|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| How many new threads are just enough? |
| One |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Two |
|
7% |
[ 1 ] |
| Three |
|
7% |
[ 1 ] |
| Four |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Five |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| No maximum, what are you kidding? |
|
85% |
[ 12 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 14 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I think there are several different types of spamming and each should be considered separately:
a) Multi-posting the same article on several different threads. As I said last week, I think one full post is enough, then re-post on related threads with just the headline, link and brief explanation informing people there is another post related to that topic.
b) Posting the same topic over and over, with no variation. Like several of the others, I think the solution is organizing the threads into 'themes' if you will, is a good idea.
c) The how many new threads per day issue: Generally, I don't think there should be a limit IF the poster takes the time to post a paragraph explaining what is important about the post, some opinion about it, etc. Something. My reaction to nearly all posts with no 'editorial comment' by the poster is: Why should I bother reading this? You have no opinion about it. Why should I? Thank you very much, but I'll select my own reading material. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I think there are several different types of spamming and each should be considered separately:
a) Multi-posting the same article on several different threads. As I said last week, I think one full post is enough, then re-post on related threads with just the headline, link and brief explanation informing people there is another post related to that topic.
b) Posting the same topic over and over, with no variation. Like several of the others, I think the solution is organizing the threads into 'themes' if you will, is a good idea.
c) The how many new threads per day issue: Generally, I don't think there should be a limit IF the poster takes the time to post a paragraph explaining what is important about the post, some opinion about it, etc. Something. My reaction to nearly all posts with no 'editorial comment' by the poster is: Why should I bother reading this? You have no opinion about it. Why should I? Thank you very much, but I'll select my own reading material. |
You are forgetting at least one. That is, posting on a thread for no purpose other than to bash the posters or the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You are forgetting at least one. That is, posting on a thread for no purpose other than to bash the posters or the thread. |
No, I agree with MoS on this. I think if someone posts a thread on a public forum like this one, then that thread is open to anyone to respond to as long as it's on-topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Enrico Palazzo,
I'm assuming that this poll is asking, 'how many new threads a forum participant may start in a single day'? In which case I voted 3 max.
I think a limit of three would force people to focus a little better...think seriously about what they are saying, and what they want to discuss with others.
Only IMHO of course... |
Manner of Speaking, yes it is about how many you as members think a member should start. I didn't use the word may, because this isn't policy or a guideline or an intention for strong arming people to post this or that.
Gopher, the conspiracy theories are another thing, they don't relate per se to the idea of new threads. If someone is posting 3 posts on JFK that is different than what is being asked, not that it shouldn't be looked at.
Cbclark, the poll was tweaked to invited as much positive
feedback as possible. There are no results desired in terms of a number by the moderators or a desire to count posts. Nothing as such was expressed by anyone on the mod team. There is no conspiracy, no one is hiding Jimmy Hoffa.
This is a consultation thread. See it as such only write now.
If there are other issues like the one Gopher brought up.....
I am not sure, Gopher, about limiting conspiracy theory posts if the posts are different, shouldn't a poster have a right to post their theories even if they are wild? If they are repeating the same ones and with duplicate posts that may be another issue, wouldn't it? |
By positve you mean those that agree with your opinion.
As in positive spin.
Let's make polls so people believe that by answering them they had a part in the correct decision I wanted them to make.
Last edited by cbclark4 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You are forgetting at least one. That is, posting on a thread for no purpose other than to bash the posters or the thread. |
No, I agree with MoS on this. I think if someone posts a thread on a public forum like this one, then that thread is open to anyone to respond to as long as it's on-topic. |
I disagree with you. Bashing the poster and/or thread is not on topic.
You guys are going to fight tooth and nail for the right you believe you have to unrestrained bashing, aren't you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Define bashing please? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| Define bashing please? |
Attacking the poster or the thread by epithet, name-calling, or insults. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Enrico Palazzo,
I'm assuming that this poll is asking, 'how many new threads a forum participant may start in a single day'? In which case I voted 3 max.
I think a limit of three would force people to focus a little better...think seriously about what they are saying, and what they want to discuss with others.
Only IMHO of course... |
Manner of Speaking, yes it is about how many you as members think a member should start. I didn't use the word may, because this isn't policy or a guideline or an intention for strong arming people to post this or that.
Gopher, the conspiracy theories are another thing, they don't relate per se to the idea of new threads. If someone is posting 3 posts on JFK that is different than what is being asked, not that it shouldn't be looked at.
Cbclark, the poll was tweaked to invited as much positive
feedback as possible. There are no results desired in terms of a number by the moderators or a desire to count posts. Nothing as such was expressed by anyone on the mod team. There is no conspiracy, no one is hiding Jimmy Hoffa.
This is a consultation thread. See it as such only write now.
If there are other issues like the one Gopher brought up.....
I am not sure, Gopher, about limiting conspiracy theory posts if the posts are different, shouldn't a poster have a right to post their theories even if they are wild? If they are repeating the same ones and with duplicate posts that may be another issue, wouldn't it? |
By positve you mean those that agree with your opinion.
As in positive spin.
