withing Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 It happens here, and it happens on other forums. It happens on threads that have two posts, and it happens on threads that have 15 pages of posts. It happens everywhere. Now, I can understand that there are some threads that are just too long to read the *entire* thread and if it's a "do you ever...?" thread then maybe reading everyone's post isn't necessary. But please, if someone has a problem then people should read the damned answers before spouting advice or criticism that has most likely already been addressed in previous posts but they wouldn't know because they didn't read the damned thread!!! It really just ticks me off. Especially when people dig up a thread that's three to five years old and don't even bother reading it. It's really just irksome. You know? edited to fix coding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~nestling~ Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I hear you. I always try to read the whole thread, unless I'm in a bad panic mode/dodgy concentration day. And if that's the case, I don't tend to reply anyway. Hope that's ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mysterious Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 When I'm depressed, I find it really hard to concentrate. Sometimes, I'll think I've read the whole thread, only to realise later that I've missed or misread something important! Usually it'll only be a sentence or two that I've missed, though, not half a thread. I do apologise if I've ever given useless advice as a result of this (I wouldn't post criticism unless my concentration levels were good and I was 100% certain it was appropriate). It's not intentional! M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
resonance Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I think someday we'll have better recommender systems that help with this. Like where if you're writing stuff, it will suggest related threads/posts to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wondernut Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I do this sometimes I will read one line of a post..or one post in a thread and jump right in (rather impulively) with my thoughts and it does not even go down the same path the rest of the conversation is going I do that in live coversations too sorry I suck big time and I can give you a reason or even an excuse I just do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayteana Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I agree. Oh, I especially agree with the posts that are three to five years old and people suddenly respond. I get so confused. ~ May Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~nestling~ Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Another forum I've used calls the old threads that people bump up "zombie threads". Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
withing Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 Another forum I've used calls the old threads that people bump up "zombie threads". Heh. I like it! We should use it here... Wondernut, just because people do things that annoy me, doesn't mean I don't like them. I understand that people are impulsive and jump in without looking - even people I like. But, man, it's still annoying. In conversations we have a "3 minute rule" - don't say anything until you've heard at least three minutes of the conversation, so you know what everyone's talking about. But online, there isn't a rule like that - except, you know, read the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duelist Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 another board I go to gets pissy if you bump old threads and to them three months is TOO old to post to. They call it necroposting...I don't agree that three months is too long to post to, but something that turned up in a search of the board that is two or three years old, it's hard to revive that old of a thread, it'sj ust better to start a new one. I agree though, people should read the threads they are posting to at the very least the opening post deserves to be read, not that the following posts do not, but some people might not read that many. On a House MD board I go to I read old theads that are 15 and up pages worth, just because I like to see what everyone thinks, I know that's mind blowing but I like to read all the pages of threads, just how I am avid reader of posts, former avid reader of books, but just not able to concentrate on them any longer, go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wondernut Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I totally understand that you can like people and not like what they do! I was not offended in the least I just can not seem to help myself trust there are even things my dearest family and friends do ..well they pretty suck too! like one friend who finishes my sentences! I want to hit her! but I love her so sometimes I do have to give her a (loving) wack as a reminder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Is there a way to configure IPB so that it would be easy to "close" old threads by locking them en-masse? There would be no way to "revive" a locked thread as a "zombie thread", would there? Another choice would be to move old threads into a "read-only archive". Either action would solve the "bump old thread" problem although it would do nothing for the "read the entire thread" issue (and I know no way to handle the latter through the software; it's a Moderation problem). But then, a decision would have to be made as to what constitutes a "zombie thread" by Administration and they would have to stick with it. I can guess that would be quite the discussion on the "back boards", but one that might be necessary