Ninety-five percent of the posts on trains.com is in the "general" category. So why bother having the other several categories that have very minimal activity? It just makes more work to "bounce" among the several categories..
Mark
As opposed to the amount of work I need to expend to find a trolley or passenger train thread among all the freight and signal and steam threads? If what I'm looking for isn't on the forum's first page it really wouldn't make that much mouse click difference if it was on a different forum.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
markpierce So why bother having the other several categories that have very minimal activity? Mark
So why bother having the other several categories that have very minimal activity?
Why are there a Trains Magazine series of forum and a Trains.com series of forums?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Convicted OneI really wish that they would add one more sub-forum, for spirited debate of diverse topics. Considering that some of the brightest minds (once) here have left in the back wash of over moderation, I think that such a venue would serve to re-attract some of the keener talent. And at the same time give the chronic (complainer) headcases the luxury of not even entering the dedicated venue, since they would already know they are just going to be offended anyway.
That is an excellent point and excellent idea. And maybe we could have another subdivided forum where all the complainers could post their complaints about what they found being said about politics and religion on the diverse debate forum instead of them complaining to the moderator.
Probably our hosts don't want such a venue because of the hubris it would encourage that belies how the vast majority would really behave were they face to face with the targets of their hubris. That's a euphemism, of course. People feel empowered at their keyboards to say things that don't always infer the "brightest" of "minds". Instead, its the "back wash" that Kalmbach would prefer to keep out of its fora, even if it can be labeled "over moderation".
There are other places where free-for-alls with pretext to "spirited debate" are welcome, but I really doubt that Kalmbach would warm to the retrograde step of hosting one...even as a sub-forum. Every time we skirt with the idea in real-time, it tends to run amok. The reports of abuse suggest that at least some of the lookers-on are uncomfortable with the "spirited debate", choosing instead to characterize it as off-topic and downright offensive when it gets personal...as it inevitably does.
But that is just my guess. One way we could hope to find out is if our hosts elect to respond directly to the question. Members are always welcome to ask it by contacting customer services or sending a PM to Bergie whom, I'm sure, would get back in time.
-Crandell
If you mean non-railroad topics, why bother? One mouse click and I can be on a local forum with discussion on a wide range of topics. Spirited is too mild a word for some of what goes on.
All too often such topics involve religion and/or politics, and we all know how that can to, and in a hurry.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
selector Convicted OneI really wish that they would add one more sub-forum, for spirited debate of diverse topics. Considering that some of the brightest minds (once) here have left in the back wash of over moderation, I think that such a venue would serve to re-attract some of the keener talent. And at the same time give the chronic (complainer) headcases the luxury of not even entering the dedicated venue, since they would already know they are just going to be offended anyway. Probably our hosts don't want such a venue because of the hubris it would encourage that belies how the vast majority would really behave were they face to face with the targets of their hubris. That's a euphemism, of course. People feel empowered at their keyboards to say things that don't always infer the "brightest" of "minds". Instead, its the "back wash" that Kalmbach would prefer to keep out of its fora, even if it can be labeled "over moderation". There are other places where free-for-alls with pretext to "spirited debate" are welcome, but I really doubt that Kalmbach would warm to the retrograde step of hosting one...even as a sub-forum. Every time we skirt with the idea in real-time, it tends to run amok. The reports of abuse suggest that at least some of the lookers-on are uncomfortable with the "spirited debate", choosing instead to characterize it as off-topic and downright offensive when it gets personal...as it inevitably does. But that is just my guess. One way we could hope to find out is if our hosts elect to respond directly to the question. Members are always welcome to ask it by contacting customer services or sending a PM to Bergie whom, I'm sure, would get back in time. -Crandell
I’m not sure what Convicted One means by “spirited debate,” but I did not interpret it to mean “spirited debate” as a pretext to allow flaming and personal insults, or saying things to people anonymously that one would not say to their face, or using profanity or vulgarity. I think C.O. is referring to moderation that locks threads that are way short of those problems, and locks threads because of complaints about perceived injury rather than actual rules violation.
That would indeed be over moderation, if threads were being locked solely on the basis of complaints, as well as an abrogation of responsibility and common sense. Instead, moderation is about a synthesis of common sense, interpretation of rules, flow, and projections of flow based on an accumulation of experience. Included in the experience is pattern analysis, and included in the pattern analysis is a record of how particular members behave in a given circumstance. It is a probabilistic determination. While some members would undoubtedly keep a civil and collegial comportment when engaged in spirited debate, others less inhibited and restrained would find themselves drawn into the mix with the results the examples of which we have seen too many times to count.
Why formalize a process that we try to keep away from the forums in the first place? Are we to provide a sub-forum for serious and enlightened debate where only certain "members" may post? Sounds a bit elitist to me, and while that isn't necessarily a bad thing, I again doubt that our hosts are keen to embrace the idea. It would be a restriction of range, for one thing, to have only select "enlightened" people participate in such a venue and to exclude those who cannot, or won't, pass an arbitrary test of "enlightenment". The range of topics is quite rightly restricted, to the extent possible and practicable, by published rules and by the restrictions implied by the forum titles. The rest is a dynamic between moderation and individual preferences, styles, and experience (all a function of personality). Some personalities do well on fora, others not so well. That determination comes from the hosts. We're closing a loop here, aren't we.
