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

Fr_Dougal · 03-01-2018 07:01PM

GreeBo wrote: »

I think a mega chat type thread works well in specific forums, but AH is by definition nonspecific, so we are basically talking about turning AH Forum into 1 thread?

No. Threads that are just chat between posters should be merged into one thread eg the number of threads where posters post as if they’re on FB giving updates to what they had for breakfast, dinner, lunch, and their last bowel movements or lack there of.

The “trivial things that XYZ you”, started off with a ‘NO CHAT” warning and it was enforced. It seems that these warnings have been left off the Part 2, 3 etc versions of the threads. By all means keep these threads going, but enforce the ‘NO CHAT’ rule that has always been there. It’s still lighthearted, but less like FB.

OldMrBrennan83 · 03-01-2018 07:04PM

This post has been deleted.

retro:electro · 03-01-2018 07:08PM

The "no chat" rule has to be one of the most debilitating and immobilising implementations on a discussion site.
That is what makes things become "Facebooky". Countless "status" like posts over and over without allowing any kind of natural engagement or impulsive conversation to happen. Sure I may as well just write in my diary instead.

Billy86 · 03-01-2018 07:13PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

Except soccer

I do agree on the Cafe though, it was supposed to be craptalk about politics, with the main Politics forum being the more "legitimate" option. I don't know why it was closed, exactly. The whole point of casual discussion was a bit destroyed by needing access requests. Now, there's no difference between the two, except it's a bit deader.

True, though (I may be wrong here!) I'd imagine even soccer sees a huge bump in requests after the WC/Euros when if I recall you guys usually open to the unregistered public. Obviously the tournament itself is going to generate a lot more interest, but I know that was my starting point on the boards soccer forum at least.

Very well run forum though, and a good sense of community in it (same for the rugby forum, gaming forum, and American football on a smaller scale)

riffmongous · 03-01-2018 07:15PM

anna080 wrote: »

The "no chat" rule has to be one of the most debilitating and immobilising implementations on a discussion site.
That is what makes things become "Facebooky". Countless "status" like posts over and over without allowing any kind of natural engagement or impulsive conversation to happen. Sure I may as well just write in my diary instead.

It had its place sonetimes though, as Tom pointed out earlier the Farming forum was terrible for chat on threads, threads were completely derailed after a few posts

end of the road · 03-01-2018 07:20PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I was an extremely frequent contributor to the old PC (appropriate abbreviation ) but I refuse on principle to sign up for the new one which is so elitist towards both new users and people with political views which get them modded more often than people like me. I do sometimes read it and it seems that it's a shadow of what it was before they made it elitist in this manner anyway so I guess I'm not missing much...

it's effectively dead patrick. i did sign up for it myself, and i wasn't a hugely regular contributer to the original one but it's clear that since the new regime came into place hardly anyone is posting in it.

retro:electro · 03-01-2018 07:20PM

riffmongous wrote: »

It had its place sonetimes though, as Tom pointed out earlier the Farming forum was terrible for chat on threads, threads were completely derailed after a few posts

Can't comment on the farming forum because I don't think I've ever even set foot in there, but some threads thrive on poster interaction. It just makes no sense to me to have a no chat rule. I was glad to see it lifted on the most beautiful women in the world thread. That was just daft. I think it was after one poster went on a verbal assault and then conversation was nuked as a result. Throwing the baby out with the bath water shouldn't be an option for harmless threads.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 03-01-2018 07:21PM

riffmongous wrote: »

It had its place sonetimes though, as Tom pointed out earlier the Farming forum was terrible for chat on threads, threads were completely derailed after a few posts

It's another problem of content and medium I guess. I know the reddit comparisons are done to death and people hate the layout over there but it's one area where it really does work to the benefit of discussion. There can be little chatty tangents, two hander interminable arguments, a series of puns etc, and you just have to expand or minimise the dropdown thingie depending on whether or not you're interested in them. Whereas on a site in this style it's a tricky balance between everyone having to scroll past (at best) a load of Brian and Ciara flirting or like what Anna says, just a load of "statusy" posts not interacting with each other at all.

tomwaterford · 03-01-2018 07:25PM

anna080 wrote: »

Can't comment on the farming forum because I don't think I've ever even set foot in there, but some threads thrive on poster interaction. It just makes no sense to me to have a no chat rule. I was glad to see it lifted on the most beautiful women in the world thread. That was just daft. I think it was after one poster went on a verbal assault and then conversation was nuked as a result. Throwing the baby out with the bath water shouldn't be an option for harmless threads.

