Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…3738404243…98

Comments

  • #1172
    Hector Savage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,809 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    I didn't read through the entire thread so apologies if this point has allready been made.
    So yeah, a lot of the feeling seems to be excess moderation has put people off - while maybe this is part of the reason I don't think it's the main one.

    This reduction of traffic would have happened anyway - regardless of moderation - the internet has been really shaken up with the arrival of smartphones and social media.
    Discussion has changed with twitter and facebook - especially being able to instantly comment/post media via mobile on a nice app designed for the platform.

    Its still a great site, it just takes a little longer to get feedback on some of the more specific forums.
    for example I remember photography was a lot busier than now.


  • #1173
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Presumably they are responding to other posters and not just posting to themselves....thats called engaging in discussion...on a discussion forum.

    If no one wants to engage them then they will stop responding, if people do engage then they are fully entitled to reply... thats a discussion.

    If you dont like having to put up with the fact that someone has more to say on a topic than you would like...well I guess my heart bleeds for you.

    I'm not talking about normal discussion as you well know- but don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. I'll take my own advice and place you on ignore.


  • #1174
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,499 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm not talking about normal discussion as you well know- but don't let the facts get in the way of your argument.



    If someone is replying to someone else, thats normal discussion whether or not you like what they have to say.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'll take my own advice and place you on ignore.
    Great, now my heart is bleeding for myself...is that even a thing?


  • #1175
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Presumably they are responding to other posters and not just posting to themselves....thats called engaging in discussion...on a discussion forum.

    If no one wants to engage them then they will stop responding, if people do engage then they are fully entitled to reply... thats a discussion.

    If you dont like having to put up with the fact that someone has more to say on a topic than you would like...well I guess my heart bleeds for you.

    There used to be much more cracking down on threads being destroyed by a handful of dogs-with-bones going at each other to the detriment of the thread, driving other posters away through sheer enervation. I wish that would make a return. Two people wrecking a thread like that does NOT foster discussion as when the involved usually begin to repeat themselves, they even cease to discuss the topic themselves. Watching posters try to score points of each other is draining and tedious and we ALL know when we are witnessing that. Don’t kid yourself or anyone else that dogs-with-bones are in any way a boon for threads. Bring back on-thread warnings for that bollocksology, I say. For excessive multiquoting too. Let threads breath again.


  • #1176
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,499 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    There used to be much more cracking down on threads being destroyed by a handful of dogs-with-bones going at each other to the detriment of the thread, driving other posters away through sheer enervation. I wish that would make a return. Two people wrecking a thread like that does NOT foster discussion as when the involved usually begin to repeat themselves, they even cease to discuss the topic themselves. Watching posters try to score points of each other is draining and tedious and we ALL know when we are witnessing that. Don’t kid yourself or anyone else that dogs-with-bones are in any way a boon for threads. Bring back on-thread warnings for that bollocksology, I say. For excessive multiquoting too. Let threads breath again.

    Are they wrecking the thread if no one else is posting in it though?

    Anyone is free to ignore any other poster if they decide they don't want to hear what they have to say anymore.

    In my experience most of those threads get locked with a "we are done here" even though that handful of posters are still engaging with each other.

    What exactly is the problem with letting them continue at it until they wear themselves out? Isn't boards for them just as much as everyone else?

    If they do breech the charter then moderate them as you would anyone else, if there are other posters trying to talk about something else, split the threads as you normally would.


  • Advertisement
  • #1177
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Are they wrecking the thread if no one else is posting in it though?

    Nobody else is posting because they are driven away from the thread! I've seen it happen countless times. Countless, seriously. And it was acknowledged by posters and mods alike on threads. When full pages are taken up with this nonsense, it becomes hard to ignore. They are killing discussions, not fostering them.

    "Put those people on ignore" is such a lazy suggestion. Many people aren't keen on that facility anyway as they might not necessarily want to block those particular posters in general and the facility doesn't completely block people anyway. If someone quotes them, you see their posts. Many of us like to keep the flow of threads intact. On a chronological set up like this, it works best.

    People shouldn't have to resort to putting others on ignore, IMO. Instead how about people have some cop the fuck on and stop wrecking threads with their obduracy?


  • #1178
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,499 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Nobody else is posting because they are driven away from the thread! I've seen it happen countless times. Countless, seriously. And it was acknowledged by posters and mods alike on threads. When full pages are taken up with this nonsense, it becomes hard to ignore. They are killing discussions, not fostering them.

    "Put those people on ignore" is such a lazy suggestion. Many people aren't keen on that facility anyway as they might not necessarily want to block those particular posters in general and the facility doesn't completely block people anyway. If someone quotes them, you see their posts. Many of us like to keep the flow of threads intact. On a chronological set up like this, it works best.

