Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-11-2019, 11:44 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,785

A thread cosing.


So, I make a post about a zany incident thinking people might want to read about it and coment on/snark about it, and it is closed. Meanwhile, ever fewer (new, non-sock people) are joining the board and contributing. Perhaps it might be better to consider not actively attempting to drive off the remaining people who do attempt to contribute something fun/positive/interesting to discuss? Or would you prefer to continue down the direction of being a rapidly emptying forum for anger, politics, and coddling racists?
  #2  
Old 02-11-2019, 11:54 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,671
The request wasn't that you stop posting fun, zany, interesting items. It was that you include more information or discussion in your OPs. This is not an unreasonable request.
  #3  
Old 02-12-2019, 12:13 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,734
The mod note ended with
Quote:
Feel free to start a thread on the same subject but with same actual content.
  #4  
Old 02-12-2019, 12:21 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,785
And, having to do it all over again, I can't really see how I would have described the brief article any differently. But I can understand the concern for not wanting to overwhelm a subfourm that sometimes sees dozens of threads in a week (says no thriving forum ever.)
  #5  
Old 02-12-2019, 02:02 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,093
Just some thoughts.

Most people don't click on links. If you want someone to see the humor in something, it has to be in the OP because very few people will click on the link. Unlike reddit, where there are summary bots and comment summarizers, the more information you can summarize from the article that makes the link notable, the better.

In that link, something that made it topical was that the mom was looking for a date for her son for Valentine's day, a few days ahead of Valentine's day. A sweet, if misguided and awkward gesture.

Did her son know about it? Even more awkward.

Another thing that made it noteworthy was that the campus authorities were worried about her. What did they think was going to happen?

She also had the picture on her phone, which isn't the most convenient or safe way to show someone a picture.

Even in that short article, there might have been a few things to discuss.


*this thread has a lot of typos. I hope it's not contagious.
  #6  
Old 02-12-2019, 08:22 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 23,367
It has always been our policy to close threads that are just links. Don't just post a link. Say something about what you actually want to discuss about the link.
  #7  
Old 02-12-2019, 08:33 AM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Friend of Cecil
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,399
“(Link) this mom went around campus showing girls a picture on her phone asking girls if they wanted to date him”. Then add something you thought, felt, are curious about. “Moms are pimps/ I would die of embarrassment/ if it was your mom would you hide her phone/ etc etc ”
  #8  
Old 02-12-2019, 08:40 AM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Friend of Cecil
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,399
Actually, when including the title, you did all of that. Hmmm.
  #9  
Old 02-12-2019, 08:47 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,355
Do we still have "Weird Earl's" somewhere on the front page? That used to be the place for sharing links without content.

Darren Garrison: I was a little bit surprised that your thread was closed. You did, after all, provide a description of your link; it wasn't just "Hey check this out."

But I see the point, that we don't want the SDMB to turn into Facebook, where the boards fill up with people just Sharing articles and columns that they find, without adding any content of their own. I guess, if you expect other people to "comment on/snark about" something, you ought to do so too.
  #10  
Old 02-12-2019, 08:50 AM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 15,324
There is little appreciation for the surreal these days. It was tricky enough to bait up a good "what does this conjure up in your head" thread even 10 years ago, but now we are overrun with Very Serious® left wingers who, like their conservative counterparts, have forgotten that the best part of being alive is being able to enjoy the beauty and entropy of badgers designing firefly milkshakes under the strangler's moon. But I do have one question.

What is "cosing"?
__________________
Y'all are just too damned serious. Lighten up.

Last edited by Inigo Montoya; 02-12-2019 at 08:51 AM.
  #11  
Old 02-12-2019, 08:56 AM
digs's Avatar
digs is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of Wauwatosa
Posts: 9,168
The other question to ask yourself is "Does this need to be a completely new thread, or can this go in an existing mini-rants/MMP/Stupid Stuff thread?"

