[QUOTE=Winston Smith]
I think this is the most insightful criticism of pay-to-post I’ve heard.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed! Especially when the boards entire theme is to fight ignorance. No wonder it is taking longer than you thought.
[QUOTE=kambuckta]
Otherwise we’re going to suffocate in our own drivel and bile.
[/QUOTE]
I’m pretty sure I did that last week.
See? Everything’s already been done!
(I do agree with you, though.)
[QUOTE=kambuckta]
I second the notion put here previously in the thread that we re-open this board as a non-pay site. Otherwise we’re going to suffocate in our own drivel and bile.
[/QUOTE]
Does everyone remember that when we went pay, the other option was that the board would shut down? I’ll also admit nostalgia for the old days, but there seems to be a loss of memory here.
[QUOTE=Frank]
Does everyone remember that when we went pay, the other option was that the board would shut down? I’ll also admit nostalgia for the old days, but there seems to be a loss of memory here.
[/QUOTE]
A loss of memory or a loss of trust?
[QUOTE=kambuckta]
Quite some years ago I wrote a research essay on the notion of internet messageboards as ‘communities’. In fact, I used this very board for some of my raw data.
But anyway, back then, one of the respondents to my questionaire (who has since disappeared from the messageboards I frequent*) posited that messageboards are, by their very nature transient:
(Quote by BalmainBoy).
As my SDMB years go on, I see more and more the truth in what BalmainBoy had to say. Some people DO move on…but if they are complete losers (like me), they stay stuck here in the caravan park, living off the stories of the people who have come and gone. There’s nothing new to say here, just the same stale old griping about the oldtimers, and the scare-tactic putdowns of the newcomers…just to give them the willies and encourage them to fuck off. Fuck, what a pathetic old bunch of crones we have become!
I second the notion put here previously in the thread that we re-open this board as a non-pay site. Otherwise we’re going to suffocate in our own drivel and bile.
[/QUOTE]
Fascinating post, I have only been here for two years, so I have not seen the downward trend or remember the board before P2P. I still find this board cleaner and better than any other boards out there. I know people hate to hear this, but for a board that covers any subject, the level of intelligence, spelling and grammar is exceptionally high*. I know there are specific interest boards that exceed the quality of the SDMB, but they are specific interest boards.
We can ask and get answered questions about physics, classic movies, history, what ifs, cooking, sports and anything else. I guess the debates get tired, but hey, January 2009 we get a completely new administration to debate, that should enliven things.
I think my only complaint about the board, is that GQ is not held to a higher standard. Too many people are too quick to leap in with a joke before the question has been answered. I enjoy the humor on this board. I enjoy the humor that happens after the question has been answered, but when the WAGs and the jokes are the first few posts and less than an hour after the Op was posted, it seems to me it takes away from the value of GQ. I am probably just being a pendant about this, but I would also like is WAGs were more clearly supplied with a caveat.
Finally, on the personal snit side, many posts have dismissed the value of the new posters that have joined post P2P. I get a little tired of this from the handful of old-timers that make this complaint. I don’t think we plan to get off your lawn and on behalf of the post P2P crowd, I am sorry we don’t meet the standards of the old days. There is no shortage of interesting, well-informed, intelligent newer posters. One of the most valuable facets of this board, is it does attract posters from other countries that can provide insights into other cultures and how the US is perceived around the world.
Jim
- Despite my bringing this level down.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
A loss of memory or a loss of trust?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t follow this. Trust that they were telling us the truth about shutting down?
[QUOTE=kambuckta]
I second the notion put here previously in the thread that we re-open this board as a non-pay site. Otherwise we’re going to suffocate in our own drivel and bile.
[/QUOTE]
I expect it’s a foregone conclusion that the Chicago Reader isn’t going to turn this board into a non-pay site. If the board is generating a net profit for the CR, the new owners aren’t going to kiss the revenue goodbye. If it’s not (which is still their story, IIRC), then they’re certainly not going to be willing to take a greater loss on it than they already do.
