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

paleoperson · 04-01-2018 11:43PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Beasty wrote: »

Although this had the traits of a feedback thread it only really evolved into one once we allowed it to run. Arguably it's another AH thread and a bit of levity does not go amiss when tensions rise

It has turned into more of a discussion of AH than the site as a whole over the past day or so. Indeed new suggestions on improving the site as a whole have dried up. I have tried to compile a list of those issues/suggestions which I will share when we start drawing the thread to a close. I would though encourage anyone who has more ideas they wish to air that may improve users site-wide experience to post them here. I know the main input has come from AH regulars but others are certainly welcome to post here.

There's an issue that I don't even know is solvable or not (let you worry about that!) and it's the "No questioning a Mod in thread" Rule, ie. I say "I don't believe xyz to be true" and a Mod posts xzy bashing will not be tolerated, do not post on this thread again MadDog, leaving me with no right to reply ......... the opinion (and it is only an opinion!) of the Mod that I was xyz bashing may be totally inaccurate but if I respond trying to explain my position I'll be banned and the ban will be upheld in DRP because I'll be told "You weren't carded for xyz bashing, you were banned for challenging a Mod in thread, ban upheld!".
If I PM the Mod instead or try the Feedback Forum (:D) or HelpDesk etc. I'll just be ignored ......... having said that, I do understand why the challenging a Mod in thread Rule exists.

Anyway, thoughts?

It sounds a bit unfair the way you put it but I think that's the right way.
Some forums have no arguments or discussions with mods at all and that has its merits. I think there may be a place for mod interaction, but if a mod makes a decision about the trajectory of a discussion there shouldn't be arguing about it. Forget it, your opinion doesn't always count.

c_man · 04-01-2018 11:44PM

Lol at the TA thread guys. It's a pretty clear rip-off of exactly what the Ranting and Raving forum was supposed to be about.

I guess it gets mods a lot of easy thanks (thread started by them) so it gets a free pass.

I guess admitting that the needless categorising and subdividing of forums here is stupid would be a bad thing, best to pretend it doesn't exist.

_Dara_ · 04-01-2018 11:45PM

Arghus wrote: »

I just don't understand the argument that removing them is going to enliven the forum or open it up to new people - I just fundamentally don't understand the logic. By removing some of the most consistently busy threads in a forum, you hope to make the forum even more busy?...Wha?

The point has been made by another poster that, whilst the chat threads have a large volume of posts, the number of users is quite small. Mostly it's a small core of prolific posters. It doesn't necessarily mean that these threads attract a large number of different posters. A small core of posters means less threads get started, as IME the most posters, the more threads. I disagree that interesting new threads will always take off for the sole reason that they are interesting. There are other factors. Slip down and off the page and they are quickly forgotten and that can happen fast with so many behemoth threads on the front page. Once things go to page two, they're already in trouble. I've been on messageboards a long time, this is a constant of any I've been on.

I've explained the logic in a few posts, I'm not rehashing. They are there if you want to take a look. Riffmongous has a few more recent too.

I honestly don't think our point is that difficult to at least try to understand. I've given my own reasons for visiting and posting less in the forum in the last while. I know myself the reasons for that. That's fueling my viewpoint.

the_pen_turner · 04-01-2018 11:45PM

Arghus wrote: »

I'm not an extremely active participant in the chat threads - may have posted a few times in the TA thread, have never even looked at the stinge thread and I don't think I've ever posted in the "where are you right now" thread - but their presence in After Hours doesn't bother me in the slightest: they don't particularly interest me, but they seem popular with a lot of other people, so, fair enough, I say.

I just don't understand the argument that removing them is going to enliven the forum or open it up to new people - I just fundamentally don't understand the logic. By removing some of the most consistently busy threads in a forum, you hope to make the forum even more busy?...Wha? How can that be anything but counterproductive? I don't think they stifle the chances of other threads from reaching their full potential: if it's interesting enough people will post in it, simple as that - new threads still take off all the time.

I agree .
there are loads of threads I have never posted in or even know exist.
stuff like abortion , gay marrage, trump,water charges etc etc only end up in a disaster so I don't even bother investing time to read them. even the one I started as an experiment, it turned after a few pages and I havnt read it since.

if someone doesn't want to read a thread then don't. its doing you no harm having it there. if others are using it then great if not it will die and sink out of view.

Hannibal_Smith · 04-01-2018 11:49PM

In another forum I used a long time ago, they had a SIT (sign in thread). A new one was started every day, a sticky was made at the top of the forum and it was locked at the end of the day. Everyone posted all sorts in there. Rants, raves, what was going on. Stuff you didn't want the outside world to know, but you wanted to post somewhere. It worked so well and I made life long friends from it. The old one plumetted when it was locked, there was only one of them and so it freed up the forum? Boards is a much bigger forum, but would some thing like that work in AH? Like an all in one combined chat thread?

