New subforum proposal: serious speedcubing discussion

There's too much noise here: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?9-Speedcubing-Discussion
If you know what I mean, say aye. And suggest a good name for the subforum.

macky

Eh. I don't think it's all that necessary.

That would be flooded with random stuff too after a while.

Could always make it invite only. ie only certain people (Erik, Stefan, Macky, Joel, etc etc) can post but everyone can view.

Edit: Or premium only.

I'm not denying that threads like...well, most of the threads in Speedcubing Discussion...are about speedcubing. But there should be a place for speedcubing theory discussions in the same way that there's a puzzle theory subforum.

I know some people have thought about closed/post-with-permission/with-WCA-ID threads, but I'd like to see if we can keep it open.

macky said:

If you know what I mean, say aye.

Click to expand...

Aye. By the way, you're not the only one who is hot.

macky said:

There's too much noise here: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?9-Speedcubing-Discussion
If you know what I mean, say aye. And suggest a good name for the subforum.

macky

Click to expand...

This is a very difficult situation to deal with. Over the years we have tried a lot, from dividing up the forums into Questions and Discussions, to renaming them and modifying their descriptions, to more heavily moderating them. It is a tough situation. Create a speedcubing discussing for theory wouldn't solve it. We'd need to define exactly what the addition forum would be for. I understand what you're saying, but solving it is tough. I'd be glad to hear any suggestions.

macky said:

I'm not denying that threads like...well, most of the threads in Speedcubing Discussion...are about speedcubing. But there should be a place for speedcubing theory discussions in the same way that there's a puzzle theory subforum.

I know some people have thought about closed/post-with-permission/with-WCA-ID threads, but I'd like to see if we can keep it open.

Click to expand...

What kinds of threads would satisfy as speedcubing theory?

Creating a forum where you need a WCA ID or some type of permission could actually be a good idea.

Hershey said:

Aye. By the way, you're not the only one who is hot.

Click to expand...

He's aware. He's been told, numerous times.

You should have to apply first to be a member, providing ur ss account and why

pjk said:

We'd need to define exactly what the addition forum would be for.

Click to expand...

First try, admittedly not a perfect criterion:

Announcements/proposals/discussions pertaining to
* (Ideas for) new methods/substeps or novel approaches to existing methods/substeps
* New algorithms/fingering
* Poorly documented speedcubing history
or in general anything new or previously not/poorly documented. Imagine journals, except allowing comments and discussions.

Of recently active threads,
Examples
* Robert's OH algorithm discoveries
* Introducing Magic Wondeful
* Petrus Home Thread
* The Polish Algorithm Database (Equivalent of a book review in a journal)
* SuneOLL
* L2L4 Website Announcement
* 2x2x2 Lucky Scrambles [edit] ok, I think this could have been a genuinely interesting exploration, but I should have expected this from a thread started by reThinking.
* ZZ/ZB Home Thread
Borderline under this criterion, but should be included:
* Name a good 2 step LL approach for this scramble

Non-examples
Some surveys:
* When do you consider a cuber a master?
* Which hand do you use for 3x3 OH?
* 4x4 Edge Pairing
* 3x3x3: How fast do you consider beginner / intermediate / advanced / expert etc?
* OH PLL order of speed
* V-Cube 2, what's your opinion?
In particular, these are surveys from which information could be extracted to form the basis of a post that actually makes a point, say some statistical observations or changes over time. But anything serious would usually involve a more systematic survey.

Sharing of existing information:
* Blogs/Cubing Sites
* The "Request an Alg" Thread

Example threads:
* THE 2x2 'Example Solve' GAME Thread
* FMC Example Solve Thread!
These may include the occasional gem posts, but there's nothing systematic.

Mostly banter:
* Speedcubing in Brisbane/Melbourne/Sydney/New Brunswick/Portland/Philadelphia/Ireland/Edmonton
* Cubing goals for the Summer!
* Japanese Color Scheme
* My OH addiction
* What are your rubiks snake records?
* Your best speedcubes.
* Whats your favorite event
* Goals Thread

How about something where if a thread in the general speedcubing theory forum ends up really juicy, mods move it to the "serious" speedcubing theory section? This would require quite a bit of policing by mods though...

