C K Dexter Haven, you seem a little pissed.

[Ellis Dee]

In the Cafe Society, there is a new rule about bumping your own threads. In the sticky (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5505493#post5505493) allowing discussion of these rules, I made a point that was slapped down a bit. I typed out a response, and then decided better safe then sorry and elected to put it here in the pit instead of that thread. Really, this isn’t pitworthy, but I’m starting to wonder about the mental state of the Cafe Society mods, so the Pit it is.

Here’s the relevant discussion:

If you start a thread and get no (or few) responses, you may re-post to it once (ONCE!) to put it back on the front page. After that, let nature take its course. You may not continue to resurrect your own threads, hoping for a response THIS time. I hope this isn't a blanket indictment, because I've been commiting this exact infraction (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=279433) -- verbatim -- over in MPSIMS for the last couple months, and could conceivably do it in Cafe Society as well. I, of course, view this as providing a service to the SDMB, because I'm so damn arrogant. But in all seriousness, I think threads like that can be solid contributions to the board. Just sayin'.Look, if NO ONE ELSE IS POSTING TO THE THREAD, then it doesn't need to be a thread on a message board. If you're trying to provide information that gets updated from time to time, get yourself a webiste and provide a link in a thread. We're not here to be an alternative to you getting your own website.Ouch. I guess I was looking for more of a "there are of course exceptions to every rule" type of response, as opposed to this hostility. You said:

"If you start a thread and get no (or few) responses, you may re-post to it once (ONCE!) to put it back on the front page."

Of note is the "(or few)" part, which you backpedaled on to say, in obnoxious all caps, "if NO ONE ELSE IS POSTING TO THE THREAD". So which is it? No responses, one bump only, or few responses, one bump only?

My point in bringing up the other thread was that maybe, just maybe, this new rule should be similar to every other friggin' rule on this board, (except the copywrite rule, of course) in that vague wording allows wiggle room for the mods to interpret on a case by case basis. That's all I was trying to point out. But hey, clearly Cafe Society is a different animal, where the mods can't be bothered to make judgement calls.

You also seem to be missing the point of that thread. It's not that I want a surrogate website. It's simply that I want the info for myself, and would happily compile my numbers on a spreadsheet at home and have that be that. But when I started, I figured I'd put it on the SDMB and see if anyone else was interested. The second week, I surmised that instead of cluttering the SDMB with 14 individual threads, I could do it more efficiently in a single thread. Of note is the fact that I was torn between MPSIMS and Cafe Society when I first posted it, and as it turns out I'm glad I picked MPSIMS. But as I said, I could imagine doing it in Cafe Society.

Say, for instance, I started posting weekly threads about a show that only a few other posters were into. We've seen the flipside in countless Deadwood and Lost threads, so the concept shouldn't be foreign to you. But let's say that only a couple other people are into it, so I post each week's episode writeup to a single thread to consolidate. You are saying, in effect, that if I wanted to consolidate, fuck off and get my own website. But if I break it up into a separate thread for each week, then it's all good. That's just silly.And, the more common case is that someone asks a question or opens a discussion and no one responds. That means that no one is interested. You get two shots (one when you open the thread, and one when you bump it), and if folks still aren't interested, don't pull it up to the front page. That's the rule in Cafe Society. MPSIMS may have different views.Understood. But interest isn't always accurately measured by number of responses. Number of views might factor in, and so may the content of the few responses.

My point to you, C K, is that there are exceptions to every rule, and Cafe Society would be well served to understand this concept in much the same way the other forums do. Issue guidelines, not hard and fast requirements THAT YOU EMPHASIZE BY USING ALL CAPS.

Dick.

[vanilla]

wouldn't it be funny if no one responded to this thread?

oops

[Duck Duck Goose]

I don't see that there isn't any wiggle room. "Threads in which nobody else has expressed an interest may be bumped by the OP a maximum of once." This doesn't mean that you can't update an old "my personal or medical problems" thread to let people know what happened, because presumably in your "personal or medical problems" thread there were other people posting, too. It just means, well, heck, that if nobody else is interested in your thread--if you post, "My dog died and my mother cooked it and served it to my abusive stepfather, what should I do?" and nobody responds--don't keep bumping it.

And so, thus, it also means that if nobody else is responding to your weekly updates of "My Mother The Car" episodes, that--you shouldn't keep posting them, 'cause, basically, nobody's interested. If you could persuade the few other "My Mother The Car" fans on the Dope to post back to your updates once a week, then IMO you'd have a case to keep bumping your "My Mother The Car" thread.