at some point in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~nestling~ Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Two different issues, ~nestling~: The first one--updating old, locked thread--can indeed be adequately dealt with by starting a new thread and cross-linking to the old one. Another way would be for Administration/Mods to reopen the thread on request of the thread starter (OP) for this purpose. The second one, restricting the threads that "Guest and Anonymous" users can post in can be of use if this becomes a real issue. However, I don't see a serious problem with "guest" postings messing up threads OR reviving zombie threads. Not yet, anyway. Why not ask Administration what they think about such restrictions on posting? A potentially serious issue that guest posting here at CB may be causing is one of controlling spammers and other undesirables; these posts can present security and Moderation issues on any board. That's why I don't let guests post on the sites I run: Keeping such a security hole "closed" is more important to me than getting a bit more "action" from those who don't like signing up. (The troublemakers that do sign up often can be just as bad a problem in some cases; ask anyone who has used older versions of phpBB or b2evolution blog software, for instance. However, the ones that have to sign up provide more information so that if they need to be dealt with, there is more evidence to hang them with if necessary .) However, it appears that Administration here at CB considers the risks controllable; it's their call. Always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olga Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 I haven't decided how I feel about locking old threads, but I will address the guest posting thing. We get the occasional religious nut who posts about how we're all possessed and going straight to Hell, and we get spammers and the Viagra crowd. But we have always felt that guests should be able to post a question or talk about an issue because this place is for mentally ill people. Some folks have severe paranoia and other issues, and we want them to feel comfortable about posting. I posted a few times as a guest before I registered because I was totally intimidated by this place. It was so huge (even back then--5 years ago) and I knew nothing about meds or MI or anything. I was just a middle-aged depressed woman trying to find out what the hell was wrong with me. We don't let guests read the blogs, and many of our members have private club blogs. It's all to protect anonymity and to make people feel safe about posting here. We have moderators who are night birds, and others like me that are here during the day. Most of the time we spot the mean old spammers and delete their junk. So far, there hasn't been a problem. I like to think that some of the guests we have here every day might be celebrities, politicians, and other recognizable people who won't register but need to have questions answered. And kids---I know there are teenagers who are guests because they're frightened and won't register if they don't feel safe. It's been working for a good many years and no major melt-downs yet! olga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celestia Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 It's been working for a good many years and no major melt-downs yet!il olga Agreed. From the rank and file. Path, I think there are definitely 2 issues going on in this thread and what your original post gets at. Not to be lame, but the jumping in without reading or without reading enough is classic ADHD, so some of us (me) have a reasonable medical excuse. I know I have this problem and I'm working really hard to observe things like 3 minute rules and reading whole threads. I've gotten muchbetter at both, except when the thread contains walls of text which we've talked about on the ADHD board and in general. The revival of old threads, meh, I think it's an admin issue and one that, imho, is not anywhere NEAR important compared with what they have going on right now with the upgrade. I have learned to always at least read the first post of a thread...always...if it's been brought back to life by a guest I pass on commenting because I realize it will probably go back to the graveyard on it's own. If it's a new crisis in my life and has relevance to old threads I usually post a new thread. I think at one point VE told us as a group that it wasn't possible to like pollute the boards with new stuff. I'm paraphrasing of course. But the gist was it's okay to start a new thread. If I have a new topic I check the particular board for the last 3 to 6 mos. and if there is no relevant subject matter I start a new thread. I really like the idea of "recommender" functionality. We're being replaced by robots! Finally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nalgas Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Is there a way to configure IPB so that it would be easy to "close" old threads by locking them en-masse? There would be no way to "revive" a locked thread as a "zombie thread", would there? Another choice would be to move old threads into a "read-only archive". Either action would solve the "bump old thread" problem although it would do nothing for the "read the entire thread" issue (and I know no way to handle the latter through the software; it's a Moderation problem). But then, a decision would have to be made as to what constitutes a "zombie thread" by Administration and they would have to stick with it. I can guess that would be quite the discussion on the "back boards", but one that might be necessary at some point in time. Maybe it would "help" if you used more "quotes" scattered "liberally" throughout your "post". And my vote for what makes a thread qualify is that it becomes one as soon as it starts trying to eat my brain. That would make some of them qualify immediately as soon as they're posted, but I think that's probably ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I often don't read through the whole thread. So sue me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