My proposal, many many moons ago, was that the board should go nonprofit, which would have enabled it to accept cash donations from the membership. That might’ve worked five or six years ago. Nowadays, who knows?
[QUOTE=Frank]
Does everyone remember that when we went pay, the other option was that the board would shut down? I’ll also admit nostalgia for the old days, but there seems to be a loss of memory here.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that a false dichotomy? I never believed that the SDMB couldn’t be financially viable without memberships.
There were all sorts of alternative ideas offered, from advertising to donations.
[QUOTE=Frank]
I don’t follow this. Trust that they were telling us the truth about shutting down?
[/QUOTE]
Trust that they were telling us the truth about anything, really.
Why should I believe it? What evidence is there?
[QUOTE=Frank]
Does everyone remember that when we went pay, the other option was that the board would shut down? I’ll also admit nostalgia for the old days, but there seems to be a loss of memory here.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s my problem with that story: I also remember that, for about 3-4 years before the board finally went pay, the CR was gnashing its teeth about the need to turn the SDMB into a moneymaker, or at least a bit less of a cash drain. All sorts of ideas were floated to do something about this that didn’t involve pay-to-play, including some that even the board admins said were likely to bring in thousands of dollars. Some of them would have been pretty straightforward to try, but none of them ever were. (No, I’m not going to do a search to find all those old threads from 2000 and 2001. I don’t care about it that much right now.) But the CR apparently felt it could afford to dither for all those years.
I’m not saying the CR’s lying to us, but overall, their story doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Maybe they were just willing to lose money as they dithered and procrastinated for a few years, but if they were in a position to do so, then I expect the money they were losing on the SDMB had to be incidental to their overall profit situation.
I don’t know what the truth is, but there’s obviously some big chunks missing from the picture.
[QUOTE=Waverly]
Isn’t that a false dichotomy? I never believed that the SDMB couldn’t be financially viable without memberships.
[/QUOTE]
No on my part; that is what we members were told. jsgodess is skeptical; I tend to believe them; you’re skeptical. But it doesn’t matter, because that was their decision, over which none of us have any control.
I have to agree with the general pessimism (and I’ve seen more than enough predictions of doom and gloom, on more than enough boards, to be wary of them). While it’s certainly possible that we’ve all somehow matured, grown as people, become somehow nicer, more understanding and what have you, this flies in the face of just about all of my experiences on the internet; does stumping up $15 somehow ensure my strength of character? Certainly a mass enlightenment seems vastly less plausible than the alternative: that the place really is stagnating. And I do feel that while it is an undeniably small amount to pay, the shift to pay-per-post has indeed effected a heavy change in the board’s atmosphere. As soon as people become paying customers, they start to expect things to conform to their wishes. People don’t, by and large, pay to be challenged; they become consumers, and expect to be fed.
To a large extent I think this is symptomatic of some of the problems in the media as a whole at the moment. While everyone seems to focus on the fact that low barriers to publication mean that everyone now has a voice, it’s the other half of the equation that interests me (hardly anyone, it transpires, has anything interesting to say). Rather, it’s the fact that everyone can hear a voice that reflects their own these days. Don’t like the news? Find a news source that tells you what you want to hear.
Anyway, I digress. Back at home: while some people may not see the fact that there were only 14 threads in the BBQ Pit at one point yesterday as a bad thing, it’s certainly very hard to see it as anything other than an indication that there are fewer people coming here, with less to say to each other. What honestly attracts new posters to these boards any more? Newbies are treated as little more than sock-hunting fodder, GQ is a pathetic guessathon where if one cite precedes the inevitable dull speculation and crappy gags, it’s a minor miracle. GD reads like the political blog of an idiot with OCD, CS is a list-fest and … what else is there? If you didn’t already know the people here, is there honestly anything that would make you say, “yeah, this is worth $15”?