04-01-2018 11:49PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Subtle. Who could you be talking about?

"Lady, if you have to ask....."

andekwarhola · 04-01-2018 11:49PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Perhaps busy forums such as AH need a chat sub-forum where ALL the chatty threads belong?
Then it's easy to find or ignore as appropriate.

I tend to be able to ignore them anyway but maybe putting them a level deeper down might help others, I guess.

I suppose it's zealously curatorial too which is in keeping with the forum.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 05-01-2018 12:00AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is it that boards is the only site I've ever come across which does this routinely? Other sites moderate the thread as they have time to do so and *gasp* take the risk that it might get overly heated for a brief period in the meantime. Again, it's the obsession with having a pristine situation 100% of the time which causes boards to be overmoderated.

If the boards coding means that a stack of reports on the same post clutters the mod queue, I can only suggest a redesign of that software to ensure that each post is only seen once in the queue, with multiple reports for it collapsed or minimised by default unless you as a moderator choose to go into them. On no other forum I've moderated over the years was this an issue, and on no other forum I've moderated was there ever a necessity to close a thread temporarily to deal with the backlog - you moderate in real time as best you can and if it means that occasionally something stays up longer than it should, that's the Internet for you, deal with it.

It's certainly better than this stop-start bollocks we have to put up with on Boards in basically any thread which gets controversial.

Oh will you ever stop it!

I closed the thread because I judged it to be getting too far fro discussion into arguments. I dealt with the backlog of reported posts while I completed some paper work, fed the kids and had a bite to eat. Oh yeah, i also compleyed some time sensitive work as well but in future i shall point out to the appropriate authorities that your criteria vastly exceeds theirs.

Sorry if it doesn't fit into your criteria of life, I shall endeavour to do my utmost in future to conform to your idealised criteria of modding.

Perhaps you could set out the exact criteria and actions required in future to salve your discomfort and we can discuss them in a mature manner here before we adopt the entire lot as they obviously are the only criteria that matter in the Universe. It's not like anyone could have different criteria or objectives to yours.

I am sooooooo looking forward to hearing your obviously superlative contribution.

LadyMacBeth_ · 05-01-2018 12:01AM

I am one of the prolific posters in the chatty threads, I am sure I am in there amongst Permabear's creepy statistics.

I don't think it's fair to say that the chat threads are cliquey, in fact I think they are the most inviting, open, kind and respectful places in After Hours, or perhaps on boards itself. New users are generally not ignored and there is very little insulting/ arguing/ general assholery. I have found support in those threads when I needed it, when things seemed very bleak, and they have made me laugh and I look forward to updates from people I feel like I know now in a way.

After Hours is non-descript. It is what people make it. I tend to avoid the abortion, Irish Water, gay marriage, dole bashing threads etc because it's the same tired arguments ad nauseam. Nothing is ever resolved and posters remain on their sides of the fence, for me they are pointless. I wouldn't suggest moving them elsewhere though because others clearly enjoy posting in those threads and who am I to object.

retro:electro · 05-01-2018 12:04AM

Hmmm, I dono. Locking away the chat threads ain't gonna do jack shlt if you ask me. Why do I get the feeling that this suggestion was one of the easier things to recognise and potentially rectify, just so when it's all done and dusted this whole thread can be locked and the whole motivation behind it written off as box ticked job done? And if it's ever brought up again in future it can be said we were listened to? When actually there were much bigger, much more important concerns and suggestions percolated throughout the thread that were more important?

KERSPLAT! · 05-01-2018 12:07AM

anna080 wrote: »

Hmmm, I dono. Locking away the chat threads ain't gonna do jack shlt if you ask me. Why do I get the feeling that this suggestion was one of the easier things to recognise and potentially rectify, just so when it's all done and dusted this whole thread can be locked and the whole motivation behind it written off as box ticked job done? And if it's ever brought up again in future it can be said we were listened to? When actually there were much bigger, much more important concerns and suggestions percolated throughout the thread that were more important?

This would make sense if it was the mods who put it together but it wasn't...

retro:electro · 05-01-2018 12:09AM

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

This would make sense if it was the mods who put it together but it wasn't...

True but it was a mod who suggested the idea should be taken to forum requests..

GreeBo · 05-01-2018 12:09AM

anna080 wrote: »

Hmmm, I dono. Locking away the chat threads ain't gonna do jack shlt if you ask me. Why do I get the feeling that this suggestion was one of the easier things to recognise and potentially rectify, just so when it's all done and dusted this whole thread can be locked and the whole motivation behind it written off as box ticked job done? And if it's ever brought up again in future it can be said we were listened to? When actually there were much bigger, much more important concerns and suggestions percolated throughout the thread that were more important?

I honestly don't understand all the negative language regarding a sub forum...
Why are you seeing it as locking away?

People campaign to get their own sub-forum... It's typically seen as a good thing.

I also think you are being pretty unfair towards the mods/admins by suggesting they will use this one change as an easy out, considering it really had nothing to do with them.

Arghus · 05-01-2018 12:11AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

I honestly don't think our point is that difficult to at least try to understand. I've given my own reasons for visiting and posting less in the forum in the last while. I know myself the reasons for that. That's fueling my viewpoint.

I can appreciate your argument to an extent, but, my view is that, if anything, Boards needs a serious culling in the amount of forums and sub-forums that already exist - its unwieldiness and oftentimes confusing layout probably does as much harm to confuse potential new users as any other factor - and I don't see how adding yet another sub-forum, in which will be housed a number of busy and fairly innocuous threads, which are exactly the type of low intensity threads that surely would appeal to a lot of new posters in a new and sometimes confusing environment and may encourage them to stick around; let them tell people where they are right now and then, eventually, hopefully, in due time, they'll be able to understand the complexities of arguments on both sides on the morality of avoiding tax on imported garlic - for instance.

They may be largely inane, but I honestly think they are harmless threads and they do, at least, aspire to have a bit of levity about them - if you take them away you've the delicious and oh-so-welcoming prospect of a constant front-page of threads about such joyful subjects like Donald Trump, Abortion and terrorism...talk about making After Hours welcoming to the world.

Honestly, if, after all these pages and all this discussion, the only single idea that might seriously take flight out of this whole thread is the creation of yet another sub-forum, largely because a handful of posters feel bizarrely passionate about the idea, then I really don't know...

retro:electro · 05-01-2018 12:11AM

GreeBo wrote: »

I honestly don't understand all the negative language regarding a sub forum...
Why are you seeing it as locking away?

People campaign to get their own sub-forum... It's typically seen as a good thing.

I also think you are being pretty unfair towards the mods/admins by suggesting they will use this one change as an easy out, considering it really had nothing to do with them.

I don't care that it gets locked away, personally. As long as they're still there. Grand. Whatever. It's the logic behind it I don't get. Hide the busy threads away and suddenly AH prospers again? I'm sceptic, but I'll give it a chance.
I didn't mean to come across unfair, am just thrashing out some thoughts.

_Dara_ · 05-01-2018 12:16AM

Arghus wrote: »

I can appreciate your argument to an extent, but, my view is that, if anything, Boards needs a serious culling in the amount of forums and sub-forums that already exist - its unwieldiness and oftentimes confusing layout probably does as much harm to confuse potential new users as any other factor - and I don't see how adding yet another sub-forum, in which will be housed a number of busy and fairly innocuous threads, which are exactly the type of low intensity threads that surely would appeal to a lot of new posters in a new and sometimes confusing environment and may encourage them to stick around

I think there are too many forums too and huge problems with layout. A cull needs to happen. But that doesn't mean that there isn't room for a new subforum if it makes sense. I'd see them as two separate operations actually.

GreeBo · 05-01-2018 12:17AM

anna080 wrote: »

I don't care that it gets locked away, personally. As long as they're still there. Grand. Whatever. It's the logic behind it I don't get. Hide the busy threads away and suddenly AH prospers again? I'm sceptic, but I'll give it a chance.
I didn't mean to come across unfair, am just thrashing out some thoughts.

Separate the long running threads to expose more new threads.

That's all there is to it. It's worked before, might work again.

Think of it this way, would you be happy if the cool vids & pics threads were merged back into AH?

I can guarantee that Captain Midnight would have all the chatty threads bumped onto page two continuously!

GreeBo · 05-01-2018 12:18AM

Arghus wrote: »

I can appreciate your argument to an extent, but, my view is that, if anything, Boards needs a serious culling in the amount of forums and sub-forums that already exist - its unwieldiness and oftentimes confusing layout probably does as much harm to confuse potential new users as any other factor - and I don't see how adding yet another sub-forum, in which will be housed a number of busy and fairly innocuous threads, which are exactly the type of low intensity threads that surely would appeal to a lot of new posters in a new and sometimes confusing environment and may encourage them to stick around; let them tell people where they are right now and then, eventually, hopefully, in due time, they'll be able to understand the complexities of arguments on both sides on the morality of avoiding tax on imported garlic - for instance.

There are too many inactive forums, not too many forums.
I think the distinction is important.

Arghus · 05-01-2018 12:21AM

GreeBo wrote: »

There are too many inactive forums, not too many forums.
I think the distinction is important.

Fair point.

