Forum Moderators: open
Have forums moved from discussions to debates?
seriously though... I have noticed this a lot as well. It may be a result of the fact that a lot of topics have been talked to death by those of us that have been around a little bit.
I too get frustrated when the topic of a thread dissolves as it grows. Sometimes it works for the creator of the thread to get people back on track, and it works really well when a mod does.
The amazing thing to me, is how fast a thread or discussion can turn on just a couple of posts.
Any suggestions as to what we can do?
It may keep the thread on track and some type of friendly reminder about keeping on subject could be included.
Hard hand . . . .
Any user can post x-amount of times in any thread.
Once they have used up their allotment, they are done.
Basically it would force people to state their ideas and information clearly and carefully.
This would really shorten up the threads.
3 posts per person should be enough to get info out after that it is likely debate.
[From one who likes to "debate", but tries to keep it in foo....]
If the poster has reached his / her limit, by whatever standard, how can those who can no longer participate in that thread, remove it from "Your WebmasterWorld Threads", without involving a mod, or system admin?
For the record, I agree. Lots more debate and condecension lately.
Let me add: Those that post over you, saying essentially the same thing you just did, as though you hadn't said a thing.
We used to share openly in forums [ that has been a while ].
No it hasn't, you just think it has.
Now we argue our own opinions
Who's arguing their own opinions? I'm just saying what I think.
and include previous posts in little gray boxes.
Handy, isn't it?
Have forums moved from discussions to debates?
Certainly not, what a silly question!
And just to emphasize that this is just in fun -- ;)
Any user can post x-amount of times in any thread.
Once they have used up their allotment, they are done.
...
3 posts per person should be enough to get info out after that it is likely debate.
...is a bad idea. In the more technically oriented forums (CSS, JavaScript, PHP) there are often threads which involve one or two members guiding a third through some specific, and often complicated, process. Posts for those members in those threads can number five or six or higher, all of them worthwhile contributions, resulting not only in a satisfied OPer, but a great reference peice for searchers to land on, as well.
I've been on both ends of this sort of discussion (asker and helper) and would venture to say that they are the threads which turn first-time posters looking for a specific solution into regular contributors.
Point being: limiting the number of posts could well be the death knell for those sorts of threads.
And I also want to add that I love the grey QUOTE boxes and think they are an extremely helpful communication devise. This very post is a great example. With all the things in this thread so far, being able to quote the exact lines which inspired my response actually makes reading the thread easier, not harder.
cEM
To serve as a reminder of what the thread is really about,the original post could appear on the top of the page, no matter how many pages are contained in the thread.
I saw this feature in a custom-written forum - great idea (to place it at the top), esp if you can set if off so that it because obvious. On WW, the original post is way below my screen and only when I respond. The one I saw displays the original post on subsequent pages even when one is just reading posts.
Or pulling from the suggestion about x posts per thread, perhaps the thread starter could dictate this value? If they only want an opinion from people, then they could select "one reply per user", however if they want some ongoing or undefined amount of input, then they could allow unlimited replies per user?
Perhaps thread starters could state when they post a new thread which types of users they want to respond (ie just Senior members and above)? Maybe even create new user groups (opt in / out) for this purpose (eg, "MSN", "CSS"). Users could opt in to whichever groups they wanted and those they didn't want to discuss could be hidden. Taking this further, perhaps mods and admin could pick some members to be "experts" in specific categories and given them more write permissions or whatever.
Scott
Those threads where the signal to noise ratio is much higher should be left as they are. CSS, Graphics, HTML, javascript, PHP etc, all these places very rarely get the bewilderingly off topic posting or thread hijacking you see elsewhere, and are more helpful and concise because of it.
It's the 'money' threads that get most of the trouble.
... and thread constraints in foo would be catclysm of catastrophic cats ;)