Let's make polls so people believe that by answering them they had a part in the correct decision I wanted them to make. |
Cbclark, things are done in consultation with other mods, and members are being asked for their feedback and their suggestions are being looked at. That said, there have not been any promises of accepting this or that idea without proper consultation, weighing of things, so we actually don't have a correct decision we want members to make except when it comes to the guidelines posted on behalf of the mod team by Raoul Duke, The Dude, and Enrico Palazzo. Read the original post. These are not policy
issues, but rather consultation. It won't go beyond that without proper
procedures, looking at everything, what posters are saying, what mods are saying. We apologize if consulting the members and posting polls offends some. Some said they wanted more feedback from the mods.
There is no need to be rude and accusatory.
Again, if you have concerns, objections, voice it with any mod on the team, make reports, ask questions about the guidelines, ask for clarifications from your fellow posters as to how they are feeling on different issues. That's what this is about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote:
| Quote: |
| I disagree with On the Other Hand: all of them revolve around the allegation that a collection of military-industrial complex interests and secret societies control the United States and from there the entire world. All of them may be reduced to that conspiracy theory allegation. |
But you could just as easily say that all the "Muslim" threads, or at least the ones started by a specific faction of posters, revolve around a specific allegation, ie. that Muslims are out to convert the west by force. And yet I have no objection to different threads for the Danish cartoons, the Wilders film, the pros and cons of Muslim immigration, etc. They could probably all be classified under the same broad worldview, but they are distinct issues, each warranting a different type of response. (Even if the debate does get a bit repetitive on both sides, at times.)
In the case of the 9-11 truthers, I was getting a bit tired of multiple threads along the lines of...
Rosie O'Donnell demands to know the truth about 9-11
Rosie O'Donnell tells Ted Koeppel that 9-11 was an inside job
Rosie O'Donnell says on Oprah that 9-11 was an inside job...
...and countless other threads with no other point but to reiterate that Rosie O'Donnell had joined the truth movement. (And no, I'm not sure if it was the Rosie angle specifically that was being beaten to death, just that various trivial details of the "truth" issue were being beaten to death.) Such minutiae could easily have been confined to one mega-thread, and eventually was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
Concerning the number of threads:
If everyone who frequents this board posted 3 threads a day, I think the continuity of the threads that generate discussion among multiple posters would be disrupted by page 1 constantly being spammed with new topics as opposed to extended commentary on any given one.
Of course, everyone who frequents this board doesn't post 3 threads a day, so it's not really a problem.
I feel like this topic is largely based around me asking Adventurer not to start so many threads. I honestly didn't see it as a key issue with the state of the board. But I will say that I think that if you're posting threads and nobody is responding to them, then you're posting too many.
I like what stevemcgarrett said. If you can only post 3 threads a day, then you're forced to pick and choose the best/most interesting topics.
It's actually pretty challenging to post a genuinely hot topic before someone else has already posted it. I think trying to "scoop" a story is one of the fun side aspects to this board.
Comparatively, chucking out 3 "man bites dog" stories is all good fun, but 3 is more than enough.
3.
In the greater CE world, posting the "hottest" topics takes care of itself. One of the fun side aspects is trying to scoop breaking news stories before someone else does.
Last edited by Nowhere Man on Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
Concerning the number of "conspiracy" threads:
I think OTOH makes a very valid point in that "conspiracy" is a very dicy label to be entertaining.
9/11
JFK
RFK
The 2000 election
motives for invading Iraq
Britney Spears' father controlling her assets
why the dollar is tanking
evolutionary science
superdelegates
championing virginity
the electoral college
Ron Paul winning
Ron Paul losing
missions to outer space
Israel
Nazis
Fascists
Michael Moore
"the Far Left"
FoxNews
the liberal media bias
The ACLU
Tibet
Gay penguin books
torture
feminists getting pregnant just so they can get abortions
alimony
stonehenge
hollywood
I could go on.
Which of that is and isn't a "conspiracy" story is highly subjective.
"Conspiracy" is an increasingly trite label for something one doesn't like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I think there are several different types of spamming and each should be considered separately:
a) Multi-posting the same article on several different threads. As I said last week, I think one full post is enough, then re-post on related threads with just the headline, link and brief explanation informing people there is another post related to that topic.
b) Posting the same topic over and over, with no variation. Like several of the others, I think the solution is organizing the threads into 'themes' if you will, is a good idea.
c) The how many new threads per day issue: Generally, I don't think there should be a limit IF the poster takes the time to post a paragraph explaining what is important about the post, some opinion about it, etc. Something. My reaction to nearly all posts with no 'editorial comment' by the poster is: Why should I bother reading this? You have no opinion about it. Why should I? Thank you very much, but I'll select my own reading material. |
Ya-ta Boy, this is a good description of the spamming aspect and I would have to agree with you on all three points, particularly the last one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| Cbclark, things are done in consultation with other mods, and members are being asked for their feedback and their suggestions are being looked at. That said, there have not been any promises of accepting this or that idea without proper consultation, (my italics - MOS) weighing of things, so we actually don't have a correct decision we want members to make except when it comes to the guidelines posted on behalf of the mod team by Raoul Duke, The Dude, and Enrico Palazzo. Read the original post. These are not policy issues, but rather consultation. It won't go beyond that without proper procedures, looking at everything, what posters are saying, what mods are saying. |
EP, that's how I interpreted this thread...as consultation by the Mods...I don't see how it can be interpreted as an attempt to shove something down everybody's throats.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| feminists getting pregnant just so they can get abortions. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| "Conspiracy" is an increasingly trite label for something one doesn't like. |
Yah, well ... whatever Man.
We ALL "know" the only reason you say that is because really you're just ... a lunatic terrorist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
