These Forums are Becoming Awful

[BC1997]

When someone goes to make a thread, the first page it brings them to should be a page saying something along the lines of "did you check to see if this thread was already made?" There could be a checkbox below it saying that you did, or there could be a search bar right next to that.

Good thinking, that is quite a good idea!

 

[Vinny]

*image*

Yes it does, but I think before bringing you to that page, it should make you check off that you searched the forums. Obviously some people will most likely mindlessly check it, but it would most likely stop a good number of people from creating stupid topics, this less flaming and trolling.

 

[radmin]

I have two ideas:

New members threads automatically get created in a "New member" section. No threads in that section end up on the home page.
I usually don't go anywhere but the home page. This suggestion will hide "noob" threads. People wanting to help noobs can always go to the "new member' section and mentor the next generation. In the event a good quality thread is found it can always be moved.

When a member is considered new, their posts in existing threads don't bump the tread.
When a new member does search the chances are good they will post in an old thread. I've done this when I was new.

 

[chrissyD]

that already exists
edit

I've never noticed that before

maybe it could be in big red writing and you have to read it before you start typing, a bit like terms and conditions but we all know nobody reads them so maybe big red writing will do.

 

[Godmil]

I have two ideas:

But again, that's assuming that people's first posts are always worthless, which isn't always the case. And this is also supposed to be a forum what people can offer and ask for help, making new users posts (effectively) just means nobody will reply to them, which I don't think is the best attitude to take.

 

[pjk]

Maybe when new members join the forum, automatically email a list of links (such as the OAQT thread, http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/FAQ, or any other important page)?

Wait, do you already do this?

Yes. As mentioned before, new users are sent a welcome PM with all kinds of good information.

Maybe you could have an admin or mod approve new threads then?
If they decide to reject it, they can send the user a reason and if necessary, links to threads where similar content is posted or their question answered.

There were 790 new threads created in the last month. As little as that sounds, it is a lot (on top of all the other stuff mods currently do). I'm unsure how many of the new threads were created by new users. The thing is, as easy as it sounds, I don't think it resolves the issue. What about all the worthless replies that are made to existing threads (all the noise that Kirjava mentioned)? Reviewing new threads by new users don't resolve that, and I guarantee will require more work than most expect (on top of what is already quite a lot of moderating). We are interested in expanding the moderation team over time.

Another option would be to allow 1 or 2 new posts a day for users who haven't been on the forum more than 6 months. Or maybe 10 posts per week. This would hopefully minimize all the noise that Kirjava brought up, and also force people to lurk more.

I'm supportive of this idea too. I prefer watching a video rather than reading because I think it would go faster and I would learn easier. Although, the major problem I see with this is the restrictions on YouTube in different countries, as most likely the video will end up going on YouTube. Unless, we were to put it up on both YouTube and youku and provide links, then that would be easily fixed.

We can easily host our own videos, so location restrictions won't be an issue.

Hmm. Maybe when creatin a new thread, they will have auto suggestions and if yours doesn't match, then It can be posted?

This is something I am working on.

I'm just going to start super merging beginners threads when their questions have already been answered.
I think 10 threads would take care of 95% of the beginner's section.

Is anyone opposed to this?

So we have had the "Intro to Speedcubing for Beginners" since essentially day 1 of the forum (early 2006). That answers 95% of most questions. What has happened over the years? People create threads asking questions already answered. Merging from this day on will require quite a lot of work, and what does it really solve? As long as those threads stay in the Help/Questions/Beginners section, I'm fine with it. But what about stupid replies to good Puzzle Theory threads or Constructive discussion threads? I'd suggest spending our time moderating those instead of merging beginners threads together. As Thom mentioned, the core of the issue is the noise that exists in good threads.

When someone goes to make a thread, the first page it brings them to should be a page saying something along the lines of "did you check to see if this thread was already made?" There could be a checkbox below it saying that you did, or there could be a search bar right next to that.

I'll add it to our queue. A confirmation page or something similar may be a good idea to eliminate worthless new threads.