    People shouldn't have to resort to putting others on ignore, IMO. Instead how about people have some cop the fuck on and stop wrecking threads with their obduracy?

    If people are quoting them then that person is in a discussion with those people.

    This is supposedly a forum for everyone, but we are back to the closed shop attitude of "I only want to read posts from people who think the same as I do".

    If you ban or remove everyone else you end of with boring echo chambers that dont encourage new posters let alone new members.


  • #1179
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1180
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,499 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Arguing with someone else who has a contrary opinion isnt being a dick, assuming you are doing it within the bounds of the charter.
    I have no problem with sock puppets, shills etc being removed; they should be removed form the entire site IMO.

    But thats not what is being discussed here, _Dara_ and PlentyOToole seem to want to stop real people from posting because they are simply bored of the discussion.


  • #1181
    Dial Hard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,720 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    "Put those people on ignore" is such a lazy suggestion. Many people aren't keen on that facility anyway as they might not necessarily want to block those particular posters in general and the facility doesn't completely block people anyway. If someone quotes them, you see their posts

    And the app ignores your ignore list altogether.


  • Advertisement
  • #1182
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Exactly. My previous post was very tongue in cheek. I couldn't care less how many abortion, social welfare, and cheating partner threads pop up on After Hours. Other posters like them and that's good enough for me. When some people want to close popular threads just because they aren't to their liking then I think that's very unfair. Let people have their escape, their discussion, their rant. Like I mentioned earlier there is room for all.

    You're kind of missing my point. I don't believe that the chats threads are doing no harm. I believe that the sheer number of them is detrimentally affecting the forum.

    I know myself that I thought about starting threads in recent months, topic ready to go. I'd start writing and then think "Nah, not worth it" for the reasons outlined above. I did a time vs benefit analysis and deemed it to be a waste of time. I know others have said the same on this thread. How many other people have also done the same and not vocalised it?

    Maybe we're wrong and the chat threads are not affecting the forum. But I believe there's some sound logic behind the objections to them and people are just completely dismissing them like there is no merit. People are who don't use the chat threads are every bit as important as people who do (and I'm not convinced that the chat thread are that great at bringing in a large number of individual posters) and if we're finding them a problem and visiting the forum less because of them, shouldn't the issue at least be considered?
    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    I get the point about too many chat threads being annoying, but I know myself if I'm looking for a more serious thread I just seem to be able to block them out when I scroll the Latest threads.

    My point being, if it's serious you're after, it's still as easy to look for it, imo.

    I don't know why people are conflating wanting less chat threads with only wanting serious threads.

    AH used to be great for non-serious, amusing, non-chat threads. I'd love to see a return to that, personally.


  • #1183
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    And the app ignores your ignore list altogether.

    Really? Jaysus.


  • #1184
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Do you know what you need Dara? A good rant in the trivial annoyances thread. Twud do you the world of good.


  • #1185
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    You're kind of missing my point. I don't believe that the chats threads are doing no harm. I believe that the sheer number of them is detrimentally affecting the forum.

    I know myself that I thought about starting threads in recent months, topic ready to go. I'd start writing and then think "Nah, not worth it" for the reasons outlined above. I did a time vs benefit analysis and deemed it to be a waste of time. I know others have said the same on this thread. How many other people have also done the same and not vocalised it?

    Maybe we're wrong and the chat threads are not affecting the forum. But I believe there's some sound logic behind the objections to them and people are just completely dismissing them like there is no merit. People are who don't use the chat threads are every bit as important as people who do (and I'm not convinced that the chat thread are that great at bringing in a large number of individual posters) and if we're finding them a problem and visiting the forum less because of them, shouldn't the issue at least be considered?

    Start one of those threads?

    I don't know why people are conflating wanting less chat threads with only wanting serious threads.

    AH used to be great for non-serious, amusing, non-chat threads. I'd love to see a return to that, personally.

    Start one of those threads?


  • #1186
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1187
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    NollagShona wrote: »
    Start one of those threads?

    I've already talked about this in a few posts on this threads. I've posted plenty of threads in the past (different usernames). I was fairly prolific actually. For the reasons I've outlined above, I don't feel like it's worth the effort anymore. I know from experience that to start a decent thread takes a bit of effort and it's just not worth my time as things currently stand. Look back over my posts in this thread to read my logic for that. Am I part of the problem? Perhaps. But I'm not the only person on this thread to say that they feel the effort of starting a thread is no longer worth it. That should be taken on board, IMO. It's not a binary start a thread/don't start a thread. There are reasons why people no longer bother.
    anna080 wrote: »
    Do you know what you need Dara? A good rant in the trivial annoyances thread. Twud do you the world of good.