withing Posted August 25, 2009 Author Share Posted August 25, 2009 I often don't read through the whole thread. So sue me. I don't think it's actionable so I'll just curse silently instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkthorn Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Sometimes I don't, but it depends on the answer that the person is looking for. If they want advice, then yes, I'll try read the whole set of posts to see if what I want to say has already been said. But if they just need reassuring, or it's one of those thread where everyone just compares their personal situations, I usually read the first one or two, and then the last one. Zombie threads frustrate me, but it doesn't happen all that often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluelikejazz Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 There was this one board I joined where I got into trouble for posting a new thread on a topic that existed (I lasted about four posts before I ditched it). Maybe people revive zombie threads because they have seen those boards. Also it seems like most guests end up here from googling, so they probably just hit 'reply' before they check the date. It annoys me sometimes but i'm getting into the habit of checking the date before I read the whole thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Is there a way to configure IPB so that it would be easy to "close" old threads by locking them en-masse? There would be no way to "revive" a locked thread as a "zombie thread", would there? Another choice would be to move old threads into a "read-only archive". Either action would solve the "bump old thread" problem although it would do nothing for the "read the entire thread" issue (and I know no way to handle the latter through the software; it's a Moderation problem). But then, a decision would have to be made as to what constitutes a "zombie thread" by Administration and they would have to stick with it. I can guess that would be quite the discussion on the "back boards", but one that might be necessary at some point in time. Maybe it would "help" if you used more "quotes" scattered "liberally" throughout your "post". And my vote for what makes a thread qualify is that it becomes one as soon as it starts trying to eat my brain. That would make some of them qualify immediately as soon as they're posted, but I think that's probably ok. Ok, nalgas: I used the quotes as liberally as you claim simply because ALL the terms within them are terms of art that can be taken as slang or specialized terminology that applies to discussion boards (and similar social networking tools) and are not in everyday use by most people. Therefore, the use of quotes to enclose these terms of art is, IMHO, correct in most cases. Certainly most users here are not geeks or nerds but ordinary people who know little about the technical end of running a board and could care less as long as the UI (user interface) works. Hence, marking out those terms of art with quotation marks is a reasonable accomodation even if it irritates those of us who are geeks/nerds/techies in the process. Now, if this were a tech board devoted to the management and tech support for discussion board management and their tech support admins? Then the quotes would be uncalled-for (the intended audience would be the same population for whom the use of those same terms of art would be normal and expected). Now, the definition of a "zombie thread" you use is interesting, but is way too personal to be used as an objective standard when Administrating a board. Trying to come up with a definition that is workable? That's the issue which is not so easily dealt with since SOMEONE will ALWAYS complain the standard is "too strict/too loose/meaningless" no matter what Administration decides. Or, to put it in plain English? You can't please everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I often don't read through the whole thread. So sue me. I don't think it's actionable so I'll just curse silently instead. No way, when cursing louder is always better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
withing Posted August 25, 2009 Author Share Posted August 25, 2009 I often don't read through the whole thread. So sue me. I don't think it's actionable so I'll just curse silently instead. No way, when cursing louder is always better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nalgas Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 I used the quotes as liberally as you claim simply because ALL the terms within them are terms of art that can be taken as slang or specialized terminology that applies to discussion boards (and similar social networking tools) and are not in everyday use by most people. Therefore, the use of quotes to enclose these terms of art is, IMHO, correct in most cases. Yeah. Absolutely. The concepts of "closing" a thread and a "read-only archive" are quite likely to be completely alien to most people...assuming those people haven't used a message board like this for more than a day or two in their lives. At some point, overusing quotes in that way becomes ridiculous, or even patronizing. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they have some idea what's going on (with the exception of very specialized things (which most of those weren't, and most of the rest were already defined more than once in this very thread)) until they say (or demonstrate) otherwise. Now, the definition of a "zombie thread" you use is interesting, but is way too personal to be used as an objective standard when Administrating a board. Trying to come up with a definition that is workable? That's the issue which is not so easily dealt with since SOMEONE will ALWAYS complain the standard is "too strict/too loose/meaningless" no matter what Administration decides. Or, to put it in plain English? You can't please everyone. The way you frequently have "helpful" suggestions on how people should do things reminds me of myself when I was a teenage boy half my current age and knew everything about everything (as opposed to an in-his-late-20s boy who knows something about most things, heh). Imagine my surprise when I found out that you're a non-boy twice my age instead. Anyway, back on topic: Have you ever actually read the site rules, particularly the "don't be a jerk" part? They're just like that, but they work well enough most of the time. Or, to put it in plain English: My "definition" was a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Have you ever actually read the site rules, particularly the "don't be a jerk" part? They're just like that, but they work well enough most of the time. Or, to put it in plain English: My "definition" was a joke. That was a joke? Sorry, but all you proved is that a joke is in the eye of the beholder. The way you wrote what you did read to me as a serious reply, especially based on your previous postings elsewhere (unless just about everything you write is intended for laughs). So, my reply was in kind and no insult was intended or implied. As for your claim that I don't understand the rules? Well, let's review the rule that you specifically pointed out: http://www.crazyboar...tion=boardrules Don't be a jerk. We get to define what constitutes being a jerk.Basically, if you're a bigger asshole than any of our moderators,you're a jerk. Acting in a way that prevents people from getting support from a support site or otherwise subverts the intention of the site is definitely a jerky thing to do. I have done nothing that would prevent people from getting support from a support site: 1.) When one seeks support, one also, by implication or otherwise, is asking for help or the site becomes the hugs and sympathy and walk on eggshells out of fear of offending someone board that CB's own ToS says that CB is not; 2.) Whether anyone accepts help or guidance from others is up to them; I don't expect that what I say is any better then anyone else's advice, even though it often looks that way because that is my writing style (which I use everywhere). 3.) There is no rule stating that the new people are expected to only ask--and timidly at that--and take whatever only the veterans dish out. Therefore, it cannot fall within the definition of don't be a jerk if a new person contributes to the discussion; 4.) Look at your own post. Really. Then look at the Rule. Now answer me this: How in the world can you claim that I am in violation of the Rule when you yourself are doing the exact same thing? When something is defined in the Rules, such definition applies to everyone, or it should, IMHO, YMMV. If I were just looking in on this thread and had never seen CB before? I would be wondering just who was, to quote CB's own Rule, being "a bigger asshole than any of our Moderators". I might not like the answer, but, IMHO, neither would you. Just a thought. BTW: Have you ever heard of the saying that one catches more flies with honey than vinegar? A simple suggestion to not use quotes so often and to try to shorten my posts because people have complained would have been sufficient. I'll work on both issues; apologies to all I offended with my way of doing things. All I wanted to do was contribute rather than just take up space; nobody's perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayteana Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Don't be a jerk. We get to define what constitutes being a jerk. Basically, if you're a bigger asshole than any of our moderators, you're a jerk. Acting in a way that prevents people from getting support from a support site or otherwise subverts the intention of the site is definitely a jerky thing to do. Okay, this has become annoying. Can we please move it along here? Mayteana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nalgas Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 That was a joke? Sorry, but all you proved is that a joke is in the eye of the beholder. The way you wrote what you did read to me as a serious reply, especially based on your previous postings elsewhere (unless just about everything you write is intended for laughs). Aside from purely factual statements, the vast majority of things I've ever said in my life, including on this site, while not necessarily being outright jokes have tended to have some aspect of humor to them, whether puns/plays on words or sarcasm/irony or just plain absurdist rambling. If you didn't pick up on that within half a dozen posts of mine, your joke detector may need recalibrating. As for your claim that I don't understand the rules? As for your claim that I claimed that you don't understand the rules, if I were making such a claim, it'd be a lot more explicit than that. You said my joke definition of a zombie post was too ambiguous to be a practical way to run the board. Aside from the whole part where it wasn't intended seriously, I pointed out that we already have a real rule/guideline that's exactly as vague that works out just fine in practice. Besides, someone has to do something to keep the "bigger jerk than the moderators" bar high enough that half the site doesn't qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.