Quality Content
This is a continuation of a side trail in another thread which has since been closed.
It's impossible so long as every mod on every forum on the Internet focuses their intelligence on rebuking all constructive suggestions and declaring every idea that is not their idea to be impossible. In that situation, the current real world, yes, agreed, impossible.
This of course depends on one's definition of "works". Instead of debating that, here's another angle to consider.
As it stands currently, our mods have the job of janitor, taking out the trash (banning low quality posters). This is an essential function so it merits our respect, and those providing this essential function for free merit our respect too, but...
It might be a great deal more interesting for the mods to invent a higher level job for themselves. What's been accomplished so far is that this forum is marginally better than most other philosophy forums. Ok, we can celebrate that, agreed. But there's no law of nature which requires the accomplishments from ending there.
Most of the writers we might most like to read will never participate here in the forum's current form, because if they were to start a thread it would immediately be swamped with tons of marginal content. So the better writer gets bored, and wanders off, never to be seen again.
I'm not proposing there is some perfect solution to this, only that working on that challenge would seem to be more interesting than merely taking out the trash.
Agreed, and let's hear a round of applause for the new ignore feature. Very useful!
That said, there is no law which requires every section of this forum to be public. There could also be an "invitation only" section at the top which focuses on higher quality content. If the mods made their invitations carefully such a section would likely require little work, at least much less than the other sections.
All that said, this forum belongs to the owner and his chosen mods, and if it is their wish that this forum be pretty much like every other forum on the Internet (almost anybody can say almost anything) then ok, I respect their right to manage their private property in whatever manner works for them.
Hanover:It's just logistically impossible to subject each thread to vote by the moderators to determine priority, not to mention such voting would be subjective and fraught with political and topic bias by the moderators.
It's impossible so long as every mod on every forum on the Internet focuses their intelligence on rebuking all constructive suggestions and declaring every idea that is not their idea to be impossible. In that situation, the current real world, yes, agreed, impossible.
Hanover:The current system of moderator editing of weak posts and sinking low quality threads off the front page into Siberia or moving them to the lounge seems to work.
This of course depends on one's definition of "works". Instead of debating that, here's another angle to consider.
As it stands currently, our mods have the job of janitor, taking out the trash (banning low quality posters). This is an essential function so it merits our respect, and those providing this essential function for free merit our respect too, but...
It might be a great deal more interesting for the mods to invent a higher level job for themselves. What's been accomplished so far is that this forum is marginally better than most other philosophy forums. Ok, we can celebrate that, agreed. But there's no law of nature which requires the accomplishments from ending there.
Most of the writers we might most like to read will never participate here in the forum's current form, because if they were to start a thread it would immediately be swamped with tons of marginal content. So the better writer gets bored, and wanders off, never to be seen again.
I'm not proposing there is some perfect solution to this, only that working on that challenge would seem to be more interesting than merely taking out the trash.
Hanover:Posters will always have to sort the wheat from the chaff themselves to some degree, but such is inherent in a public forum.
Agreed, and let's hear a round of applause for the new ignore feature. Very useful!
That said, there is no law which requires every section of this forum to be public. There could also be an "invitation only" section at the top which focuses on higher quality content. If the mods made their invitations carefully such a section would likely require little work, at least much less than the other sections.
All that said, this forum belongs to the owner and his chosen mods, and if it is their wish that this forum be pretty much like every other forum on the Internet (almost anybody can say almost anything) then ok, I respect their right to manage their private property in whatever manner works for them.
Comments (61)
There might even be a hidden forum here that no one sees until they are invited into it. Oh, but there cannot be, because you would already know about it.
:zip:
As I said, we're all open to feedback. I provided reasons why I didn't agree with your suggestion. You didn't respond, but instead posted the above passive aggressive comment, summarily concluding the world is filled with mindless naysayers who refuse to take seriously your suggestions.
Quoting Jake Is that what you're suggesting I'm doing right now?
Sarcastic passive-aggression is a quality of elites, and since I'm without a doubt the most sarcastic passive-aggresive son of bitch around here, I must be the most elite of the elites. As leader of the elites, I demand that you implement an exclusive forum for us, posthaste, or else I will continue to instruct my sub-elites to create more passive-aggressive feedback discussions like this.
He said, while immediately discarding the latest constructive suggestion to enhance the quality of the forum, and making no effort to improve it in to something that he could accept.
See? The entire focus of your response to the suggestion has very predictably been reject, reject, reject, nothing but rejection, just like I said it would be.
No worries Hanover. It's like this on every forum on the net. All input is wrong, unless it was the mod's idea. I'm ok with that.
I just thought you good fellows might be getting bored with being janitors. If not, then ok, case closed.
If you want 'elite' content, make it, and ignore anyone who doesn't live up to your standards.