I wish more people would post minor fun stuff in the monthly mini-rant thread; it gets annoying to scroll past a bunch of one-shot "Hey, look at this!" threads.
  #12  
Old 02-12-2019, 12:49 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,785
If the goal of the site is to minimize the number of new threads and regular posters, I must say that it is succeeding wildly. I think that it would be nice if we did have enough active posters that the handful that are posting now wouldn't stand out so much, and enough threads that we would need more subforums to handle them. Complaining about that is akin to complaining about having so much money that you have to open new bank accounts. But if you enjoy watching tumbleweeds blow across the forum, then you do you.



Quote:
What is "cosing"?

It has captured Christmas because it has no l.
  #13  
Old 02-12-2019, 01:07 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
If the goal of the site is to minimize the number of new threads and regular posters, I must say that it is succeeding wildly. I think that it would be nice if we did have enough active posters that the handful that are posting now wouldn't stand out so much, and enough threads that we would need more subforums to handle them. Complaining about that is akin to complaining about having so much money that you have to open new bank accounts. But if you enjoy watching tumbleweeds blow across the forum, then you do you.
Yeah, you've already said this. I have to admit, this is the first time someone has tried this approach when their post was dinged for having little to no original content(as far as I can recall, that is), and I'm not sure logic is on your side here, since people already have a place where they can link to all sorts of crap without contributing anything original-Facebook.
  #14  
Old 02-12-2019, 01:25 PM
Barkis is Willin' is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,324
Is there much difference between OP's thread and this one, for example? For the record, I'm cool with both in MPSIMS.
  #15  
Old 02-12-2019, 01:31 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Friend of Cecil
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
since people already have a place where they can link to all sorts of crap without contributing anything original-Facebook.
Except that’s not what this was. He had a link, explained what it was to, and commentary on it in the thread title. Had it been lacking either of the latter two, the criticism and closing would be justified. But it did - so closing it now makes it look like there is some sort of “I know it when I see it” minimal contribution threshold that apparently must be met, and that is moving us the wrong way.

We have had posters who would just post a link, optionally accompanied by “discuss” , and then would move on. This is not that. It is not a lot more than that, but enough to where I think the closing was unwarranted.
  #16  
Old 02-12-2019, 01:32 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
Is there much difference between OP's thread and this one, for example? For the record, I'm cool with both in MPSIMS.
Best guess? One was reported to the Moderators, and the other wasn't.
  #17  
Old 02-12-2019, 01:32 PM
Beckdawrek's Avatar
Beckdawrek is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: So.Ark ?
Posts: 13,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya View Post
There is little appreciation for the surreal these days. It was tricky enough to bait up a good "what does this conjure up in your head" thread even 10 years ago, but now we are overrun with Very Serious® left wingers who, like their conservative counterparts, have forgotten that the best part of being alive is being able to enjoy the beauty and entropy of badgers designing firefly milkshakes under the strangler's moon. But I do have one question.

What is "cosing"?
cosing=duet.
  #18  
Old 02-12-2019, 01:56 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beckdawrek View Post
cosing=duet.
sing = solo
cosing = duet
But now we're going off on a tangent.
  #19  
Old 02-12-2019, 01:59 PM
Beckdawrek's Avatar
Beckdawrek is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: So.Ark ?
Posts: 13,618
Tangent=George Hamilton.
  #20  
Old 02-12-2019, 02:24 PM
simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post






It has captured Christmas because it has no l.
+ 3 points for that.
  #21  
Old 02-12-2019, 03:13 PM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 28,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I'm not sure logic is on your side here, since people already have a place where they can link to all sorts of crap without contributing anything original-Facebook.
Perhaps he wanted to share the link with us, not facebook.

I get the feeling that if that thread was stated exactly the same way it is, but instead of a single sentence that's one big link, it was a single sentence and a separate link, it would have been fine.
I wonder how many people didn't actually read it, they opened the thread, saw a link and backed out.
  #22  
Old 02-12-2019, 07:20 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
sing = solo
cosing = duet
But now we're going off on a tangent.
Don’t you mean a tagnet?
  #23  
Old 02-12-2019, 08:31 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 41,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
If the goal of the site is to minimize the number of new threads and regular posters, I must say that it is succeeding wildly. I think that it would be nice if we did have enough active posters that the handful that are posting now wouldn't stand out so much, and enough threads that we would need more subforums to handle them. Complaining about that is akin to complaining about having so much money that you have to open new bank accounts. But if you enjoy watching tumbleweeds blow across the forum, then you do you.
Sorry, but a post like yours is not going to attract anyone to this site. So continuing to try to make it about attracting new members is really a non-starter.

