NOTE: Much of the message was written 4/3/04.
-----
Over the past week, new topic starting has been exceptionally high. Some of these days were also exceptionally high message total days, including some runaway topics of highly dubious quality.
From 3/27 through 4/2/04 (7 days) there were 65 new topics started. This does not include topics resulting in suspensions (15 more), or topics created by copy/moving topics.
These topics, and their opening messages, ranged from wonderful to wretched. Also, we had such ill defining topic titles (whose topics may or may not have been good) as "PsuedoScience strikes again!", "spirituality", "Christianity For Morons", "Creationists and evolutionists", "Heaven", "Scientific Preference", "Don't get it", "Question about monkeys", "small M type", The Theory of Everything, Or Is it?", "What if?", "From Halakhah to", "God = Greatest Common Factor", "Genetics question", "Evolution", and "Logos = Universal Algorithm". What do these titles mean? Now, I may be being too hard on some of these titles, however, there were others that also could have used some improvement.
Amongst various recent topics (not unlike in the past) there were opening messages that doomed the topic to not having any real productive future.
All this leads up to my once again pushing of my proposal, most recently quoted by Sylas in message 49. I largely still like the concept, as stated there. I will, however, make some modifications and further comments, and respond to various points brought up by others (primarily Sylas).
My current variation, is that all forums (unless otherwise noted) be closed to members starting new topics. The "Announcements" and "Posts of the Month" topics are already "start by admin only". I am less than enthusiastic about the "Welcome, Visitors!" forum, but propose that it remain unchanged (but perhaps with a rigid maximum number of messages). The "Suggestions and Questions" and "Short Topics" forums will remain unchanged. My preference would be that the "Free For All" forum adopt a new function (I have proposed a "Free For All, version 2) elsewhere), and that "FFA" topics also be cycled through the "Proposed New Topics" (PNT) forum.
Back in message 30, Loudmouth brought up a couple of good points:
quote:
2. Most people will ignore the New Topics Forum and just go directly to the Free For All. They will ask themselves, "Why wait for approval when I can start a thread right now?" Also, if someone comes up with a great idea for a thread they may not want to wait. Impatience may be a "New Topic" killer.
This is part of the reason why my preference of having the "FFA" material go throught the "PNT". My vision, is that the "FFA" truly be a forum for legitimate topics not suitable for other topics. Currently I think a lot of "FFA" topics belong elsewhere. I wonder how many were intended for elsewhere, and were accidentally placed there. Many I have wanted to move, but it is clearly out of bounds for a moderator to move topics out of the "FFA".
quote:
3. Creationists who may already be timid in starting new threads will feel even more intimidated by having their topics go through a review process. I think it may stifle some creationist posting, which I think is a bad thing believe it or not.
The short answer, is that fewer but better topics would be a good thing.
Holmes, from message 33:
quote:
The main problems as I saw it were posters that were pretty clearly creating threads designed to go nowhere (usually many of the same), or new posters that start out redoing stuff we already have out there. That's why I thought it would be easier to handle on a poster by poster, or thread by thread issue as they came up.
and
quote:
Maybe something could be done like have admins warn a poster that they need to stick to one thread (if more than on of the same issue was created by the same poster), or point out that these questions have already been dealt with elsewhere (kind of a set pointer to a collection of "done" topics) and the poster should read up on the subject and add something new (if they have something new to add).
All this is easier said than done. I think that a lot of our moderation problems could be eased by getting individual topics off to a quality start.
Per the "done" topics - We are doomed to recycle stuff previous covered. Rarely does that wonderful fresh topic come along. But at least we can cut back on new topics being started, when the same material is being covered in existing active topics. With quality topic titles, those existing topics could be much more easily found.
Now, getting to the topic this is a reply to (message 49) - I thank Sylas for his support - His opinions carry a lot of weight.
Upon further thought, I am now proposing 3 new forums. The "Proposed New Topics" (PNT) forum, which would be see up as "no replies permitted". This is pretty much as previously proposed.
Second, a "Comments on Proposed New Topics" (CPNT) forum. IF a "PNT" topic is not deemed ready to go to one of the main forums, and admin/moderator could start a temporary topic in the "CPNT", where suggestions for changes could be made. This is NOT a forum to debate the topic itself. Once the topic is deemed ready, any admin/moderator can move it.
If the proposed topic is determined to be terminally flawed, the originator can withdraw it, and it will either be deleted or sent to a "Junk Topic" forum.
Now, Sylas said:
quote:
New users may only start threads in the special start forum. A moderator or admin will then see if it meets guidelines, or offer some suggestions. If and when okay, it gets moved to a discussion forum.
There are tightly defined guidelines for what is a good starting post (see below).
Any poster whose last two threads went straight to discussion, were posted within two weeks of each other, and who participated in subsequent exchanges in those threads, will automatically be moved to a status in which they are permitted to start new threads at will. This reduces moderator loads.
Any poster (without exception) who starts a new thread which violates the guidelines will automatically go back to the same default status as a new user. This should not be regarded as a punishment, but as an offer to help someone make a more effective presentation of their threads.
I think that all new messages should go through the "Proposed New Topics" (PNT) forum, regardless of who starts it. This is a "Keep It Simple Stupid". We won't need to define (or redefine) whose topics can or can not bypass the "PNT". Hopefully, most topics will be of such quality that it's obvious that they should be forwarded. With 7 (or more) admins/moderators involved, they will get quickly moved.
My "no automations" version would be easy to implement, easy to modify, and even easy to do away with. No new code would have to be written. One "automation" that I do think would be nice, would be to limit the number of topics any individual can have in the "PNT" forum. But that can probably be lived without.
quote:
The grammar, spelling, and formatting must be tolerable. {snip}
The title must describe the post, and the initial post must focus on the title topic.
The new thread must argue a position, not criticise a person.
Bare links with no supporting comment are forbidden.
Quoted material must be clearly distinguished from the rest of a post, and have an identified source.
The post should not just be quoted material from another source, but must include significant original text from the poster themselves.
This sounds wonderful to me. The "snipped" portion was relevant to the automations that I'm against.
quote:
Postscript added in edit: I suggest, if possible, that new threads may be started in any forum, but that for default moderated users the new thread is automatically redirected to the start forum, with an automatic thank you message saying that the post is now submitted for consideration.
Again, I find such automations to be undesirable. One of the current problems is that sometimes topics are started in unintended forums. If someone is in a "Free For All" topic, and hits the "Start New Topic" button, the topic is started in the "FFA". I think this is a significant reason why we have to move so many topics, and perhaps why some topics end up in the "FFA". Percy has a fix in the "Intend to Do Bin", but it looks to be a ways off.
Perhaps when a member submits a topic to the "SNT" forum, s/he could suggest a forum, especially if it's intended for the "FFA".
A little response to AbbyLeever (message 50):
quote:
Likewise any good topic in FFA could still be moved by an administrator to an appropriate category if it was well done.
I touched upon this earlier in this message. The rules of the FFA preclude topic moves by admins/moderators.
Well, this message got out of hand. The structure could be better, but I think I said what I wanted to say.
Adminnemooseus
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-07-2004]
™ Version 4.2