I'm not againest chat tbc

But threads used start off say asking about fencing/costs etc....by end of first page it would lads asking about each others breakfast and
in-house jokes (prob most cringe ever is inhouse jokes)...

while I known and in on them jokes etc....it was annoying having to wade through 80% off topic chat for some info.....as I said before not sure how applicable it is to AH

hatrickpatrick · 03-01-2018 07:27PM

riffmongous wrote: »

No no, I want the opposite, many more threads with more varying topics. Now how to achieve that I'm not so sure, I'd prefer to see anything serious moved elsewhere and AH kept light hearted, but I don't think it would be possible without huge complaints and everyone would just need migrate back in the end

You'd have to start allowing the light hearted stuff on AH again for starters, in other words stop modding people for taking the piss which is the foundation AH used to be built on.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 03-01-2018 07:30PM

riffmongous wrote: »

It had its place sonetimes though, as Tom pointed out earlier the Farming forum was terrible for chat on threads, threads were completely derailed after a few posts

They still are:D

The chitchat thread is very good for general postings about what's happening in the general area around farming and there are specific threads about Dairying, milk price, mart price, general schemes discussions etc. Even with specific threads on a subject, they often go off topic and in interesting directions and mods move them into threads of their own.

But it is time consuming especially on mobiles where you have to return to the desktop site to read, select and move the posts. Especially selecting a 1mm x 1mm dot on the phone! So read, enlarge, select, diminish, read, select, diminish ad nauseum.

Now in a relatively quiet forum/thread, like F&F, it can be done but in AH with some 40 posts in 5 minutes? I wouldn't say it's feasible at all.

Doltanian · 03-01-2018 07:43PM

I got an infraction for objecting to a moderators dismissing of a thread about the bullying and liberal intolerance in colleges and Universities in Ireland on the politics forum, I called it out fairly and then received a PM and infraction accusing me of trolling. It was a ridiculous and stupid thing by the moderator and proves he/she is totally unable for the role.

_Dara_ · 03-01-2018 07:53PM

anna080 wrote: »

I disagree. Some of those threads are AH's most engaging and active threads. Killing them off and making a megathread will do what exactly? Most likely reduce forum activity even more. The biggest gripe users have with those threads is that they're "Facebooky" then it's easy avoid them. I don't think they're replacing political content either. Some of those threads have been running for years.

There's a lot of them and if you're not interested in the chatty, community stuff, it can be a bit wearying to see half of the first page of AH filled with them.

dxhound2005 · 03-01-2018 07:57PM

Doltanian wrote: »

I got an infraction for objecting to a moderators dismissing of a thread about the bullying and liberal intolerance in colleges and Universities in Ireland on the politics forum, I called it out fairly and then received a PM and infraction accusing me of trolling. It was a ridiculous and stupid thing by the moderator and proves he/she is totally unable for the role.

Proves nothing. Where is your evidence?

riffmongous · 03-01-2018 08:07PM

anna080 wrote: »

Can't comment on the farming forum because I don't think I've ever even set foot in there, but some threads thrive on poster interaction. It just makes no sense to me to have a no chat rule. I was glad to see it lifted on the most beautiful women in the world thread. That was just daft. I think it was after one poster went on a verbal assault and then conversation was nuked as a result. Throwing the baby out with the bath water shouldn't be an option for harmless threads.

True enough, a bit of chat is necessary otherwise it's all a bit pointless, but I've seen other on forums where every thread just turns into chat at some point and then if anyone actually wants to talk about the topic they'll be ignored on thread and have to start up another one.. finding a balance is the trick, which is why I actually like reddit a lot since the community can moderate the chat themselves. How to do it on Boards, specifically AH, I don't really know although I think an actual chat megathread works well on smaller forums with a good community

Keira Thankful Target wrote: »

It's another problem of content and medium I guess. I know the reddit comparisons are done to death and people hate the layout over there but it's one area where it really does work to the benefit of discussion. There can be little chatty tangents, two hander interminable arguments, a series of puns etc, and you just have to expand or minimise the dropdown thingie depending on whether or not you're interested in them. Whereas on a site in this style it's a tricky balance between everyone having to scroll past (at best) a load of Brian and Ciara flirting or like what Anna says, just a load of "statusy" posts not interacting with each other at all.