If you found the link so interesting, what's so extremely hard about telling other posters a little about it?
  #24  
Old 02-12-2019, 09:04 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Friend of Cecil
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,399
He did. He described what the link was about, and in the title spoke to what he wanted to discuss. This was more than just a drive-by link. Not a lot more, but more.
  #25  
Old 02-12-2019, 09:05 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Best guess? One was reported to the Moderators, and the other wasn't.
My usual report is "contentless clickbait".
  #26  
Old 02-13-2019, 05:13 AM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 5,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Do we still have "Weird Earl's" somewhere on the front page? That used to be the place for sharing links without content.
Nope; it disappeared about the time the main page of TSD was made more smart phone friendly.
  #27  
Old 02-13-2019, 02:04 PM
eulalia's Avatar
eulalia is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 40°35'7"N/105°5'2"W
Posts: 2,221
So maybe he could use the same post to start a thread called "Weird Earls" and ask others to post more.
__________________
“when people are determined on a mode of conduct which they know to be wrong, they feel injured by the expectation of anything better from them.” —Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility
  #28  
Old 02-13-2019, 02:36 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,983
1. This was your second thread of the day that you started with a link and little else. I let that one go.

2. We receive complaints whenever there is little comment and just a link and/or non-descriptive titles. Those complaints are not always acted on but know a significant number of fellow posters don't like it.

3. This is the equivalent of holding your phone up to someone's face and saying "Watch this."

4. If you really want to add content start the conversation by saying what you think about it. If you can't be bothered to comment why should others?




I'm usually pretty lenient about such things. I left your first thread of the day alone. When you did it again the same day I stepped in.

Again, if you really want to discuss the story open a new thread and actually start the discussion. If you really want to help add content that's the way to do it.
  #29  
Old 02-13-2019, 02:44 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
Is there much difference between OP's thread and this one, for example? For the record, I'm cool with both in MPSIMS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Best guess? One was reported to the Moderators, and the other wasn't.
I did not see a report on the spud one. Although not 100% clear the mention of pareidolia is probably enough for me to let it go. If I didn't want to stop this from being a habit with the OP I may have let this one go as well.
  #30  
Old 02-13-2019, 02:48 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by eulalia View Post
So maybe he could use the same post to start a thread called "Weird Earls" and ask others to post more.
There was a Weird Earls thread like that but it died a quick death.

Personally I like the idea of the thread but it only works if people participate.
  #31  
Old 02-13-2019, 03:05 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 23,367
I believe Ed's reasoning in getting rid of Weird Earl's was that he didn't want people clicking on the main SDMB to take them somewhere else. He wanted to keep the traffic here.

IIRC, Ed himself suggested using the thread as a replacement for it.
  #32  
Old 02-13-2019, 03:21 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
non-descriptive titles. Those complaints are not always acted on but know a significant number of fellow posters don't like it.
Thanks--I didn't realize that there was a behind-the-scenes peanut gallery policing what was too mundane and pointless to share.
  #33  
Old 02-13-2019, 04:08 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Thanks--I didn't realize that there was a behind-the-scenes peanut gallery policing what was too mundane and pointless to share.
  #34  
Old 02-13-2019, 04:57 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Thanks--I didn't realize that there was a behind-the-scenes peanut gallery policing what was too mundane and pointless to share.

Is that really how you view the report function?
  #35  
Old 02-13-2019, 05:11 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Is that really how you view the report function?