If I'm going to make my own "elite" content I don't need this site, I can do that on a blog. I'm on a forum because I'm hoping to find conversation with those capable of producing elite content. There's some here already. More would be better.
The current publishing model used by almost all forums is a serious obstacle to that. I'm just pointing out that there is nothing about forum software which requires the exclusive use of the "anybody can say anything" model. Philosophy forums could be something more interesting than a slightly improved version of Facebook.
Or not. I'm just trying to expand your vision in a useful direction. If you don't wish to have your vision expanded just erase the thread and we're done. I'm ok with that, no problem.
Maybe a hidden bunker nuclear war forum?
I'll have you know stick war is a [i]way[/I] better topic.
And now I will be the one doing the rejection. :smile:
Anyway, moving along...
I know some of the highly inexpert word choices I make can make this feel like a complaint. I plead guilty to often falling short of my own "elite" content goals, and often deserve the attitude I receive as a reply to the attitude I give.
But this is not really a complaint. If you're happy with the forum as it is, ok, we're done.
But if you're not happy, if you're getting bored with being a janitor, there are things that can be done about that.
Please refrain from insulting janitors by comparing them to us. Those people actually get paid. We are somewhere between drudges and the Borg.
It is a buzz kill but you have to accept that you just weren't invited.
I left when it turned out that there were no virgins being offered.
The brochure promised virgins.
Or, as yet another option, we could convert this thread in to an endless series of hysterical anti-nuclear rants, with insanely clever quips included at no extra charge!!!
Personally though, I would rather discuss Mickey Mouse.
Really, really, really bad!!
But, wait, somehow strangely beautiful....
No, it wasn't constructive criticism. It was an uncritically evaluated suggestion that was then critically evaluated and rebuked. Your response was not responsive to the criticism, but was just a general lament that no one wants to listen to your ideas. This thread is the precise sort that you're asking be relegated to the lower tier of this board.
What you suggested was a hierarchy of posts as determined by the moderators. I pointed out (1) the logistical impossibility of holding moderator sessions where we vote on the hundreds of new threads weekly, (2) the subjectivity inherent in evaluating thread quality, (3) and the ideological biases of the moderators that could lead to claims of post suppression. I also pointed out there existed a current solution, namely that moderators can remove low quality content and they can sink discussions off the main board to deprioritize them (as currently exists with all lounge discussions).
The disease of low quality posts that you believe invades this board is preferable to the cure your prescribe. That I've disagreed with you doesn't mean that I've stubbornly refused to listen. It means I really believe you've arrived at a particularly bad idea.
How about goggles equipped with Boring Vision™? That way, when you browse the forum, you won't see any of those quips you so despise, yet oddly partake in.
They're usually £49.99, but for you, only [i]£174.99![/I]*
*Terms and conditions apply.
Quoting Jake
Which reminds me of an inspirational saying... Don’t lead, for I may not follow. Don’t follow, for I may not lead. Just walk beside me, and try not to fart too much...
Quoting Baden :lol:
Quoting S Is that like minions? Minions seem to have a sense of purpose and job security.
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums
I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, WRONG!
Quoting Hanover
What I'm suggesting are conversations which might consider a variety of such options. Or not. Again, if mods aren't interested in any of this, ok, no problem, so delete the thread and we can all just forget it. I'm agreeable if that's the case.
Quoting Hanover
Right, you focused on the wrong, wrong, wrong, impossible, impossible, impossible, while making no attempt to edit the idea to better suit your taste, or replace it with a better idea.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, that's what editing is, subjective judgment. There is no scientifically approved math equation which can settle the question. Pick up any newspaper, any magazine. Somebody has decided what should appear there. If you generally like their decisions, you subscribe. If you generally don't like their decisions, you put it down and walk away. This has been going on for hundreds of years, it's not some crazy new concept.
Quoting Hanover
Let the competing claimants claim away, while you build a higher quality section where the writers address more interesting subjects.
Quoting Hanover
Every single thing you've typed has focused on rejection, and you've offered no new ideas which might improve the forum. Again, this is not personal, every mod on every forum does essentially the same thing. Mods only like one kind of idea, THEIR idea. You're just the latest in 10,000 mods to express that mode of thinking.
Which is fine, totally ok. Again, if you're happy with what you've got, then there is no problem which requires a solution.
Says the person who just yesterday offered us a way to do one version of what I'm describing, editing. It was a great contribution (thanks!), which I've already applauded a number of times. And now you're arguing against your own contribution.
Are you not satisfiable with what we've got already?
I'm attempting to raise the vision of what the forum might be. You know, perhaps it might someday be a place where professional philosophers participate. This forum could be unique, and not just yet another version of what already exists elsewhere. What I'm attempting to shine a light on are all the intelligent interesting people who might land here in a web search, open a thread full of twaddle, and say to themselves, "Oh, I see, just another forum" and then vanish without a trace.