I'm actually a big fan of reddit for reading, the ability to hide threads is fantastic

Arghus · 03-01-2018 08:08PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Difference with soccer is that nobody gets banned for supporting Man City over Man U, and then potentially gets refused access because of their history of supporting Man City over Man U. The entire problem on the politics forums is the "unspoken rules" mentioned over the last few pages (for instance, thou shalt not be a cultural nationalist), and the curated politics cafe membership allows the mods to selectively make sure those views can't be expressed.

That's at the heart of this whole issue. Applied to soccer, imagine if supporting a certain team essentially made you "persona non grata" not only to the forum's users (which is fine) but also to those in charge (which is not).

You won't run into displinary issues in a heavily modded forum like soccer just because you support a particular team over another, of course not.

But you will run into trouble if your idea of support is to constantly belittle and aggravate fans of opposing teams.

In political fora around these parts it's not usually the political position people hold that gets them into trouble, more often than not it's how they expouse that position; a distinction that's lost on many of them.

_Dara_ · 03-01-2018 08:17PM

riffmongous wrote: »

I'm not a fan of the mega chat threads but if others enjoy them then fair enough, good for them and if it keeps people around then great. But one problem I still have its that there are so many of them, and coupled with all the other mega threads and political stuff, sometimes when I check the main page of AH it feels like there isn't any new content/threads there at all.

Absolutely. It gives the impression of the forum being a bit stale if you're seeing the same thread titles all the time. Grand if you're interested in or invested in those threads but if you're not, there's not much to keep you hanging around.

pilly · 03-01-2018 08:22PM

Beasty wrote:

This thread is basically circumventing the current Feedback procedure. We said all along that we would review that procedure, but we will not be allowing any further site-wide "Feedback" threads in AH.

What is one to do though when a thread started in Feedback is completely ignored?

retro:electro · 03-01-2018 08:23PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Absolutely. It gives the impression of the forum being a bit stale if you're seeing the same thread titles all the time. Grand if you're interested in or invested in those threads but if you're not, there's not much to keep you hanging around.

I don't see what nuking the lot will achieve, only punish those who are doing their best to keep some community spirit alive.

Beasty · 03-01-2018 08:30PM

pilly wrote: »

What is one to do though when a thread started in Feedback is completely ignored?

I am not aware of any thread being started by you in Feedback. Which thread are you referring to?

OldMrBrennan83 · 03-01-2018 08:34PM

This post has been deleted.

Beasty · 03-01-2018 08:37PM

Doltanian wrote: »

I got an infraction for objecting to a moderators dismissing of a thread about the bullying and liberal intolerance in colleges and Universities in Ireland on the politics forum, I called it out fairly and then received a PM and infraction accusing me of trolling. It was a ridiculous and stupid thing by the moderator and proves he/she is totally unable for the role.

Do not bring up specific mod actions into this thread. There is a process for disputing them which I am sure you are all too well aware of.

_Dara_ · 03-01-2018 08:38PM

anna080 wrote: »

I don't see what nuking the lot will achieve, only punish those who are doing their best to keep some community spirit alive.

Well, see, not all of us are sold on the whole "community spirit" thing. Personally, I couldn't really care less about it. I have friends, I come here to read and discuss interesting topics, not talk about everyday minutiae. I think the importance of the community feel is overstated and trying to keep it in place could turn other users off. So a balance needs to be struck between having chat threads for those who want them and keeping the interest of those who don't care for them. Currently the balance is tipping too much one way. As said by someone else, the first page can really lack much new content a lot of time and eventually people who aren't interested in chatting will stop visiting the forum. I know I've been visiting AH much less frequently than I used to. I doubt I'm unique in that regard. And it's a gateway forum for the rest of the site so that's a big deal.

IMO, there should be no more than two or three chat threads. That's plenty. How many more are needed?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 03-01-2018 08:40PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Absolutely. It gives the impression of the forum being a bit stale if you're seeing the same thread titles all the time. Grand if you're interested in or invested in those threads but if you're not, there's not much to keep you hanging around.

I don't know how much that stale impression would be improved by removing those threads though.

I had a look there, through the first two pages, forty threads. Remove the megathreads (chat, dumb facebook, stinge etc), and by the time you're forty threads back the latest post is from yesterday morning.