All I can say is that I've never reported anything that wasn't blatant spam, sock puppeting, trolling, or personal attacks. It never crossed my mind that were people who reported posts to the mods that weren't sufficiently descriptive for their tastes.
  #36  
Old 02-13-2019, 06:06 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
All I can say is that I've never reported anything that wasn't blatant spam, sock puppeting, trolling, or personal attacks. It never crossed my mind that were people who reported posts to the mods that weren't sufficiently descriptive for their tastes.
Just because a rule isn’t important to you doesn’t mean it’s not important to others.
  #37  
Old 02-13-2019, 07:57 PM
expectopatronum's Avatar
expectopatronum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Tampa
Posts: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Thanks--I didn't realize that there was a behind-the-scenes peanut gallery policing what was too mundane and pointless to share.
You're acting a little ridiculous in this thread. Message boards have been dying out for a long, long time now. Frankly, it's a miracle the SDMB is still going at this point. I'm glad that it is as I don't want to see it go, but I'm afraid posting an OP that consists of a link and nothing else is not going to usher in a new era at the SDMB along with a bunch of new, contributing users. I'm not sure at this point if there is anything that can do that. The loyal user base is what has kept the SDMB live for this long, but I think it may be prudent to come to terms with the fact that it's not going to last forever.
  #38  
Old 02-13-2019, 10:50 PM
Green Bean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NJ, Exit #137
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
4. If you really want to add content start the conversation by saying what you think about it. If you can't be bothered to comment why should others?
...
Again, if you really want to discuss the story open a new thread and actually start the discussion. If you really want to help add content that's the way to do it.
Exactly. Share your reaction or ask a question - like what weird embarrassing things have your parents done to try to facilitate your love life?


Overall, I think the omnibus threads in the pit have done a lot of harm. Sometimes I look in there for a good rant about the latest debacle in DC, but most topics end up in the zillion-page thread that I just can’t be arsed to sort through. And nobody is going to waste their energy formulating a good rant that will just be buried in a tired old thread. So I get my fix elsewhere.
  #39  
Old 02-14-2019, 01:01 AM
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,366
I see GreenBean's point, but it would also be annoying if there were a million Trump threads. So I don't know what the right answer is there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Sorry, but a post like yours is not going to attract anyone to this site. So continuing to try to make it about attracting new members is really a non-starter.

I took Darren as meaning that if a newer poster starts a thread and gets it closed for a rule like this, they are going to be driven away and not feel like coming back. But I am not a mindreader.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
All I can say is that I've never reported anything that wasn't blatant spam, sock puppeting, trolling, or personal attacks. It never crossed my mind that were people who reported posts to the mods that weren't sufficiently descriptive for their tastes.

Same here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by expectopatronum View Post
Message boards have been dying out for a long, long time now. Frankly, it's a miracle the SDMB is still going at this point. I'm glad that it is as I don't want to see it go, but I'm afraid posting an OP that consists of a link and nothing else is not going to usher in a new era at the SDMB along with a bunch of new, contributing users. I'm not sure at this point if there is anything that can do that. The loyal user base is what has kept the SDMB live for this long, but I think it may be prudent to come to terms with the fact that it's not going to last forever.

Yeah, that's interesting and a little sad. I wonder if and when we cross a point of reverse critical mass? When it starts to seem so "dead" around here that some of those loyal posters also stop bothering to post, which then snowballs the whole thing?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #40  
Old 02-14-2019, 01:40 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 23,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I took Darren as meaning that if a newer poster starts a thread and gets it closed for a rule like this, they are going to be driven away and not feel like coming back. But I am not a mindreader.
We try to be kind to newbies. We don't expect them to know all of the rules. Heck, most of them don't even bother to read the registration agreement.

We are also fairly lenient about this particular rule. If you post a link and nothing else every once in a while, no biggie. It's only when you get excessive about it that we start to enforce the rule. When I looked through Darren's posts, I didn't actually count the posts, but it seemed to me like a very significant number of them (it seemed like well more than half of his posts) were nothing but links. If you do that, you start to look like a link spammer.

And, it should also be pointed out, we aren't trying to stifle posts. Anyone complaining that we are trying to stifle posts is clearly not understanding the point of the moderation. By all means, post a link if you want to discuss it. Just don't only post a link. Add something to indicate exactly what it is about this link that you want to discuss.

Let's look at the post in question in the OP. The link is given the description "There is a woman wandering around on a college campus showing girls a photo of her son and asking them if they would date him. " Uh, ok. Do you want to discuss whether or not it's appropriate for a woman to do that? Do you want to discuss how it would make you feel if your mother did that? The thread title is "World's most embarrassing mother?" Do you want do share embarrassing mother stories? Do you want to discuss overbearing and excessively intrusive mothers? Do you want do discuss it from the mother's point of view (like what she should or should not do) or do you want to discuss it from the son's point of view? What is it about this link that you want to discuss? There is no indication whatsoever of the actual thread topic, just a description of the link and a vague title.

