I guess it goes into MPSIMS, because it’s an observation, not a question, poll, call for comments, or flame. Just an observation:
The first person to respond to any thread has the power to make it last or make it die soon.
Corollary: Only some people are aware of this, and they are the ones who watch for unanswered threads, pounce and see to it they die young.
Second corollary: The opposite instinct exists, to make a thread prosper, but those people don’t know the trick and their efforts usually fail. Sometimes you’ll spot in the time stamps that a thread had lingered for a while before the first response. This might have been a “forum angel”, a poster that tries to keep threads from reaching that most ignominious of ends, the zero response thread. But it seldom works.
There’s no moral here. Just an observation.
I agree.
Muahahhahahahhahah!
I think that may be true of some threads, but certainly not all, or even most. I mean, what first response could you come up with that would kill a “favorite Simpsons quote” thread in CS?
Even GQs that get fully answered on the first response often go into more depth or discussion of related subjects in subsequent posts.
If I used sig lines, this would be mine.
Similar observations have occurred to me over time, but I believe it’s really a matter of luck how a particular thread gets reacted to. It seems to me to depend on:
- How many other threads are running (hot) that deal with a similar subject or are the source for this particular spinoff.
- How recently a similar thread was hot. If less than a few months, odds are low for this one working.
- The “mood” of the SDMB at the time.
- The current success rate of the OP. I sense that there are some posters who attract replies and others who seem doomed to little reaction.
- The timeliness of the topic. If it’s a hot news item, a recent death of a celebrity, some major goof by the government, or some novelty news item, it’s likely to draw a crowd for a page or two.
- Random chance.
Other factors apply but in a less predictable way.
In general, that’s true, but it seems like every Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps thread that comes up in the Pit will get a page or two of responses, and threads about those two are always in the Pit.
I claim exclusive rights to the latter.
Not so fast, Kemo Sabe.
Thanks. Yes, notice how you saved this thread. You came here to be nice, and make a tinyfont joke. Nice company.
If I knew your birthdate I’d be tempted to send you a card. Or at least pass along a Starbucks coupon that I couldn’t use for medical reasons. This thread certainly could have drawn the opposite first poster, someone who come here to argue. If the thread starts with an argument, it’s too annoying to last long, or at least as long as it otherwise deserves.
I’ve actually studied some of these mal-first responders, and found that the vast majority of their posts are arguing.:mad: But enough of them. Let’s check out that new Starbucks - I hear they made a change of format somewhere and we can look for it, like playing Where’s Waldo.
More observations.
There are threads that should have never been posted.
When the factual answers are posted in GQ it’s time (for the thread) to die.
When answers ramble to cover anything and everything having little or no connection to the OP it is time to die.
There are some posts too dumb, idiotic, etc. that they should be locked or deleted ASAP. :rolleyes:
Comment: The purpose of the SDMB’s being to dispel ignorance posts should address the questions in the OP, not digress.
or just pile ons
Not if it’s a Nice Guy thread. No matter what, those’ll go on for 4 pages.