I see your point, but I see Dex's point, too. There has always been pretty much an informal "one bump" rule for one's own threads, because in the past there have been a *certain number* of obsessive attention-seekers who did compulsively bump their own threads--pointlessly--over and over again, apparently simply for the glory of seeing their own thread on page 1 of the forum.

Which gets incredibly tedious. And it fills up Page 1. There's not that much space on Page 1 of the forum, and if *everybody* has their own particular fave obscure TV show, and *everybody* starts a "Post here if you love My Mother The Car!" thread, and *everybody* bumps their "My Mother The Car" thread once a day to see if they get anybody else, then all you've got on Page 1 in Cafe Society is "My Mother The Car" threads, each full of posts from their respective OPs, and nobody else. Those aren't "conversations", they're "stats".

So all in all, I see the point for the rule.

Generally people who want to talk about obscure TV shows with not much fanbase on the Dope get a Live Journal page for it (it doesn't have to be an entire website).

See, in your second post in the "NFL" thread you said:

And nobody cares. That's cool, because this is information I want, and can't find anywhere else. So I will doggedly continue to update this in the face of overpowering indifference.

This is a message board, where people talk. What you're getting at in that thread is something like a Live Journal page or an Open Diary account, where you keep track of things just for your own pleasure, without anybody else's input necessarily being solicited. And you only had, basically, Hal and Shibboleth posting to it, and not much at that. Obviously nobody else was interested, because there wasn't much of a conversation starter inherent in the thread--it was obviously Ellis Dee's personal project of keeping track of NFL stats, and people who did open the thread just shrugged and hit the Back button.

So that's Dex's point: threads that are just "somebody keeping track of something for his own pleasure", like the weather in Nunavut or the records of building implosions worldwide, are not to be permitted.

That makes sense to me, but YMMV. :D

[Ellis Dee]

II see your point, but I see Dex's point, too. There has always been pretty much an informal "one bump" rule for one's own threads, because in the past there have been a *certain number* of obsessive attention-seekers who did compulsively bump their own threads--pointlessly--over and over again, apparently simply for the glory of seeing their own thread on page 1 of the forum.I agree, and I also see the point for the rule.This is a message board, where people talk. What you're getting at in that thread is something like a Live Journal page or an Open Diary account, where you keep track of things just for your own pleasure, without anybody else's input necessarily being solicited. And you only had, basically, Hal and Shibboleth posting to it, and not much at that. Obviously nobody else was interested, because there wasn't much of a conversation starter inherent in the thread--it was obviously Ellis Dee's personal project of keeping track of NFL stats, and people who did open the thread just shrugged and hit the Back button.But it does have over 700 views. And since the advent of the mouse-over preview, which will give an accurate synopsis of that thread in particular, I seriously doubt that people are accidently clicking in and backing out. I'd go out on a limb and say it was viewed intentionally at least 400 times. That, to me, is evidence of interest. Hell, Airman specifically said that it was worth reading, just not responding to. Worth reading is still worth something, is it not?

I get the rule. I get the idea of Ellis Dee's personal projects belong on Ellis Dee's LiveJournal. I get the clarification. The reason for this pitting is that:

1) Some personal projects may actually be of value around here, and

2) C K SCREAMED IN ALL CAPS, which is an inherently dick thing to do, and it pissed me off.

I concede that my NFL thread isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I also point to it as an example of a thread that has a modicum of worth on this board, and also happens to be a rule violation to a new rule, thus meaning the new rule may be more narrowly worded than this board should have. But I'm willing to further concede that this is just an example of a thread that will work in MPSIMS but not Cafe Society, despite the fact that sports are entertainment. (They are the original reality shows.)

In re-reading the whole thing, I think this sentence,

"If you start a thread and get no (or few) responses, you may re-post to it once (ONCE!) to put it back on the front page."

with emphasis added, is the key I missed. If I were simply posting "bump" each week, then I would be reposting "to put it back on the front page". But I'm not.

In regards to your "My Mother, The Car" example, what is the problem with a weekly thread about "My Mother, The Car", even if it's not popular? This is a completely separate issue, btw; I concede that my thread sucks. If one were to post a unique thread after each "My Mother, The Car" episode, which promptly dropped like a rock, is that better, worse, or the same? Because that would have nothing to do with this rule, but would be the type of thing that would fall under the intent of the rule, right?

[C K Dexter Haven]

I sometimes use caps for emphasis. It stands out better than bold and is easier to type. If you want to take that as yelling, fine, but I think of it as simply speaking LOUD and CLEAR.