Something about that link was of interest to Darren, and is probably of interest to others here, but we have no idea what it is because Darren only posted the link.

That's all we're asking for here. Just give us some indication of what the actual thread topic is.
  #41  
Old 02-14-2019, 02:21 AM
bucketybuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Let's look at the post in question in the OP. The link is given the description "There is a woman wandering around on a college campus showing girls a photo of her son and asking them if they would date him. " Uh, ok. Do you want to discuss whether or not it's appropriate for a woman to do that? Do you want to discuss how it would make you feel if your mother did that? The thread title is "World's most embarrassing mother?" Do you want do share embarrassing mother stories? Do you want to discuss overbearing and excessively intrusive mothers? Do you want do discuss it from the mother's point of view (like what she should or should not do) or do you want to discuss it from the son's point of view? What is it about this link that you want to discuss? There is no indication whatsoever of the actual thread topic, just a description of the link and a vague title.
Perhaps it was a mundane and pointless thing he wanted to share?

And why do you quote this:
Quote:
"There is a woman wandering around on a college campus showing girls a photo of her son and asking them if they would date him. "
without also including the title:
Quote:
World's most embarrassing mother?
which is a question that along with the link makes it pretty damn clear what the OP is about?
  #42  
Old 02-14-2019, 03:31 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,845
Quote:
Something about that link was of interest to Darren, and is probably of interest to others here, but we have no idea what it is because Darren only posted the link.

That's all we're asking for here. Just give us some indication of what the actual thread topic is.
Forgive me. I don't want to yell, but you guys keep missing something important, and this will make it stand out.

IT WAS IN THE TITLE.

Darren Garrison very much did tell us what the reason for the topic was and his own opinion on it. It was in the title, the thing everyone reads before they can even open the post. We all were aware of DG's opinion and why he posted the link.

Thus all arguments based on the idea that he did not do any of this are invalid. They are based on a false premise. All the things you guys keep saying he should have done, he did in fact do.

If Darren Garrison had just posted a link, I'd understand. But he usually has a bit of an explanation. It's short, but no shorter than explanations that were previously said to be good enough.

Granted, none of those were in the title. If you want to say that putting an explanation in the title isn't good enough for some reason, make that argument. But please stop making the erroneous argument that Darren Garrison just posted a link with no explanation of why he posted it.]

BTW, I think Darren Garrison is understandably angry, and wish you guys would be softer about this stuff. Of course when they've been doing something forever and you arbitrarily decide that this time is too much, they're going to get angry. Consistency is key in keeping people happy with the rules.

Throw in being accused of not doing something he did in fact do, and I personally would be furious. Try to see this from his side.
  #43  
Old 02-14-2019, 10:37 AM
expectopatronum's Avatar
expectopatronum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Tampa
Posts: 982
What exactly is the point of that tiresome semantic argument, BigT? He posted a link with a short description embedded in the link. Fine. According to him, he's trying to generate content that will get the forums busier and perhaps bring in some new users that will actually stick around. Posting articles like this is not the way to do that. Everyone who responded in his thread was right - that's Facebook territory. Articles like that do not translate into generating a discussion in the message board format, because there's barely anything to discuss in the first place. Facebook works a lot better for that sort of thing because of the format. We see thumbnail preview of the article, which gets more people to click, or you just go to the comments cause someone will sum it up there. People make some jokes, post a few memes/gifs, and moves on with their day. Here, the most you're gonna get is a couple of one liners. I can even provide a cite. That's the similar thread that Loach referenced upthread that he said he let go without closing. Like the one in question, it contains a link with a description to some clickbait-y internet article, and little else. Three posters responded (six replies total) and the thread promptly died.

The mods 100% made the right call here, and please remember he was invited to repost if he so chose. Also, your hand-wringing about how he was "accused of something he did not do" is both melodramatic and asinine.
  #44  
Old 02-14-2019, 11:25 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by expectopatronum View Post
Posting articles like this is not the way to do that. Everyone who responded in his thread was right - that's Facebook territory.