I think Macky has almost got it spot on. I mostly only read threads in the speedsolving discussion which seem to be able to offer new information about certain methods, which can help me or other people to get faster. Any other thread I find in the sub forum is generally not really worth reading. However I do enjoy reading some of these threads, I admit.

So you want a sub-forum that's basically "Stuff that Macky finds interesting"? Can't you just read the title of the threads like everyone else?

I'm not *that* keen on having a serious speedsolving discussion sub forum. I just think if we were to have one, I think it should mainly focus on threads which help people who are already decent at certain events, to improve. I don't really mind the current layout as it is, to be honest.

irontwig said:

So you want a sub-forum that's basically "Stuff that Macky finds interesting"? Can't you just read the title of the threads like everyone else?

Click to expand...

Almost! The most general criterion I provided was "[a]nnouncements/proposals/discussions pertaining to...anything new or previously not/poorly documented." I'm not particularly interested in a single new algorithm, unless it suggests a new aspect/approach that goes beyond the particular algorithm. But one new algorithm is still "publishable material" and falls under my criterion. I also don't care much for Petrus and ZZ/ZB, but I support having threads that might act as incubators for new ideas.

I'm sure I'm not alone here in being interested in new ideas. As I see it, it's one of three fundamental aspects of cubing: self-improvement/mastery/competition, community, and theory. A lot of competitive hobbies have the first two, but not the third. The great thing about cubing, for the the engineer/encyclopeadist/theorist type, is that there are still many many low-hanging fruits: theories, guides, softwares to be discovered, written, and shared. I'm admittedly biased towards this theoretical aspect, but there's no denying that anything that explores and seeks to expand the frontier of our collective cubing knowledge is extremely important. Right now, I see these efforts being drowned in mere banter. I want them encouraged in an appropriate venue.

If you actually associate "anything new or previously not/poorly documented" with me, I'm flattered but also concerned. We're lucky to have some theorists (theorists/analysts/engineers/statisticians) on this forum, but maybe too few.

[edit...answering my own question]
Competition, Community, Development. So developers.

This could theoretically be useful, but I don't think it would work very well in practice. You're essentially asking for a subforum which contains only good threads (for a certain definition of good). And while that division would make it easier to contribute at a higher level, it would also require a lot of moderation. You can't ban new users from posting, because occasionally we do get new people who have important theory ideas; but a lot of noobs will post their dumb threads in a forum like this just to get the added attention, without realizing how much of an ass they're being. So without constant action by moderators, this subforum wouldn't be able to fulfill its stated purpose. (Plus, there just aren't all that many of these threads to begin with.)

Here are two alternate, slightly different proposals that I think would be better:
- Expand the definition (formally and in the mind of the community) of the Puzzle Theory area to include serious discussion on speedsolving methods and techniques. If we need to, we can always make a subforum of that area to include even more abstract stuff such as group theory investigations, listing of possible twisty puzzles, etc. that would currently only have a place in Puzzle Theory.
- Create a "tagging" system in which topics can be labeled "interesting", "theory", "ZZ", etc. You'd want to have relatively few tags (for simplicity) and relatively few users who are allowed to tag topics. Then, instead of a public subforum, this idea would become the vote-in group of "interesting" topics. Users couldn't randomly post topics in this group, but everyone could still view the group itself, as well as read and post in the selected topics.

Vincents said:

How about something where if a thread in the general speedcubing theory forum ends up really juicy, mods move it to the "serious" speedcubing theory section? This would require quite a bit of policing by mods though...

Click to expand...

I actually like this idea. Create a closed subforum (like weekly comps used to be) and move good threads in there as they appear. A kind of Hall of Fame. Moving the occasional good thread into a new forum is much much easier than removing the large crop of bad ones that would appear.

I have been for limited posting for a long time now.

By limited posting, I mean the opt-in via moderation of members in certain discussions rather than the default allowation of said discussions.

　

While thoughts of an invite-only or acceptance-only (separate) forum site has brushed my thoughts a number of times, (i.e. RouxCentral) a subforum on SpeedSolving would be just as fit of a fix for the problem SpeedSolving has. While newer users may contribute some bits of information that may help the flow of conversation, I've found that newer members (and older, less mature ones) for the most part disrupt the train of thought in conversation, which to me feels especially bad in such an asynchronous conversation (such as online forums).

Of course, limited posting should not be for all subforums, just the previously-suggested "serious discussions" subforum. I have no problem with off-topic banter being where it is; if anything, it's healthy.