    You're very handy with the dismissive posts, I notice.


  • #1188
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I think he has just proven the point about tit-for-tat constant harping on with the same argument over and over derails and destroys many discussions in After Hours, leading to the inevitable closure.


  • #1189
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    I've already talked about this in a few posts on this threads. I've posted plenty of threads in the past (different usernames). I was fairly prolific actually. For the reasons I've outlined above, I don't feel like it's worth the effort anymore. I know from experience that to start a decent thread takes a bit of effort and it's just not worth my time as things currently stand. Look back over my posts in this thread to read my logic for that. Am I part of the problem? Perhaps. But I'm not the only person on this thread to say that they feel the effort of starting a thread is no longer worth it. That should be taken on board, IMO. It's not a binary start a thread/don't start a thread. There are reasons why people no longer bother.



    You're very handy with the dismissive posts, I notice.

    Ah Jaysus do ya have to take everything so seriously. Get a buzz.


  • #1190
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    GreeBo wrote: »
    If people are quoting them then that person is in a discussion with those people.

    This is supposedly a forum for everyone, but we are back to the closed shop attitude of "I only want to read posts from people who think the same as I do".

    If you ban or remove everyone else you end of with boring echo chambers that dont encourage new posters let alone new members.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Arguing with someone else who has a contrary opinion isnt being a dick, assuming you are doing it within the bounds of the charter.
    I have no problem with sock puppets, shills etc being removed; they should be removed form the entire site IMO.

    But thats not what is being discussed here, _Dara_ and PlentyOToole seem to want to stop real people from posting because they are simply bored of the discussion.

    You really don't get it.

    OK, greebo, there aren't posters who kill discussion. Gotcha. Bye.


  • #1191
    Dial Hard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,720 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    Zoey Famous Aftershave wrote: »
    I think he has just proven the point about tit-for-tat constant harping on with the same argument over and over derails and destroys many discussions in After Hours, leading to the inevitable closure.

    I was just about to post something about the irony inherent in GreeBo's posts on the subject...


  • Advertisement
  • #1192
    whoopsadoodles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,058 ✭✭✭whoopsadoodles


    Conspectus wrote: »
    While yere here bitching about that I have loads of pm's from people giving out about the chat in there. Not every point in there needs to be debated to death like it normally is.

    I'm not arsed posting on the thread generally and this is why.

    People...posters....the ones who this forum is for have taken time to come to this thread to provide feedback, taken the time to give their opinion on how to bring life back to the forum, and you come along and say "while ye're all bitching". How disrespectful is that to the members of this site?


  • #1193
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,499 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Did you even read my post?
    I said I have no problem with removing those people, I have a problem with removal of people who are still in discussion, even if others find it boring.


  • #1194
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    anna080 wrote: »
    Ah Jaysus do ya have to take everything so seriously. Get a buzz.

    Is there anything worse than someone deploying "Ah I'm only messing with you" or words to that affect to cover up that they are trying to undermine someone?

    My posts are quite serious on this thread, yes. Anything wrong with that?


  • #1195
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,499 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    I was just about to post something about the irony inherent in GreeBo's posts on the subject...

    and thats a perfect example of my point.

    I am replying in a perfectly reasonable manner, making what *I* believe are valid points against the posts I am replying to.

    What exactly is so wrong with that on a discussion site?

    I not randomly posting nonsense, I'm specifically replying to the points other posters are making.


  • #1196
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Is there anything worse than someone deploying "Ah I'm only messing with you" or words to that affect to cover up that they are trying to undermine someone?

    My posts are quite serious on this threads, yes. Anything wrong with that?

    Ahhh.. the grammar!


  • #1197
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Is there anything worse than someone deploying "Ah I'm only messing with you" or words to that affect to cover up that they are trying to undermine someone?

    My posts are quite serious on this threads, yes. Anything wrong with that?

    Didn't you just say this five seconds ago...

    "AH used to be great for non-serious, amusing, non-chat threads. I'd love to see a return to that, personally"

    Oppsie poopsie.
    I was just joking with you Dara, lighten up.


  • #1198
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,499 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    You really don't get it.

    OK, greebo, there aren't posters who kill discussion. Gotcha. Bye.

    Sure there are and they should be removed, but two or more posters replying to each other is not killing a discussion...it *is* a discussion.


  • #1199
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    Ahhh.. the grammar!

    Relevance? I don't tend to check my forum posts for spelling or grammar, nor pick on anyone else's.


  • #1200
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #1201
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,499 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Other than shills, trolls and sock puppets, what would you call it?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement