| FORUMS: Redundant Threads - Why not get rid of old ones?
Posted: 8/8/2006 10:11:53 AM | First, I wanna say that I am not trying to ruffle any feathers here. I'm just getting a little frustrated with the differences I'm noticing between now and the last time I was active here.
The auto-delete function is a decent idea in theory. However, it allows some of the "less desirables" to gang up on someone they don't like and be rid of a thread they started, no matter how relevant that thread may be. I personally vote to "not" ditch every thread, just because I've noticed that it's a lot of the same people voting to ditch them.
Next is the issue of moderators locking down threads based on redundancy. I'm going to assume that a lot of people don't have a lot of time to spend on this site alone. Searching takes quite a bit of time when you consider all the possible titles that could be typed into the search engine in the effort to find a thread that may or may not touch on exactly what you're looking to discuss. aside from that, a lot of those threads are either really old or contains upwards of 70+ pages. This limits the exposure a new post to that thread will get because, again, people don't have the time to scan seventy pages to get the gist of a conversation.
All that said, I think this place is a great site. I'm sure it has a great deal of headaches for those charged with the responsibility of managing it based on the size and popularity alone. I'm just finding these issues to be a bit frustrating.
| |
|
| Why the changes???
Posted: 8/8/2006 10:30:54 AM | First, I wanna say that I am not trying to ruffle any feathers here. I'm just getting a little frustrated with the differences I'm noticing between now and the last time I was active here.
The auto-delete function is a decent idea in theory. However, it allows some of the "less desirables" to gang up on someone they don't like and be rid of a thread they started, no matter how relevant that thread may be.
Actually, those who abuse the function are tracked by site filters and the feature is revoked for them.
I personally vote to "not" ditch every thread, just because I've noticed that it's a lot of the same people voting to ditch them.
That would be abusing the function too.
Next is the issue of moderators locking down threads based on redundancy. I'm going to assume that a lot of people don't have a lot of time to spend on this site alone. Searching takes quite a bit of time when you consider all the possible titles that could be typed into the search engine in the effort to find a thread that may or may not touch on exactly what you're looking to discuss. aside from that, a lot of those threads are either really old or contains upwards of 70+ pages. This limits the exposure a new post to that thread will get because, again, people don't have the time to scan seventy pages to get the gist of a conversation.
One of the stated purposes of this site is to be archival in nature, one of the things it's NOT, is a chat room. Redundant threads also render the search function useless.
All that said, I think this place is a great site. I'm sure it has a great deal of headaches for those charged with the responsibility of managing it based on the size and popularity alone. I'm just finding these issues to be a bit frustrating.
Rules, guidelines, and site policies are not decided upon on a whim. These things change and evolve to meet the necessities brought about by problems caused by the minority of users who would abuse the site, either willfully, or by not understanding its purpose.
If you would like to see what a "no rules" unmoderated forum looks like, try usenet for comparison. | |
|
| Why the changes???
Posted: 8/8/2006 10:49:53 AM | Haha....late....I know what mayhem an un-moderated forum can be. That's not what I'm suggesting at all.
Thanx to both of you for replying in a diplomatic fashion. I can't say that I wasn't anticipating some caustic response. It seems to be the trend when questioning the rules and guidelines of such a busy forum.
I understand why it's all come about. I also thank you for notifying me that my voting to not delete threads is also considered abuse. I don't really like this feature, so perhaps I can start voting for the ones that I think are relevant and not just all of them. Yes, I have voted to not ditch some that were obviously redundant or just plain ridiculous, but only because of my personal dislike for the feature and the ways it can be abused. I probably won't vote to delete any, but I will opt to not vote rather than being spiteful in the future.
I don't envy the task you guys/gals have here. I have moderated a large forum before and I stepped down because it's a thankless job. I don't want to do it anytime again either. And if this thread is redundant as well, I apologize. I don't start many threads, but I'll be honest. When I do, if I don't find something relevant within the first few pages, I won't search beyond that. It tends to be too time consuming and dificult to guess what another originator might have called it.
Thanx again for the respectable responses. | |
|
| Why the changes???
Posted: 8/8/2006 11:00:17 AM | This is another reason why the "on-topic" rule is so strictly enforced, contributions can be made to threads that aren't hijacked by making a post relevent to the OP, meaning that for most purposes, you only have to read one post in order to formulate a response.
The search function has also changed, and is vastly improved now that a search can be conducted on individual forums, this makes for a lot less time consumption.
If a thread topic has been inactive for a long time and the subject is farely unique, we tend to let it slide.
However, the:
Does size matter?
Why do men/women lie/cheat/leave/stay/etc
Deleted unread messeges
Why do BBWs _______?
Where are all the real men/women
....and similar threads are just nuked on sight so that the forums aren't flooded with them = done to death.
There are many reasons for this rule and myriad types of threads that get tagged "redundant".
By the same token, there are forums where some redundancy is expected, and allowed, re: Broken Hearts, Dating and Love Advice. | |
|
| Why the changes???
Posted: 8/8/2006 11:26:39 AM | Good points. I'm guilty of taking a thread off topic at times, but I think that's to be expected to some extent as well. I call it progression. LOL. How often do we have conversations that don't move from one issue to another and then back again???
I do see where you're coming from with the redundancy. If I were moderating, I'd probably see it the same way. I guess I just don't spend enough time here, or am oblivious to it, to see the redundancy as much as you folks do.
One last question, though.
Is the archiving of the threads more beneficial or more of a hassle for both members and moderating staff??? It seems nearly impossible to be rid of repeat thread topics when there's so many messages archived, but they're there to be found. I guess I can see the advantages as well as the burdens. | |
|
| Why the changes???
Posted: 8/8/2006 11:37:34 AM | Is the archiving of the threads more beneficial or more of a hassle for both members and moderating staff?
Moot question, as it's one of the main purposes of this discussion forum existing, being archival in nature, the threads reflect different ideas and trends over time, moreover, this is one of the things that distinguishes a forum from a chat room, BBS, BLOG, or message board.
(BTW, a chat room was tried - big disaster -)
LOL. How often do we have conversations that don't move from one issue to another and then back again???
Quite often, ...on a BBS, chat room, BLOG, or message board. However the rules, guidelines, and many FAQs reflect that this is not one of these "places".
Further, POF forums are not the core priority of POF, the dating side is, Admin has his hands full facilitating the day to day BS dealing with a user group that is 5,000,000+. As such the forums are here only through the volunteer efforts of those (mods and users alike), who put in the effort to allow it to exist. Without the rules and guidelines and the means to enforce them, there would be no forums. As it is, only a very small percentage of the user base frequents the forums, as such the priority is not traffic, but quality. The rules and guidelines are in place to facilitate the useability and decorum of a "discussion forum".
One last question...
Answered = Thread Closed | |
|
|
Home
login 