But let's keep After Hours messy I say.

the_pen_turner · 05-01-2018 12:25AM

there are several threads in ah at the moment that should be in the political forum.
and a few that should be in other forums.

if those threads were moved it would make more room

retro:electro · 05-01-2018 12:40AM

anna080 wrote: »

Hmmm, I dono. Locking away the chat threads ain't gonna do jack shlt if you ask me. Why do I get the feeling that this suggestion was one of the easier things to recognise and potentially rectify, just so when it's all done and dusted this whole thread can be locked and the whole motivation behind it written off as box ticked job done? And if it's ever brought up again in future it can be said we were listened to? When actually there were much bigger, much more important concerns and suggestions percolated throughout the thread that were more important?

Hmm on second thoughts reading this I admit I do come across a tad unfair. I suppose it's good to see some changes occurring even if they are ones I don't necessarily agree with. However it's hard not to feel protective/defensive over threads you regularly post in and enjoy the company of other posters in and don't really see why things should change since they're thriving. Sure at least we are all asserting our voices anyways. Isn't that what it's all about.

La.de.da · 05-01-2018 12:47AM

Why can't people who do not want to participate in such threads just not click into them and ignore them.??
Plenty of threads here that don't interest me, so I just bypass them.. simples.

"After hours is the place to come on boards where general discussion can be light-hearted. The aim here is to have a bit of a laugh and not to piss anybody off while doing so."
This is from the charter.

I see no reason why anything should change tbh.

Arghus · 05-01-2018 12:48AM

Look at us all, being all magnanimous 'n shit

GreeBo · 05-01-2018 12:51AM

La.de.da wrote: »

Why can't people who do not want to participate in such threads just not click into them and ignore them.??
Plenty of threads here that don't interest me, so I just bypass them.. simples.
.

Honest question, have you read the various answers to that question on this thread?

_Dara_ · 05-01-2018 12:56AM

anna080 wrote: »

Hmm on second thoughts reading this I admit I do come across a tad unfair. I suppose it's good to see some changes occurring even if they are ones I don't necessarily agree with. However it's hard not to feel protective/defensive over threads you regularly post in and enjoy the company of other posters in and don't really see why things should change since they're thriving. Sure at least we are all asserting our voices anyways. Isn't that what it's all about.

I understand why people are protective towards threads they post in. I suppose the best thing is to find the best possible compromise.

La.de.da wrote: »

Why can't people who do not want to participate in such threads just not click into them and ignore them.??
Plenty of threads here that don't interest me, so I just bypass them.. simples.

This has been covered. A lot!

On the serious/non-serious thing. Threads can be non-serious without being chatty. The two things aren't synonymous.

La.de.da · 05-01-2018 01:02AM

GreeBo wrote: »

Honest question, have you read the various answers to that question on this thread?

112 pages.....I have not.

It's just my opinion.

GreeBo · 05-01-2018 01:05AM

La.de.da wrote: »

112 pages.....I have not.

It's just my opinion.

Thanks for the honesty!

The thread is about far more than just this, it only came up a couple of hours ago, pretty much the last page would give you the answers.

Mods, not sure if this topic is in danger of derailing the whole thread now...?

Beasty · 05-01-2018 01:11AM

It has been going round in circles a bit and probably best to move on. I'm sure the AH mods will have think about chat threads and some of the points raised, and I'm sure there are other points posters would like to discuss

Skylinehead · 05-01-2018 01:21AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is it that boards is the only site I've ever come across which does this routinely? Other sites moderate the thread as they have time to do so and *gasp* take the risk that it might get overly heated for a brief period in the meantime. Again, it's the obsession with having a pristine situation 100% of the time which causes boards to be overmoderated.

If the boards coding means that a stack of reports on the same post clutters the mod queue, I can only suggest a redesign of that software to ensure that each post is only seen once in the queue, with multiple reports for it collapsed or minimised by default unless you as a moderator choose to go into them. On no other forum I've moderated over the years was this an issue, and on no other forum I've moderated was there ever a necessity to close a thread temporarily to deal with the backlog - you moderate in real time as best you can and if it means that occasionally something stays up longer than it should, that's the Internet for you, deal with it.

It's certainly better than this stop-start bollocks we have to put up with on Boards in basically any thread which gets controversial.

I have no idea.

What exactly is the problem with closing a thread that's snowballing for a few minutes? You know, we do have to moderate the thread. Having the mess continue makes it twice as hard to do. So we're stuck with your inability to post in a particular thread for a bit, versus us trying to mitigate the damage done, and reduced workload.

I mean, mountains out of molehills or what? Boards has far bigger problems than us cleaning up a thread for 10 measly minutes.

05-01-2018 01:27AM

Why would the chat threads need a new forum? Can they not all be amalgamated into a single 'My News' thread where people can talk about what's happy or annoying or if they're having a muffin while traveling from Dubai to Dublin? A whole sub-forum seems like a nuclear option, and separate threads for chatting about aspects of your day seems like overkill.

One thread would surely satisfy everyone and not clog up the page too much?

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