There's nothing about forum software which prevents a forum from both serving those people, and a more general audience too. There just has to be a desire to serve both groups, to elevate a forum above the usual vision of what a forum can be, to not be another forum more or less just like all the others. Once such a desire exists, then a way will be found to serve that desire. Without such a desire, then the focus will be problems, problems, problems, problems, etc.
This isn't a rule everyone has to follow, it's just an option that can be interesting to consider. Or not.
Well, as I said, there are other forums that adhere to a different standard, such as peer-reviewed posts and topics. I happen to like the disagreements that arise here despite the lack of agreement. I mean, you can't have one without the other. And, we are discussing philosophy here, so every topic is going to be rife with disagreement.
I'm not sure what utility Steve Jobs endowed people with. Chronic dissatisfaction tends to breed unhappiness and anxiety.
EDIT: I wouldn't invest in Apple nowadays. They're struggling with market saturation.
I've actually seen this done on a forum. The elite area of the forum ended up being a ghost town. The only benefit, as I suggested earlier, was that the members of the elite class were not subject to the critiques of the lower class.
Being the sage on the [secure] stage can be quite lonely if no one is listening.
I have some experience with this context. In a time in which I wasn't as busy, I was on staff of a philosophy Discord. We did have a seperate section for we people identified as knowledgable or just posted who were interested in taking philosophy seriously. Let me go through why I don't think it would work here.
The split worked very well for our Discord. Often, we would have people without knowledge, or enthusiasm which exceeded their experience, clogging up our chat. Since our interface was real time, this became a critical issue.
Discussion of the newcomer's claims or questions would dominate. We would have other newcomer's trying to engage with inadequate commentary. Or any other conversation would become lost as staff or a knowledable person tried to help the newcomer or correct their mistakes. Other discussion would get lost. Pretty difficult for the knowledge members who wanted to have a lesiurely chat about a topic they new well.
So we made a specific room for knowledgable people to chat in, without having to deal with the distraction of novice questions or errors. It worked well for handling the real time traffic.
But it wasn't all fantastic. In creating a split, we codified a hierarchical difference between those who have been granted access or not. It excentuated feelings of which posters knew more and which were laughably ignorant. Overall, I would judge it successful in our environment, but it brought disadvantages one might be wary about.
In the case of this forum, I only see the disadvantages winning out. Since this is not a real time environment, there is no need to immediately control discussion traffic to allow the users to have their conversation. Each topic has its own, slow moving, dedicated area. The major advantage of giving knowledge posters a clubhouse isn't here.
To my mind this only leaves disadvantages. Not only do you codify the hierarchy of users, but in the slower format, it may seriously harm less knowledge users. If every knowledge posters is off talking with other well read posters in their culbhouse, they won't be around to help newcomer's as much. A forum doesn't have quick conversation and switching between channels like a real time internet chat.
Lastly, at least from an academic philosophy perspective, this forum just doesn't really have the user base to support an expert section. Of the regular posters active, the numbers of people with decent grounding in philosphical texts is countable on two hands. Maybe I just haven't seen some people because their topics haven't come up, but I suspect not.
Most on the forum, it seems to me, fit more on a line between pop philosophy and beginning to read texts. In terms of academic philosophy, it looks like the clubhouse would a limited group of 5-7 people just talking amongst themselves. (which they kind of already do in their focused threads anyway). It doesn't seem like it would improve forum quality.
The member with the most stars can be declared the philosopher king.
As childish as that seems, I could see some merit to the idea of having that idea implemented. Incentives, rewards, hmm humdrum.
We only have sticks. You'll have to find your own carrot.
For the record, he said he was wrong. We can close the discussion.
Wait! Unless... he was being sarcastic? But I thought he was a serious-minded elite, above that sort of behaviour.
Reading between the lines, I think the request is for a place where he can be sarcastic and make quips, but no one else can be sarcastic and make quips at his expense. Those people are not the elite class. They should be excluded.
If anyone is taking this topic seriously it might be a good first step to check with these members to see if they ever feel interrupted by the riffraff.
Oh come now, I'm sure there's something that can be done about our lack of incentive structure resulting in the endless psychologizing of people's intentions hereabouts. OK, before you say that we're not a business, then I protest that we can at least make this place more academic, hence my fixation of reading groups.
Try writing better posts.
Do I get a reward for that?
Self-respect?
Not getting beaten with a stick.
Here I am trying to quantify a qualifier. Go figure.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Ok, but there is a hierarchical difference. I'm just trying to recognize that. Some people have PhDs in these subjects, and some do not. Some people are articulate in their comments, while others are less so. Some people have been thinking about these subjects for 50 years, while others are encountering them for the first time. All posters are not created equal.
So the question I'm posing is, does the forum wish to make an effort to serve the needs of those who are most qualified to speak to these subjects?