Atm it's usually half the first page is megathreads, and the other half changes over a couple of days. Take them out and it's just going to be shorter slower threads, changing over four days.

dxhound2005 · 03-01-2018 08:43PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Well, see, not all of us are sold on the whole "community spirit" thing. Personally, I couldn't really care less about it. I have friends, I come here to read and discuss interesting topics, not talk about everyday minutiae. I think the importance of the community feel is overstated and trying to keep it in place could turn other users off. So a balance needs to be struck between having chat threads for those who want them and keeping the interest of those who don't care for them. Currently the balance is tipping too much one way. As said by someone else, the first page can really lack much new content a lot of time and eventually people who aren't interested in chatting will stop visiting the forum. I know I've been visiting AH much less frequently than I used to. I doubt I'm unique in that regard. And it's a gateway forum for the rest of the site so that's a big deal.

IMO, there should be no more than two or three chat threads. That's plenty. How many more are needed?

What does gateway forum mean?

retro:electro · 03-01-2018 08:45PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Well, see, not all of us are sold on the whole "community spirit" thing. Personally, I couldn't really care less about it. I have friends, I come here to read and discuss interesting topics, not talk about everyday minutiae. I think the importance of the community feel is overstated and trying to keep it in place could turn other users off. So a balance needs to be struck between having chat threads for those who want them and keeping the interest of those who don't care for them. Currently the balance is tipping too much one way. As said by someone else, the first page can really lack much new content a lot of time and eventually people who aren't interested in chatting will stop visiting the forum. I know I've been visiting AH much less frequently than I used to. I doubt I'm unique in that regard. And it's a gateway forum for the rest of the site so that's a big deal.

IMO, there should be no more than two or three chat threads. That's plenty. How many more are needed?

TBH that just comes across as a bit "how dare some people enjoy something I don't care about"..
Maybe first page is so active with chat threads because users actually enjoy them? Why would you want to suppress that because it's something that turns you off? You have as much power as any other user to start threads on topics that interest you. Don't punish other users for enjoying engaging with one another in light hearted threads just because it's something that's uninteresting and unimportant to you.

_Dara_ · 03-01-2018 08:47PM

Keira Thankful Target wrote: »

I don't know how much that stale impression would be improved by removing those threads though.

Well, there'd be more real estate on the front page, which might encourage people like me to visit more often and start more threads. The chat threads keep getting bumped. The more there are, the more often it will happen and the more likely it is that new threads will get bumped off the front page before they even get a chance to gain any traction. At the moment, I'd feel a bit like "what's the point?". Kinda seems like they'd sink with trace. Maybe that would happen, maybe it wouldn't but people might get that impression. And the more fresh threads that appear, the more people might be encouraged to start threads themselves. I reckon it could have a knock-on effect.

anna080 wrote: »

TBH that just comes across as a bit "how dare some people enjoy something I don't care about"

Oh, for god's sake. Why would I be like that? You're coming across a tad defensive of a bit of criticism of these threads. If chat threads dominate the first page (and at times they do), the rate at which they get bumped can knock fresh discussions down the page and off the front page. I think this is detrimental to the forum and I know myself that I have visited AH less since they proliferated. Is that a desirable outcome, to drive away users who aren't interested in chat threads?

The ideal is to have many people starting threads frequently. I don't myself have many topics lined up to start threads on, nor to I want that on my shoulders. I have some topics but if many muck in with topics, then some will pique mine and others interests. But if the thread is populated mostly with chat threads, that's not very interesting at all if you're not invested in them and keeps out new topics.

evolving_doors · 03-01-2018 08:47PM

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Context. You posted about a specific incident and how you knew then that AH had become serious. The opinion that AH is serious, based on one single incident, isn't worth much IMO. Take that however you want.
.

Yor taking it up wrong (or purposefully obfuscating). It wasn't based on 1 single incident. Like 1 day everything is all grand and then I get 1 bad post and suddenly decide its all changed! Seriously... that isn't what happened.
That one incident was on the back of many others (going from 2008 to 2015).

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Edit. If this is the inane back and forth posters were talking about earlier. I completely understand now

Well you started it!!

But congrats on the sudden epiphany.

OldMrBrennan83 · 03-01-2018 08:48PM

This post has been deleted.

Arghus · 03-01-2018 08:49PM

I don't post in the chat threads that often myself, here and there, that's about it, but isn't it just a matter of ignoring them if they bother you that much? Removing them would just mean less activity in general.

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

Comments

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