training Logs, Reality TV, Football Betting ... you get the picture ) is stopping me from stumbling across threads that might be worth looking at, and ...

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

Getting people to a forum is only half the battle and it's one that's also a double edged sword in my mind; if people see a quiet forum, are they going to be the one to get the ball rolling? If they don't get a response, will they persevere or just chalk it down as a dead forum and move on?

... even if it's a forum that I'm subscribed to, I don't necessarily see recent posts until a few days (or weeks) later, by which time the conversation has moved on, or the thread has already died.

Decluttering the list of recent threads would improve my chances of seeing and joining a discussion while it was still hot!

KERSPLAT!

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbf it would be a good option to have when closing account to delete your posts etc

I'd deffo take it.....like obv be too much work to delete quoted posts etc....


but should be an option to delete all your history....they do it to the so called chore sex guy...with no problem

And ruin most threads you've ever participated in making some unreadable, and give every user that option?

Nope. Stand by what you post or don't post it.

I've said some ridiculous things I'm sure but I'll still stand behind them and could admit now that they were wrong.

This is another "if you want to kill boards in an instant, do this..." fix.

tomwaterford

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

This is another "if you want to kill boards in an instant, do this..." fix.

Tbf I do be selfish as if/when I close my account....I'd not be coming back (even to view)...so it would be like a bebo page for me,

Never looked at again

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Plenty other forums don't have such a strict time limit on deleting posts, or none at all. Presumably if someone's interacting with you on thread you'll be quoted, so it'll be reasonably clear what's happening.

If someone is doxxed or becomes aware they're a target for it in particular, having a "delete all posts" option when they're closing the account makes sense to me, particularly given that site management have been so spectacularly unhelpful in those circumstances, to posters who've contributed a lot to the site. Or were the posts from those accounts deleted?

If someone has an account with several thousand posts, and someone gets their hands on their picture or first name, it could be very easy to figure out roughly where they live or work, find them on social media etc.

There has to be a balance between arguing that anonymity is essential to the site and that measures potentially compromising that anonymity aren't negotiable.

Edit: sorry, got a call while typing that, posted unfinished post by accident.

Keira Thankful Target

Keira Thankful Target wrote: »

Plenty other forums don't have such a strict time limit on deleting posts, or none at all. Presumably if someone's interacting with you on thread you'll be quoted, so it'll be reasonably clear what's happening.

If someone is doxxed or becomes aware they're a target for it in particular, having a "delete all posts" option when they're closing the account makes sense to me, particularly given that site management have been so spectacularly unhelpful in those circumstances, to posters who've contributed a lot to the site. Or were the posts from those accounts deleted?

If someone has an account with several thousand posts, and someone gets their hands on their picture or first name, it could be very easy to figure out roughly where they live or work, find them on social media etc.

There has to be a balance between arguing that anonymity

I agree there must be a balance struck but people need to be responsible for what they post. There is no way I would put my photo in After Hours for example or disclose my name on a thread.

the_pen_turner

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

And ruin most threads you've ever participated in making some unreadable, and give every user that option?

Nope. Stand by what you post or don't post it.

I've said some ridiculous things I'm sure but I'll still stand behind them and could admit now that they were wrong.

This is another "if you want to kill boards in an instant, do this..." fix.

I agree.

a diferent forum I frequent had an issue with the way pictures were saved. some kind of software update destroys all pics that were in threads over 6 months old.
all threads that were effected are worthless because of it. some posters scoured the dark corners of the internet and their hard drives to find some and fix those threads. it took a lot of work to save maybe 5% of the threads. . that forum lost a lot of member over that and a lot don't bother posting projects and ideas over it. they felt that their contibutions were all wasted

if you gave member the ability to delete all their posts it would ruin all the past threads and make members reconsider if they should bother contributing at all if it can be ruined in an insant like that

gifted

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree there must be a balance struck but people need to be responsible for what they post. There is no way I would put my photo in After Hours for example or disclose my name on a thread.

Ah go on....lol lol

KERSPLAT!

Keira Thankful Target wrote: »

Plenty other forums don't have such a strict time limit on deleting posts, or none at all. Presumably if someone's interacting with you on thread you'll be quoted, so it'll be reasonably clear what's happening.

If someone is doxxed or becomes aware they're a target for it in particular, having a "delete all posts" option when they're closing the account makes sense to me, particularly given that site management have been so spectacularly unhelpful in those circumstances, to posters who've contributed a lot to the site. Or were the posts from those accounts deleted?

If someone has an account with several thousand posts, and someone gets their hands on their picture or first name, it could be very easy to figure out roughly where they live or work, find them on social media etc.

There has to be a balance between arguing that anonymity

If it's quoted then deleting the post wouldn't be much use. Go to a thread with a few hundred posts and put a few of the top posters on ignore and see how the thread looks... it will make zero sense, it would be unreadable.

You can see my obvious dislike of this suggestion but whatever about my opinion it's something I can never see happening.

If you get doxxed it's likely your fault... the more you post, the more info you give the bigger picture you paint of yourself. If I was to be doxxed I'd have no one to blame but myself. I do have sympathy for those who are doxxed and I've helped posters before as much as I possibly could in giving them a dig out and removing certain posts but the buck stops with the poster themselves IMO

Dan Jaman

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbf it would be a good option to have when closing account to delete your posts etc

I'd deffo take it.....like obv be too much work to delete quoted posts etc....


but should be an option to delete all your history....they do it to the so called chore sex guy...with no problem

No way. I've seen the damage that can do to some forums when a poster who has contributed a lot over the years, gets something up his nose, throws his toys out of the pram and makes use of the nuke button on his account by deleting everything he's ever posted. Kind of sloppy of the admins to leave that option open, but perhaps they thought they were dealing with adults.