If there is such a desire, where there is a will there is a way. If there is no such desire, then ok, no problem, let's just say that, close the thread and return to the regularly scheduled programming.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Without such a clubhouse we can kiss the knowledge posters goodbye. Thus we don't get to read them, at least not here. Without such a clubhouse there is no mechanism for encouraging knowledge posters to give the forum a try. Those with the most interesting thoughts on these subjects simply aren't going to invest their time in to scrolling through page after page of twaddle just to find the few posts that are indeed interesting. So we either recognize that reality and deal with it, or we say goodbye to them.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Without such a clubhouse, they won't be here at all.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I agree, and am just suggesting it might be an interesting challenge to try to expand the user base in this direction.
There are lots of ways such an attempt might be made, but we're never going to make much progress on that so long as our focus is exclusively on why this can never work.
Even with the resources, it would still a bad idea in my view. It would hurt the community nature of the place, which is based on character, variety, and a certain egalitarianism and tolerance (I hope) rather than just philosophical knowledge. Imagine you're running a bar that's been very successful at attracting a reasonably intelligent clientele who are on the whole happy with the place. Would it improve things to tell half of them that there's a new room just been set up for the favoured ones that they're not allowed entry to because they're just not good enough? Or would that just fuck things up? I say the latter.
I would speculate sometimes, I did see an interuption the other day, but it was by someone with some background in texts.
Overall, I do think the forum often has problems staying topic. I could imagine a lot of posters could get annoyed by others taking their topic off in some direction outside its interests. Most topics are pretty general though, so I figure it might be rarer than it might appear.
I think tougher moderation would be a better fix for that one than a secluded area. It would actually demand something of distracting posters. But I think that would change the tone of the forum significant, to a point where we might lose a number of members angry they cannot give their opinion because it's judged off topic or low quality. Also, it would mean much more work and stress for the mods.
This is a common complaint (I've had this very discussion approximately 3,000 times :smile: ) which is easily solved. That is, easily solved, if we want it solved. If we don't want it solved, it's impossible.
If you should actually wish that such a problem could be solved, start trying to solve it. If I see you doing that I'll participate.
Maybe a section for featured threads (chosen somehow) could do something to up our quality game without ostracizing others, but I'm fairly satisfied as it is.
It would only fuck things up with those of us who can't stand the thought that somebody might know something that we don't and that they are being appreciated and recognized for that accomplishment.
Yes, a number of current members would whine like little babies. I don't object. Let them do so. In the lower sections of the forum dedicated to such things.
That didn't happen at the old PF and it doesn't happen here. We've always had plenty of knowledgeable posters. That's almost twenty years of philosophy forums where your prediction has failed to materialize.
Yet, you haven't suggested any kind of incentive structure to create the demand for higher quality posts. So, you've condemned your sentiment to a complaint.
Start a thread on any subject, and watch it immediately begin to fill with twaddle.
Again, this forum is pretty good compared to many other forums. I totally agree with that. It's just no where near as good as it could be. If you don't care about that, if it doesn't interest you, ok, again for the 9th time just lock this thread and we're done. I have no problem with that at all.
Einstein, that is. Just saying.
I'm not going in to detail on 20 years of thinking on such subjects (I'm a retired forum software developer) because I've been given no incentive to do so. I'm ok with that. But should anyone want details, the price tag is to get off one's ass and start trying to solve the problem, if you perceive this to be a problem. Sorry dudes, I'm not going to play the game where I sit here posting constructive suggestions one after another while the rest of you sit back and do nothing but nitpick.
I'm ok with the nitpicking, but this is all you'll get in return.
There's that catch 22 again. :lol:
I see that as, at least at this stage, a false problem. Knowledgable users, most of all, want knowledable users they can have discussions with. Giving them a secluded area is meaningless without having the community they to talk with in the first place.
In many cases, we might find the secluded area isn't necessary because presence of knowledgeable users raises discussion quality enough for them to be content.
It's really the user base which matters. Any policy to assist them needs them first. I'd get that to a critical mass before thinking about whether anything was required to restrain annoying newbies.
Everyone on the mod team cares about the quality here. In fact, we care about it enough to dedicate a considerable amount of our time working for free to maintain and improve it in every way we can. Because this forum and the community it represents mean something to us. And it's that sentiment and those efforts, along with those of similar-minded posters here, that have resulted in the place rising from nowhere to number one in the philosophy forum world in a remarkably short period of time.
And you know what, we're proud of what we do, and the fact that we don't implement every idea that's suggested is a mark of common sense and good management and nothing to the contrary. The fact that you think you're so special that a rejection of your pet cause (not only by the mod team but by the community at large) reflects in any way negatively on us rather than on you is indicative of nothing more than your false view of your own importance. As is the idea that if there were an elite forum, you would have any access to it.
And that, @Jake, is the last word on the matter.