I have two ideas:
1. New members threads automatically get created in a "New member" section. No threads in that section end up on the home page.
2. When a member is considered new, their posts in existing threads don't bump the tread.

1. Doesn't this mis-categorize threads? Just because the user is new to the forum doesn't mean their topic is new. Believe it or not, there are people that become new users here who are very experienced and very knowledgeable with cubing, and contribute a lot.
2. Allow new users to bump if they contribute. Again, a new user doesn't always mean un-experienced, even though most of the time a new user is un-experienced.

 

[daniel0731ex]

Take a look at this forum:
http://6yo.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=29203
http://6yo.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24830


They actually took the "push-comment" system from PTT and applied it to web forums. So general comments from "+1" up to opinions lasting several lines (but lacking supporting material like images or links) are posted under the "push", while you reply when you actually have something to say. This means that there will be a mimimum requirement for the amount of contents in a post (in PTT it's at least three lines, but that's in Chinese so it should be more in English).

This may not reduce the overall number of trolling, but at least they are limited to their own section among good but less-significant comments. By raising the standards of posts with the minimum requirement, the distractions are kept out of important contents.

EDIT:

you need to login to see the comment box. Here's what it actaully looks like when you comment:

The users in PTT generally post in the push-comment even when they have an important point, for the sake of conveniance. They only reply when they realize that their comment is too long and may crowd the push section.

 

[Owen]

Honestly, it's almost impossible to judge whether a thread is "useful", or a post is "constructive".

Most of the solutions I've seen include censorship and/or making harsh judgment calls.

 

[EnterPseudonym]

Do you think if it'd be a good idea to have a "similar threads" list at the bottom of the page? That way people could know that they've created a useless thread immediately after posting, allowing them to self-destruct before it's too late.


And take a look at this forum:
http://6yo.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=29203


They actually took the "push-comment" system from PTT and applied it to web forums. So general comments like "+1" or "I don't really think so" are posted under the "push", while you reply when you actually have something to say.

This may not reduce trolling overall, but by raising the standard/minimum requirements of "replies", you could keep the trolling comments out of important contents

I like this idea. Keeping the useless banter out of the replies section, and saving it for more constructive posts. While keeping people involved in the thread.
It may also be used for a sub-section area or a thread in a thread.

 

[PatrickJameson]

Do you think if it'd be a good idea to have a "similar threads" list at the bottom of the page? That way people could know that they've created a useless thread immediately after posting, allowing them to self-destruct before it's too late.

This was done before. Then people complained because people would bump really old threads frequently. <_<

When someone goes to make a thread, the first page it brings them to should be a page saying something along the lines of "did you check to see if this thread was already made?" There could be a checkbox below it saying that you did, or there could be a search bar right next to that.

I'll add it to our queue. A confirmation page or something similar may be a good idea to eliminate worthless new threads.

Made something like this real quick. Just implemented.

 

[daniel0731ex]

Honestly, it's almost impossible to judge whether a thread is "useful", or a post is "constructive".

Most of the solutions I've seen include censorship and/or making harsh judgment calls.

My idea still leaves the judgement to the users, but simplified so that it's much easier to judge. It's hard to tell whether a post is constructive or not (as this quality is entirely subjective), but one could easily see whether a single-lined comment belongs to the push section or deserves its own post.


The gudeline is this:

PUSH -- simple comments, or even significant ideas and information but is brief enough to fit in the comments

ex:

Good thinking, that is quite a good idea!

I like this idea. Keeping the useless banter out of the replies section, and saving it for more constructive posts. While keeping people involved in the thread.
It may also be used for a sub-section area or a thread in a thread.

→ BC1997: Good thinking, that is quite a good idea!
→ EnterPseudonym: I like this idea. Keeping the useless banter out of the replies section, and
→ EnterPseudonym: saving it for more constructive posts. While keeping people involved in
→ EnterPseudonym: the thread.
→ EnterPseudonym: It may also be used for a sub-section area or a thread in a thread.
→ daniel0731ex: Thanks! This method is really effective in PTT, especially when considering
→ daniel0731ex: the immense number of users on the site




POST -- information containing multiple supportive material, or long arguments unsuitable for the comment section

ex:

^This.

