From an old thread about how different people read the Dope, I once posted this:
When was the last time you opened the SDMB and had 16 pages of new posts to examine?
I left for reddit, but the quality of discussion here is much higher so I’m coming back. Also reddit keeps banning me (cough). I get the impression that reddit destroyed a lot of smaller message boards.
That was how I used to read the site, waaaay back in the old days, (!999-2005 ?) .
Back when modems made squeaky noises and the internet was slow. It took a looong time for a post to open, so I clicked on a lot of thread titles while waiting for the first one to open.
Back then, we Dopers were young and energetic.
Life was exciting and fun.
Every day, there were lots of new things to read, interesting things to learn, funny things to laugh about. And also lots of threads focused on practical advice about our personal futures: what university to attend, how to advance careers, how to write resumes, how to handle office politics, etc.
And there were lots of new members to greet–with pie–, and who needed instructions about kitty pics.Oh, and 1920’s death rays.
Ahhhh…nostalgia.
The OP seems to blend the idea of new posts and unread posts. And seems to blend the idea of a thread with the idea of a post.
At least in Discourse, “unread” refers to threads (“topics” in Discourse-speak) you’ve read some of and are now following which have new posts at the end that you have not yet seen. Conversely “new” refers to threads / topics you have never read any part of.
If I’m gone for a week I’ll come back to 30-50 new threads / topics and a couple hundred unread threads / topics. And that’s with a certain developing tyrant’s tag blocked. But for that there’d be far more.
Back in the day on vBulletin, a page of threads defaulted to IIRC 25. So 16 pages would represent ~400 threads.
All quibbling over terminology aside, it’s been a long time since we had 400-thread days or even weeks.
Things change. People change. Hairstyles change. Interest rates fluctuate.
You learn more about what people are like on Reddit though. The atmosphere here is a bit rarefied.
What you learn about people from posting on Reddit is horrifying. But instructive.
I don’t know but, to be honest, I found this place overwhelming when I joined in 1999. It could be because I was just a teenager in a very adult world, but I do think the sheer volume had a big part of it. There are new posts and usually new threads every day and, for me, that’s a fast enough pace.
I just joined Reddit a few months ago to try it out, now that I’ve killed Xitter and FB, and I’m participating in some relatively calm/adult subreddits. I did venture into a couple of the sports subs, but then I backed right out again.
If I’m off here for a day I’ll have fifteen or twenty unread threads, which seems reasonable, but all that’s just a function of my interest & participation here. I’m sure people who post a lot more/less here get more/fewer notifications.
I still read the SDMB the way the OP mentions that they used to, but I never opened 16 posts at a time. I’ll go through ‘New’, ‘Latest’ and a couple of my favorite topic categories, and maybe open half a dozen threads in new tabs at a time. I may open half a dozen more when I’m done with those, or I might go do something else, like chores or my job 
Sure, the quantity of discussion may have fallen off some, but the quality definitely remains. In fact I’d say it’s gotten better-- it seems like in the past there were many more dumb ‘strawman’ and ‘ad hominem’ style attacks on posters. I think this is due to the mods doing a good job keeping things civil and on-point.
I already know, thank you.
I do frequent Reddit, but only specific, narrow topics where people mostly behave themselves.
Yeah, IOW civilized, smart, well-informed, and aware of grammar. My people!
I was over whelmed at first, too. But I was over 40!
I agree with every word of this.
That makes me feel a little better. LOL
DITTO!
I used to be able to spend all day reading just the Pit threads. Now I scour the boards looking for something new. (there are also a lot of subjects that I won;t even open).
TPTB never say how many people still post here. I think because it’s shockingly small. Like 200 small.
Charming double entendre
Or the more rarified “What she said.”
You can set that. I have “unread” set to show me only threads I’ve posted in. I’d be seriously disturbed to find the equivalent of 16 pages of threads i’ve posted in updated every time I checked the Dope.
It’s a little hard to figure out with the neverending Discourse page; but if I’ve been away a couple of days or so, or even most of a day, there certainly will be a whole lot of threads in which somebody’s made at least one new post showing up on the Latest page. Way more than I want to read, anyway.
A bias towards “horrifying” can give you a worse idea about “what people are like” than is justified for most people. (There are so many of us that I grant that even a small percentage of “horrifying:” is a shitload of people.)
Latrine!
“Oh, we never had a chance. It was a slaughter!”
One might assume that what I find horrifying are the opinions expressed. But not so - of course there are horrifying opinions but I have always known those opinions exist and I only read relatively tame subreddits. What is horrifying is the sheeplike behaviour of people, as revealed through up and down voting. And it isn’t limited to a small percentage of people. And it’s common even amongst people whose opinions I generally agree with.
Do you mean that nearly everybody agrees with the horrifying opinions, or that nearly everybody agrees with the non-horrifying opinions, or that everyone seems to agree with everything even if it’s contradictory?
None of the above. This is all a bit of a hijack. It’s hard to summarise. The below is not by any means complete. None of what follows is in any way intellectually surprising (we all know this stuff) but it’s still disappointing to see it in action:
-
initial premises dominate even if obviously and egregiously wrong - if someone says something early (especially if it conforms to the below) very often the discussion will (a) proceed on the basis that the premise is correct, without reflection, even if it obviously isn’t (b) be extremely resistant to correction.
-
People agree with what makes them feel good even if clearly wrong and vice versa
The up/down voting system magnifies these effects - which could be seen as artificial except that I strongly suspect it mirrors how mobs of humans behave in real life.