
Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8960 total)
149 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, Meddle, PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 144 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,610 Year: 1,358/23,288 Month: 1,358/1,851 Week: 482/320 Day: 91/91 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Topic Proposal Issues
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3912
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 1 of 507 (141772)
09-12-2004 2:26 PM


AbE: This thread is for posting about issues related to topic proposals in the Proposed New Topics forum. Requests that a topic proposal be reconsidered, or comments about a topic proposal currently under development, are examples of the kinds of issues that are appropriate here. --Admin

PaulK, from message 5 of the topic "The Authorship of Isaiah":

quote:
Quite frankly I am surprised this topic got approved.

Quoting myself, from message 2 of same topic:

quote:
I don't personally know what to make of this topic,ï¿½

I think the various admins have sometimes (often?) been overly generous in advancing topics from the "Proposed New Topics" forum. This certainly might be the case for the topic in question. I certainly was less than enthusiastic about it, but I advanced it anyway. I guess I expected it to die a quick death, and then fade into obscurity.

I encourage further discussion of this matter.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Admin, : Change title, add an opening comment.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 09-12-2004 3:09 PM Adminnemooseus has responded
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2004 10:14 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Ben!, posted 12-11-2004 5:33 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Ben!, posted 03-31-2005 4:15 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 248 by Force, posted 11-28-2007 7:25 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 269 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-01-2008 1:59 AM Adminnemooseus has responded
 Message 403 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-06-2011 12:35 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 507 (141793)
09-12-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
09-12-2004 2:26 PM


Guidelines
In the absense of policy and guidelines and looking at what has previously been promoted how would one decide what to promote and not? Only with a framework in place can a moderately comprehendable topic be turned down. Otherwise it may appear you are simple censoring.

I just promoted B2P RE:A topic. I think it should be junked as it has nothing to do with evolution, creation or faith or science. But so far we allow everything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2004 2:26 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-13-2004 1:41 AM AdminNosy has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3912
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 507 (141949)
09-13-2004 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
09-12-2004 3:09 PM


Re: Guidelines
I think we need to start letting some PNT topics sit a while, if we don't feel good about them. Don't feel obligated to try to forward most everthing that is proposed.

As such, I shouldn't have promoted the topic cited in message 1.

We can always carry on a discussion on the merits of the topic. If the topic ultimately is promoted, it can be done as just a single message, without the topic evalution discussion (which in the case of the cited, I had decided to leave in the released form).

More comments from any member welcome.

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit - There have been some "Coffee House" topics processed through the "Proposed New Topics". My original (and current) vision of the PNT process is that most all topics go through the process, including those destined for the "Coffee House" and "Free For All".

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-13-2004 12:47 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 09-12-2004 3:09 PM AdminNosy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 09-13-2004 1:45 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 507 (141950)
09-13-2004 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Adminnemooseus
09-13-2004 1:41 AM


Re: Guidelines
I also think that we don't have to "leave it to" one admin to handle a topic. There seems to be a sort of "politeness" that says that should be done. Anyone should comment and anyone can promote. If one decides not to another may.

I do agree that there is too much of a tendancy to promote topics but would like more policy guidence before I become more strict.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-13-2004 1:41 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 5 of 507 (144843)
09-26-2004 2:55 PM


What's going on in the Is God omnipotent topic? The topic seems perfectly legitimate, and even AM can't come up with specific suggestions to correct whatever issues he sees in the first topic, which is unsurprising since he won't say what those issues are, either.

What's wrong with the topic?

I understand the concerns voiced by AM in message 1 here, but this doesn't serve anybody. If topics are going to be held without any discussion whatsoever of what is wrong with them - only vague commands to "rewrite the opening post" - how on Earth are we supposed to come to an understanding about what constitutes a legitimate opening post?

Whatever you're trying to do with the topics now is ham-fisted and clumsy. It's far, far worse that the occasional bad topic slipping through.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-26-2004 01:58 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Ooook!, posted 09-26-2004 6:14 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 09-27-2004 7:14 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 6 of 507 (144884)
09-26-2004 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
09-26-2004 2:55 PM


If topics are going to be held without any discussion whatsoever of what is wrong with them - only vague commands to "rewrite the opening post" - how on Earth are we supposed to come to an understanding about what constitutes a legitimate opening post?

I agree with you crash, I think it would be helpful to get a little bit of feedback as to what constitutes a good topic (both for Admins and us lowly grunts). There seems to be a lot of 'gut-sense' and a reluctance (as Nosey points out) for more than one Admin to offer opinions on PNTs (despite AMs repeated pleas for alternative views).

On a slightly different note:

Recently I had a topic postponed because it was thought that it wouldn't "fly". I don't want AM to think that I'm being sour here as I actually ended up agreeing with the point (and was actually quite surprised to see it popping up in the 'misc' file), but it did raise a question in my mind.

Can anyone think of a way of 'testing the water' before a topic is released to check whether there is going to be enough willing participants (especially considering the uneven Evo/Creo ratio) ?