On the other points, I have little to say that I didn't say arready. The number of views is less relevant than the number of other posts -- you could be viewing your own thread dozens of times.

A thread that has updated information is arguably somewhat different than a thread that is just being bumped. Duck Duck's example is a good one: someone asks a question in Cafe Society about "My Mother the Car" and gets no responses, and is allowed to bump it once. If there are still no responses, it means "no one cares and no one knows." My comments were directed at Cafe Society, not MPSIMS, which may have different rules.

However, we are a Message Board. We've had this situation with a couple people in the past, using Cafe Society Message Board in lieu of a website, Live Journal, or whatever. Hence the policy.

[Liberal]

The number of views is less relevant than the number of other posts -- you could be viewing your own thread dozens of times.Not anymore. The new software no longer registers multiple views from the same visitor in its list of visitors. Not saying anything about your decision one way or the other, just sharing with you the information that I have.

[don't ask]

Note to self: bump this thread in 2439 if not already dead.

[fortytwo]

I started a thread once that no one replied to. It had plenty of views but it obviously didn't interest anyone else. I was too embarrased to even bump it once. I know a dead horse when I see one.

[Exgineer]

Not anymore. The new software no longer registers multiple views from the same visitor in its list of visitors. Not saying anything about your decision one way or the other, just sharing with you the information that I have.
So you're saying that the "views" counter is actually a count of unique viewers, or am I missing something? I've seen view counts in the thousands, and I'm having a little trouble believing that 10,000 people are all reading the same threads.

[Frank]

Not anymore. The new software no longer registers multiple views from the same visitor in its list of visitors. Not saying anything about your decision one way or the other, just sharing with you the information that I have.
I'm not sure that's true. Otherwise no thread could have more than 4000 or so views. (Well, plus whatever unregistered lurkers look at it.)

[Bryan Ekers]

I started a thread once that no one replied to. It had plenty of views but it obviously didn't interest anyone else. I was too embarrased to even bump it once. I know a dead horse when I see one.

Man, I been there. I once started a thread about a TV show called First Monday (basically West Wing but focused on the Supreme Court and without all the stuff that made West Wing, y'know, good). I trashed it, but no-one chimed in and the thread plunged to obscurity.

I felt somewhat vindicated by the show's rapid cancellation, though.

[Contrapuntal]

I'm not sure that's true. Otherwise no thread could have more than 4000 or so views. (Well, plus whatever unregistered lurkers look at it.)
49,414

[Frank]

49,414
Well, yeah, but nowhere near that amount is active. I vaguely remember a thread in ATMB that said there are usually 3000-4000 active (semi-recent activity) members at any one time.

[Contrapuntal]

Well, yeah, but nowhere near that amount is active. I vaguely remember a thread in ATMB that said there are usually 3000-4000 active (semi-recent activity) members at any one time.


Thanks for the info. I had no idea.

[Liberal]

So you're saying that the "views" counter is actually a count of unique viewers, or am I missing something? I've seen view counts in the thousands, and I'm having a little trouble believing that 10,000 people are all reading the same threads.Try it yourself. Check the view count. View. Check. View. Check. Etc., until you're satisfied.

[Tamerlane]

Try it yourself. Check the view count. View. Check. View. Check. Etc., until you're satisfied.

Don't think that will work. I could be completely wrong - probably am, as I know nothing about this software ( maybe less than that ;) ) - but the impression I'm getting is that the board won't update views unless you completely close your browser and then re-open it and re-access the site.

Or in other words it is counting every view you make, you just can't tell that by refreshing. That's my impression anyway.

- Tamerlane

[Frank]

Try it yourself. Check the view count. View. Check. View. Check. Etc., until you're satisfied.
From here: (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5346017&postcount=5)
It counts every time someone opened the thread, regardless of how many times an individual poster may have gone to the thread or what they may or may not have done while in that thread.

A view is a view is a view.

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
The view count is not updated in real time.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Don't think that will work. I could be completely wrong - probably am, as I know nothing about this software ( maybe less than that ;) ) - but the impression I'm getting is that the board won't update views unless you completely close your browser and then re-open it and re-access the site.Sort of. I think there's a post in ATMB about the views not being current, it takes a while for the software to catch up.

I just checked and 54 views were added in the past couple of minutes.

I see TYM has said pretty much the same thing but I'll post this anyway.

[Liberal]

I stand corrected. Thanks, Tamerlane! :)

[Liberal]

And TYM and Lute... :)