I am not answering as a moderator, or on behalf of Kalmbach. I am answering as I see it, as someone who is meant to participate in a place with rules and a ton of deterministic history of what seems to work and what doesn't. The rules must reflect prior learning and convictions borne of that prior learning. I don't think people change much after the age of about 10 or so, certainly not in terms of personality. They mature, yes, and acquire skills and knowledge, but how they use them, and what they acquire are based on interests and personality. Those two things cause some people to behave poorly when spirited debates take place...on any subject. The worst debates are those dealing with the usually contentious, and I feel wisely proscribed, subjects.
Again, it's just a hunch, but I don't see our hosts jumping on board for a sub forum meant to allow spirited debate when tests of the premises suggesting it would be a good idea fail time and time again.
selectorAre we to provide a sub-forum for serious and enlightened debate where only certain "members" may post? Sounds a bit elitist to me, and while that isn't necessarily a bad thing, I again doubt that our hosts are keen to embrace the idea. It would be a restriction of range, for one thing, to have only select "enlightened" people participate in such a venue and to exclude those who cannot, or won't, pass an arbitrary test of "enlightenment".
If a sub-forum were provided with some alteration of the rules applying, I don’t see any reason limit participation to only certain individuals. I have no idea how you would do that or what the point would be.
selector Probably our hosts don't want such a venue because of the hubris it would encourage that belies how the vast majority would really behave were they face to face with the targets of their hubris. That's a euphemism, of course. People feel empowered at their keyboards to say things that don't always infer the "brightest" of "minds". Instead, its the "back wash" that Kalmbach would prefer to keep out of its fora, even if it can be labeled "over moderation". There are other places where free-for-alls with pretext to "spirited debate" are welcome, but I really doubt that Kalmbach would warm to the retrograde step of hosting one...even as a sub-forum. Every time we skirt with the idea in real-time, it tends to run amok. The reports of abuse suggest that at least some of the lookers-on are uncomfortable with the "spirited debate", choosing instead to characterize it as off-topic and downright offensive when it gets personal...as it inevitably does. -Crandell
I respect your position, and recognize the difficulty of your job.
No, I was not suggesting that profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks be the sort of "spirited debate" I had in mind.
I was more thinking of how government policy (call it "politics" if you must) is often an inseperable part of contemporary rail issues. And the last year or so you guys lock those threads on sight simply because a handful of readers feel uncomfortable seeing impassioned debate on matters of official policy.
So, the special venue would be an asset to the moderators, to the extent that the minority of complainers can simply be cautioned to not go where they might find discomfort. If you make it so they must go looking for it in order to find it,.....and they still do (go find it, and complain) then you know what's REALLY going on...it's like people who rush to an auto accident to see the gore, and then later decide how awful the spectacle was.
I think what you would truly find is the few who complain derive a sense of empowerment in knowing they can complain to you and have you inflict their will upon the forum as a whole
markpierce Ninety-five percent of the posts on trains.com is in the "general" category. So why bother having the other several categories that have very minimal activity? It just makes more work to "bounce" among the several categories.. Mark
Generally, I find a problem with subdivided forums. On one hand, they make sense in an organizational way, but the more you sub-divide them, the less exposure they get; and it is the exposure that stimulates participation. So if I have a nuts and bolts question about locomotives, for example, the organizational aspect of the forum would suggest I ask it in the Locomotives forum. However, there is nothing to say I can’t ask it in the General forum. I conclude that everybody who would see it in the Locomotives forum would also see it in the General forum, but probably less that 10% of the people seeing it in the General forum would see it in the Locomotives forum. The conclusion is obvious; post it in the General forum. And then this obvious course of action further reduces the potential traffic in the Locomotives forum.
Another issue related to this is the length of the first page of the General forum. There is not clear and logical end to any of these threads. Often times a thread will seem to be exhausted and then it will suddenly veer off in an entirely new direction and begin plow fertile ground once again. And often what stimulates this revival is somebody seeing for the first time, a thread that has been in progress for quite a while. So the dynamics of discussion are related to exposure.
I would guess that the exposure of the second page is far less than the first page, so once a thread falls off of page one, it is almost like a death sentence for loss of exposure. This is simply because a lot of people will log on and simply check the first page for what is new. They could just as well proceed to check page two, or even earlier pages, but I’ll bet most don’t do that most of the time. I don’t. It takes some effort to open page two just like it does to check the subdivided forums. And the reward for the effort is probably going to be less than the reward for opening page one. It would be interesting to know how many times per day the second page gets viewed compared to the number of times per day the first page gets viewed. I bring this up because it seems to me that this new forum format has far fewer (perhaps half as many) threads on page one than the old format did.
I usually only check in on the Locomotives sub-forum, not always too busy but can be interesting. Iknow they explained awhile back the reason for doing this. Usually I stick to this one and the Model Railroader forums.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.