Forum Moderators: open
Upside:
- That would allow us to "go off on tangents" and still maintain the root of the thread.
- Threads would remain "usable" for longer periods of time. If a 1000 message thread were instead 30 topics and side topics, the main thread would be much smaller.
Downside:
- Usability.
This style of thread format, is much more complicated than most are used to. It requires a new level of understanding on the part of the member. Most forums that use this style of thread, have much more difficulty with new members.
I have tried it in a Danish forum. If a discussion grew really lively there would be many posts like: "I answered that already in another branch, se mssg. XXXXX."
I think that all in all I prefer the format now used at WW. But that may be a matter of personal taste. If a thread really grows wild it will be confused no matter which format.
seti@home message boards use that and I find it to be a mess a lot of the time. Like you said, it requires a new level of understanding of the intention... maybe you'll get it, maybe not.
Would an experiment at first in one not-too-busy forum be possible before you try it in something like forum3?
- if a "click here to view other replies" is a configurable option, then the default for new users would to NOT show that link.
That way, all the "sub replies" would be ignore by the posters not involved, and by new users. That would make all threads basically forced on topic.
Just imagine all the branches you have to a thread like Froogle [webmasterworld.com] or worse yet, the Google update thread [webmasterworld.com]
<added>Wouldn't it also be harder on the server?
As someone already pointed out, this idea could create near unusable threads in cases where the topicality is incredibly broad. Such as an update thread.
I cooled (slowly - I hate to give up preconceived notions) and remembered that even Google has very reasons why they make changes (WebmasterWorld influenced SEO not least) and that it is the how and the when and the lack of communication that drives much of the anguished commentary I read.
Therefore, I sadly put aside my G-Theory and accepted that Brett has a valid why, is doing his best to communicate with and update all of us, and is requesting input: very commendable behaviour - GG and associates please take notes;).
My suggestions are:
1. As difficulties with multi-threaded forums are likely to increase with thread size it would be best to test with the forum that generates the longest threads: Forum 3, "Google News".
2. To generate comparison statistics there needs to be a control. I suggest that for the test period Forum 3 become two identical forums: Classic 3 and New-Improved 3.
3. To maintain equal threads for statistical analysis an entry in one forum should automatically update both. There will be the usual few who manually enter into both the same comment but that redundancy will remain equal, add to the server stress, and help the analysis.
4. The two forums should appear one above the other in the forum list for ease of comparison.
5. To keep "test opinions" from overwhelming any other existing forum a temporary "comments on test" forum should be set up (perhaps directly following the two "test" forums).
6. Server logs need to set to record (as minimal) actual traffic through each forum and the server resources this traffic requires in each.
7. Brett to keep us updated to results as he sees them develop.
For what it is worth I prefer the existing design. If this design is no longer practicable I appreciate Brett allowing participation and discussion about possible changes.
In 5 years time, I ran PCBoard, SuperBBS and EzyBoard... not in that order. Long enough that, apparently, I'll never forget the lousy names given to most BBS programs! ;)
An alternative might be to add an option "reply to this message" at the bottom of each message. If this option was taken then the test "in reply to msg #n by n-or-m" could be placed before the reply text.
Thus, this post would have "In reply to msg #2 by troels nybo nielsen" preceding my ramblings.
This would at least enable readers to reconstruct the thread of arguments in their heads.
If you want to be a bit more sophisticated, give the moderators the facility to see branching threads, and to cut off and move branches that are inappropriate or that stand on thier own.
Oooh. Opening and closing branches to see if somebody has already responded as you are going to, or to find that gem that might be tucked away somewhere -- very tedious, takes much longer to read and get the full gist of a thread (even with the tangents).
But, if Brett's got to do something he's got to do something.
Perhaps if a certain post went off topic and got X ammount of replies it could automaticly spawn its own thread?
It may speed up skipping through some of the "junk", which would be nice, but some of the good stuff may be buried...I am wondering if it would increase or decrease my ammount of time spent on this site...
It will generally hamper a lot of good posts that are "wrap up" answers, the ones that answer a bunch of posts at once. These are often the best part of a thread, especially when someone like DG, CIML, BT, Shak, etc does it.