Even the insults du jour are crap these days. “Assbitches”? Really?
[QUOTE=bump]
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
And, speaking as a poster now, I blame heavy-handed moderation for the decline of the boards. Dicks.
[/QUOTE]
You know, I think you’re onto something.
Back in the day, when I started lurking, a fair proportion of threads concerned bodily functions or various raunchy topics. To me, at least, these were the main type of filler I read between more serious and intellectual threads.
I mean, you can read about the ethics of abortion, etc… but sometimes, you just need a good Lieu poop story to lighten things up.
Sometime a few years back, it seems to me that there was a crackdown of sorts on that kind of thing- in some ways, it took a lot of the fun out of the board, and made it more serious, and by extension, more acrimonious. I think this is mostly because people would get to like one another in the less serious threads, and then in the more intense debate type ones, would be more likely to respect each other.
Without the silly/raunchy/nasty threads, it makes for a much more adversarial climate.
[/QUOTE]
What bump said. Exhibit A. Of course there is a difference between friendly and genuinely entertaining TMI threads and the more recent quasi-trolling “So I woke up with an erection this morning…” threads.
FWIW, I don’t entirely blame the board staff. I suspect part of the board’s charm back in the day lay in that “internet message boards” were still such a new and novel way for people to communicate. The patina has since worn off, the honeymoon is over, and we’re left 1)discussing very specific and relatively uninteresting General Questions, 2)rehashing all of the old debates with whoever feels like it and 3)bitching about points 1 & 2 and whatever else.
But looking back, it doesn’t strike me as a coincidence that the raising-the-tone-of-the-board period was followed by the P2P period, which was followed by the sale of the Reader. But some things can’t be helped.
[QUOTE=padabe]
But looking back, it doesn’t strike me as a coincidence that the raising-the-tone-of-the-board period was followed by the P2P period, which was followed by the sale of the Reader. But some things can’t be helped.
[/QUOTE]
Help me out, are you implying that the raising-the-tone-of-the-board period & the P2P period helped with the sale of the Reader or caused it in some way?
It seems like the SDMB would have little to do with the value of the Reader and is probably an incidental acquisition.
Jim
[QUOTE=Frank]
No on my part; that is what we members were told. jsgodess is skeptical; I tend to believe them; you’re skeptical. But it doesn’t matter, because that was their decision, over which none of us have any control.
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, we do. We could leave this bastion of complete sentences, correct usage of they’re/there/their and move on to free, but annoying, pastures. We are caught between a proverbial rock and hard place.
I am not whining though, I don’t mind hard places too much.
[QUOTE=Frank]
No on my part; that is what we members were told. jsgodess is skeptical; I tend to believe them; you’re skeptical. But it doesn’t matter, because that was their decision, over which none of us have any control.
[/QUOTE]
We can leave, obviously, and quite a few have.
For me, personally, I just expect to wake up one day and the board is gone. So, I’m psychologically one foot out the door at all times.
The only reason I brought up the lack of trust was in response to your post about what we may have forgotten. I don’t think any of us have “forgotten” what the claims were, we just never believed the claims in the first place. So we feel free to speculate about what could’ve, should’ve been.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Part of the problem is that all the fascinating topics for discussion have been done. So every time you start a thread about what you think might be an interesting new idea, someone pops in to say, “Oh, we did that two years ago. Here’s a link.” And the new thread withers.
[/QUOTE]
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
-Joe
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
The only reason I brought up the lack of trust was in response to your post about what we may have forgotten. I don’t think any of us have “forgotten” what the claims were, we just never believed the claims in the first place. So we feel free to speculate about what could’ve, should’ve been.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough.
[QUOTE=Slithy Tove]
The SDMB is like California: a place that has always been “used to be better” for as long as anyone can remember.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks. I tried to say something similar yesterday, but the closest I could come was “eternally overrated,” which wasn’t what I meant.