I noticed that you recently had a hand in getting a topic promoted by a popular vote, but this seems a bit ungainly (with a large possibility for clogging up the boards). Any thoughts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2004 2:55 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2004 7:22 PM Ooook! has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6856
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 7 of 507 (144885)
09-26-2004 6:28 PM


I see nothing wrong with promoting or rejecting topics based on "gut feeling". I can't think off hand of an example of a post that was rejected that I thought was deserving of promotion. I do think that sometimes the moderators are bit too pedantic in requesting rewrites or changes, but the posts are then quickly promoted so it doesn't seem to be a big deal.

I have been surprised by some (in my opinion) lame topics that were approved. But that is as it should be -- if there is some doubt or hesitation, err on the side of promoting it.

For the record, I don't really like this procedure of having topics approved, but that is really based on general principle. But given that it is the rule here, I have seen no real practical problems with how it's been working.


  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 507 (144889)
09-26-2004 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Ooook!
09-26-2004 6:14 PM


I noticed that you recently had a hand in getting a topic promoted by a popular vote

Well, I hadn't hoped so much to "vote" a topic into promotion, but rather, simply to bring attention to what I felt was a topic that almost any admin would have approved, had they noticed.

But yeah, I don't think that's a good model for how this is supposed to work. I think that the admins as a whole need to significantly lower the standards for what constitutes a legitimate topic. The purpose was to eliminate trollish "30 proophs that evilution is WRONG!!111!!11!" posts, not quash topics whose legitimacy may not be apparent until 10 or 20 posts into it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Ooook!, posted 09-26-2004 6:14 PM Ooook! has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 9 of 507 (144987)
09-27-2004 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
09-26-2004 2:55 PM


Whatever you're trying to do with the topics now is ham-fisted and clumsy. It's far, far worse that the occasional bad topic slipping through.

I agree with Crash. I think the current proposed topic formula should be chalked up as a failed experiment.

But being the helpful type I am, I'll propose an alternate model (nicked from what I consider the best internet discussion board out there):

Short topics, early closing and no topic ressurection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2004 2:55 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32031
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 507 (144995)
09-27-2004 9:51 AM


I like the current system. I see no problem with a topic being held up for review and modification. I would like to see more direction and suggestions when the topic is reviewed though.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 11 of 507 (144997)
09-27-2004 10:07 AM


Don't get me wrong here. I actually quite like the system we've got set up (the discussions have improved in quality IMHO), but I think it's healthy to discuss it from time to time.

I think I'm with Crash on this: loosen up the moderation at the start of the topic, filter out the trollish repeats and honest oversights, and then kill a topic early if it looks like it's distintegrating.

I understand this might have implications for Admin workload and stress levels but could a bit of self restraint on the part of normal members help to off-set this? Or am I being naive?


Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 09-27-2004 10:13 AM Ooook! has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-02-2004 6:31 PM Ooook! has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6856
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 12 of 507 (144999)
09-27-2004 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ooook!
09-27-2004 10:07 AM


I agree. In my opinion, the primary purpose of the promotion system should be to simply weed out the obvious trolls.

A secondary concern should be to get people to put more information into their OP's. I'm thinking, of course, of one-time posters who simply give the usual PRATT list.

Another concern could be to get people to be more specific and detailed in their initial post, as the moderators have been doing, but in my opinion this should be a minor concern, and I think that the moderators should be inclined to err on the side of promoting a possibly substandard post rather than holding up a potentially interesting topic.

-

quote:
Or am I being naive?

Yes, but it's cute.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ooook!, posted 09-27-2004 10:07 AM Ooook! has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15835
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 13 of 507 (145001)
09-27-2004 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
09-12-2004 2:26 PM


Maybe we want to have different rules for different fora ?

Perhaps Admin could create a "chat" forum for each of the major areas of discussion which requires only that a topic makes sense (more or less) and that the initial post follows the guidelines.

The main fora could then be more restricted and have a higher quality threshold.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2004 2:26 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 09-27-2004 10:15 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 11:13 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6856
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 14 of 507 (145002)
09-27-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
09-27-2004 10:14 AM


I thought that was what Free For All was supposed to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2004 10:14 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2004 10:22 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15835
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 15 of 507 (145004)
09-27-2004 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Chiroptera
09-27-2004 10:15 AM


Free For All is a bit too unfocussed and doesn't have even the basic checks I suggested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 09-27-2004 10:15 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Wounded King, posted 03-24-2005 4:21 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?action=msg&f=19&t=186&m=1
www.evcforum.net
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-05
194179
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:SLNX5MMDEJRYDHKPAVKB2S2X7BI2JBY3
<urn:uuid:cb59cb08-9879-4b5e-9c29-b664a07ce441>
2020-01-25T23:24:23Z
66.148.117.70
text/html
sha1:DJHBUEEPFWXEOHJZBNFC2S42ZYLDEEDS
<urn:uuid:4b98c2a2-0a37-42ff-86df-2be16b3065c1>
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?action=msg&f=19&t=186&m=1
response
<urn:uuid:c049281e-2397-4a14-8a73-132328902e6b>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-05
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-154.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/