What I suggest is to take Macky's idea of a "serious discussion only" subforum and have each thread have a very specific purpose with a source of members who have some expertise in such a field. Much like how certain moderators are meant to moderate their appropriate areas of "expertise," (loosely) I suggest a commision of members who have enough working knowledge of the subject to not have a high tendency to go too far off of the intended topic.

　

This idea fails slightly when one wants to present an entirely new idea, and wants it to be taken seriously. For example, if this were implemented a few months ago and I wanted to post my L2L discussion threads, I would want to post them where they would get serious response, but also in a place to get enough posting attention. In these cases, "general" experienced members could at the very least start the conversations. I'm not sure what would be best in these situations, however.

-statue

DavidWoner said:

I actually like this idea. Create a closed subforum (like weekly comps used to be) and move good threads in there as they appear. A kind of Hall of Fame. Moving the occasional good thread into a new forum is much much easier than removing the large crop of bad ones that would appear.

Click to expand...

For whatever it isn't worth, I really like this idea as well.

macky said:

First try, admittedly not a perfect criterion:
....
[examples]

Click to expand...

I understand your idea, but how practical is it? How do we make the sub-forum you suggest be for what you suggest, without all the other noise?

macky said:

Almost! The most general criterion I provided was "[a]nnouncements/proposals/discussions pertaining to...anything new or previously not/poorly documented." I'm not particularly interested in a single new algorithm, unless it suggests a new aspect/approach that goes beyond the particular algorithm. But one new algorithm is still "publishable material" and falls under my criterion. I also don't care much for Petrus and ZZ/ZB, but I support having threads that might act as incubators for new ideas.

I'm sure I'm not alone here in being interested in new ideas. As I see it, it's one of three fundamental aspects of cubing: self-improvement/mastery/competition, community, and theory. A lot of competitive hobbies have the first two, but not the third. The great thing about cubing, for the the engineer/encyclopeadist/theorist type, is that there are still many many low-hanging fruits: theories, guides, softwares to be discovered, written, and shared. I'm admittedly biased towards this theoretical aspect, but there's no denying that anything that explores and seeks to expand the frontier of our collective cubing knowledge is extremely important. Right now, I see these efforts being drowned in mere banter. I want them encouraged in an appropriate venue.

If you actually associate "anything new or previously not/poorly documented" with me, I'm flattered but also concerned. We're lucky to have some theorists (theorists/analysts/engineers/statisticians) on this forum, but maybe too few

Click to expand...

You're certainly not alone. This issue of post quality and control has been discussed for several years. The old yahoo group didn't really have the issue because it was so small. With Speedsolving going on 13,000 members with a couple thousand visiting each day, it make controlling the issue much more difficult.

One of the things I've thought about recently was how "veteran" members respond to posts compared to new members. I think if "veteran" members (members who have used the forum for a couple years) as a whole responded in a way that was helpful and insightful, new members would have the tendency to follow. If the older members begin to post stupidly and wasteful, new members tend to follow that. We have a few older members who do this, and I think it has a big effect.

qqwref said:

Here are two alternate, slightly different proposals that I think would be better:
- Expand the definition (formally and in the mind of the community) of the Puzzle Theory area to include serious discussion on speedsolving methods and techniques. If we need to, we can always make a subforum of that area to include even more abstract stuff such as group theory investigations, listing of possible twisty puzzles, etc. that would currently only have a place in Puzzle Theory.

Click to expand...

How do you suggest expanding the definition? I understand the idea, and it would be great. But making people understand or read directions is easier said than done.

- Create a "tagging" system in which topics can be labeled "interesting", "theory", "ZZ", etc. You'd want to have relatively few tags (for simplicity) and relatively few users who are allowed to tag topics. Then, instead of a public subforum, this idea would become the vote-in group of "interesting" topics. Users couldn't randomly post topics in this group, but everyone could still view the group itself, as well as read and post in the selected topics.

Click to expand...

This is a possibility. But if all people are allowed to post in topics, what prevents them from posting worthless info? I see it in puzzle theory quite a bit - someone who knows nothing about the topic replies with nothing insightful, helpful, or beyond common sense. Is the issue here people creating stupid topics, people making stupid replies to topics, or both? It is both, and by the above suggestion, it would likely only solve one of them.