It honestly doesn't matter that new cubers ask cookie questions, that is to be expected in every community with new users. Imo it also doesn't matter that they might create 'useless' threads. The beginner section exists for these people and nobody apart from a new cuber goes there for content.

The problems arise when the only place you can easily find good information in a thread is the OP. Kir (amongst others) has had more than one thread essentially ruined by information-less posts filling up several pages. By information-less, I mean not relating to the OP or any related topics.

Attitude-wise, again, the only place it really matters is the beginner's section. It can only be a good thing that cubing grows; 'older' users firing off condescension will just stop people from wanting to explore the forums/community further.

People being asses to each other elsewhere isn't a 'problem' in and of itself, just something that should always be reported, even if it's not that extreme. Slaps on the wrist are the only way to make people on this forum be more polite to one another, especially when most of them are amazingly intellectually egotistical and socially inept.

Also nobody on SS (cept Thompson) knows how to troll or be trolled, apparently everybody thinks trolling = bullying/being a dick.

You could clearly see that the standard is quite high. This encourages people to think well to produce meaningful contents before posting. If your point is not very long, it belong in the comments. Post a reply when you REALLY couldn't fit it in the comments.

 

[Cubetastic]

ypplsomean?

But srsly, they forum is one of the cleanest forums ive been on so i really have no problems, flaming and trolling and being fun of is part of the internet ive accept that fact and it doesnt bother me

i dont seem to find anything wrong with with this forum

But like always, think before posting ofc

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

ypplsomean?

But srsly, they forum is one of the cleanest forums ive been on so i really have no problems, flaming and trolling and being fun of is part of the internet ive accept that fact and it doesnt bother me

i dont seem to find anything wrong with with this forum

But like always, think before posting ofc

We shouldn't be comparing ourselves to other areas of the internet. We create our own standards, and we have to implement ways to maintain those standards. Just because other places tolerate/are overrun by trolls and flame wars doesn't mean we should. We are comparing ourselves to the way the forums were in the past, and the forums have indeed degraded from that standard.

 

[tozies24]

What do you think in a post constitutes a "report post"? I think that if people knew what Mods don't want to see in the forums, then a lot more reports would be made. In the last couple weeks, I have seen swear words being bleeped out with asterisks and I have thought about hitting the button, but I don't really know if that is that big of a problem.

 

[Cubetastic]

Then it is no fault of yours, it is the fault of the members allowed to join?

 

[cubernya]

Well if they're in asterisks, what's the problem? It's if they avoid the filter then it's a problem

 

[cmhardw]

What do you think in a post constitutes a "report post"? I think that if people knew what Mods don't want to see in the forums, then a lot more reports would be made. In the last couple weeks, I have seen swear words being bleeped out with asterisks and I have thought about hitting the button, but I don't really know if that is that big of a problem.

I would suggest to report any posts that:
1) Violate any of the forum rules
2) Generally you feel are inappropriate

 

[Kirjava]

I hate suggesting things like this but an upvote/downvote system allowing you to set a threshold for displaying comments would weed out the muck.

There are problems with this system though.

 

[Muesli]

I hate suggesting things like this but an upvote/downvote system allowing you to set a threshold for displaying comments would weed out the muck.

There are problems with this system though.

I've never seen a forum where this has been used properly. It's been implemented, but I've never seen a comment with more than 2 or 3 up or down votes before. Plus we all know how childish our fellow forumers can be.

 

[stoic]

that already exists
edit

This was a good idea, especially now that the search function has been improved (massively). Could the principle be extended:

...people would bump really old threads frequently.

This seems to happen quite frequently too. Would it be possible to have some kind of warning come up when somebody is about to bump a thread over a certain length of time?