You mean the thread that had generated 5 comments in 46 minutes, none of which was a complant? And a "click-bait article" that was a front-page news item link from my local CBS affiliate news station?
  #45  
Old 02-14-2019, 11:39 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,785
BTW, I'm not trying to get that particular thread reopened, just going on general principle. I had been giving descriptions for the links--maybe not paragraphs, but also not just "click this." This to science, technology, and cultural stories that I found interesting and figured others would, too, and thought would generate discussion on their own. This "reporting posts that you don't think give a long enough descripiton" doesn't strike me as anything more than threadshitting with a different name. But now that I know my P are too M and P to S, I'll try to refrain from starting threads in that subforum in the future (though I'm not promising that I'll be able to stick the flounce.)

Last edited by Darren Garrison; 02-14-2019 at 11:40 AM.
  #46  
Old 02-14-2019, 12:53 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 23,367
You have completely missed the point of the moderation.

No one is asking you to not post links. All we are asking is that you add a little more to say what it is about the links that you want to discuss. That's all. We encourage you to keep posting links, if there is something there that you want to discuss.
  #47  
Old 02-14-2019, 01:18 PM
expectopatronum's Avatar
expectopatronum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Tampa
Posts: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
You mean the thread that had generated 5 comments in 46 minutes, none of which was a complant? And a "click-bait article" that was a front-page news item link from my local CBS affiliate news station?
5 comments in 46 minutes?? Holy shit, I don't think I've ever seen such a massive response before! The mods are crazy! Reopen the thread immediately, Loach! This is surely the way to save the SDMB from slowly circling the drain!

LOL. Seriously, dude. I know you're being sincere and at the same time I can't believe it. The same article posted on a high traffic page on Facebook would generate hundreds of comments within minutes. Have you visited the rest of the internet outside of the SDMB (and YouTube, and your local news affiliate's site) recently? Might be time to take a look around. And I like how you elect to nitpick my use of "clickbait", rather than address my other comments, because I suspect you know you're starting to look silly and are grasping at straws trying to prove you're right.

5 replies in 46 minutes, guys. This is a game changer!
  #48  
Old 02-14-2019, 02:34 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by expectopatronum View Post
5 comments in 46 minutes?? Holy shit, I don't think I've ever seen such a massive response before! The mods are crazy! Reopen the thread immediately, Loach! This is surely the way to save the SDMB from slowly circling the drain!

LOL. Seriously, dude. I know you're being sincere and at the same time I can't believe it. The same article posted on a high traffic page on Facebook would generate hundreds of comments within minutes. Have you visited the rest of the internet outside of the SDMB (and YouTube, and your local news affiliate's site) recently? Might be time to take a look around. And I like how you elect to nitpick my use of "clickbait", rather than address my other comments, because I suspect you know you're starting to look silly and are grasping at straws trying to prove you're right.

5 replies in 46 minutes, guys. This is a game changer!

It is pretty high traffic for this site, which is the one that I'm concerned about. That's part of my point--the traffic here is low and getting lower all the time. (And with peop;le who act like you, there is little wonder.) What you are doing right here? That is known as "being a jerk."
  #49  
Old 02-14-2019, 03:39 PM
expectopatronum's Avatar
expectopatronum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Tampa
Posts: 982
And a big part of my point is that what are you doing is not going to do a single thing to drive traffic here. Not one thing. And I believe what I did in the post you quoted is known as "sarcasm". I'm certain you're familiar with the concept. Two mods have posted in this thread and I'm sure they'll give a note if they feel I've run afoul of the rules. I don't believe I have, though.
  #50  
Old 02-14-2019, 03:55 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
No one is asking you to not post links. All we are asking is that you add a little more to say what it is about the links that you want to discuss. That's all. We encourage you to keep posting links, if there is something there that you want to discuss.
Yes, this!

Quote:
Originally Posted by expectopatronum View Post
And a big part of my point is that what are you doing is not going to do a single thing to drive traffic here. Not one thing.
If anything is going to drive traffic here, it would be people posting things here that people think are worth linking to, or that would show up as one of the top hits on a Google search of something or other.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017