Excellent point.
Like that educational TV show- “Connections” i think it was called.
At some point mods greatly increased their frequency of determining hijacks and/or requesting/telling folks to move an adjudged hijack to a new thread (or moving it themselves with Mod-like Powerz!) Around then I started wondering if we would be better off with threaded, or nested threads (or whatever you call the way most message boards display stuff).
I used to hate the very thought of that… I preferred to see ALL posts listed as they came in, chronologically, thankyouverymuch. But I think it might be preferable to have that then to have constant accusations of hijacking and a never-ending demand for people start a new topic. We don’t need bunches of new threads about the minutia of other threads.
Why not?
I know that many of the long time posters here remember the better part of two decades of posting prior to the more restrictive rules in P&E/GD, but it’s been that way since I began posting rather than hiding in the shadows.
One of the key changes in moderation in these forums from the late @Jonathan_Chance was specifically to combat hijacks:
Hijacks. This is, perhaps, the single largest and most important change to the rules in Great Debates and Politics and Elections made in 2020. Staying on topic is a strong goal of Great Debates and Politics and Elections moving forward. Threads exist for a reason. Presumably, the original poster wants to discuss a specific topic. Posts which pull the thread away from that topic are hijacks. Some of these are inadvertent, some are not. Posts that seem intended to steer a discussion away from the original topic may be sanctioned. Hijacks may be, but are not limited to, posts that lead away from a topic, endless questioning, repeatedly asking the same or similar questions once they’ve been answered, and other maneuvers. Whether or not such is occurring is at the sole discretion of the moderation staff and may lead to official sanction.
I’m posting this because it has so much bearing on the OP here, at least for P&E/GD. At least, I assume (perhaps incorrectly) this is the change in frequency you’re referring to.
ETA - I knew we’d had a semi-recent discussion on this, here’s the link:
My opinion (pre-moderator) in that thread is largely unchanged. In GD/P&E, a few individual off topic posts aren’t a huge problem, but past that, especially on hot button topics, they quickly take over the thread. It’s especially noticeable and frustrating to me (as a reader and mod) when it happens despite multiple notes to curb such hijacks.
And, while some people would like a looser style, it seems nearly as many prefer the tighter moderation so they can get new info rather than endless repeats of Trump memes, jokes, or Pit like rants, such as @Pleonast’s comment upthread.
When you put it like that— I suppose we could have millions of new threads, each one spun-off from another thread, which in turn was spun off of another thread, etc., etc. (it’s threads all the way down…). But it’s a bit hard to follow a conversation like that.
I would prefer nested (or threaded, or whatever they’re called) threads at this point. I think the Board has reached a point where it’d work more betterly.
I don’t think it’s in any way preferable to make it difficult to follow all threads in order to reduce a problem that only affects some of them, and then IMO doesn’t cause a serious difficulty.
I’ve tried reading threads elsewhere done in the nested style, and found them almost impossible to follow if they’re of any length. They might as well all be separate threads all piled in together on one page.
I was going to point this out. I feel I get decent enough traction the threads I start, but I also try to make them interesting enough to get traction. The idea that “any ol’ thing” can be broken out into a new thread that will gain critical mass is just not realistic.
So, as has been pointed out, I started a thread about hijacks awhile back, and my opinion remains the same. Dickish hijacks or truly off-topic hijacks or hijacks that have worn out their welcome (Bernie Sanders, Israel, etc.)–these I get. Most don’t do a lot of harm. Also, I think the further along the thread has gotten, the less damage hijacks do, as the main topic has mostly been explored at that point.
Why does a thread have to gain critical mass? Some topics or ideas are worth a few comments, nothing more, and that seems to me to be fine. If they are contained in another thread or constitute a thread of their own may not matter much, but that pretty much depends on the other thread they might be in.
I’ve sure been guilty of this. Usually (not always) there is a slight hijack (caused by me or someone else) and I answer the replies. Then someone answers that post which seems to require a response. And so on. No one person has truly hijacked the thread outright but it goes down a path that veers more and more from the original post.
Again, I am certainly guilty of it and maybe a bit (very) prone to not letting go. Working on it. Pretty sure I have overtly hijacked a thread more than a few times too but I am working on it and think I am getting a little better (still far from perfect on this though).
Also, remembering which forum I am in.
This is what I call the “Steve Buscemi effect”.
An intrinsic nature of online discussion is the ratio of on-topic vs off-topic comments is: (number of people who have a relevant on topic comment * percent chance they will say something) : (number of people with an off topic comment * chance they will post it)
The important thing about this formula is only the #of people with off topic remarks can fluctuate by 4+ orders of magnitude.
For the longest time on Reddit, every discussion about Steve Buscemi could, no matter how tangential, was flooded by people commenting did you know he was a firefighter on 9/11? Even if only 0.1% of all people who knew this made a comment, there were so many people who thought that this was uncommon knowledge and, thus, worthy of contributing, that it would swamp any useful contributions. Eventually it became memed enough that it’s largely stopped but once you notice the underlying phenomena, you see it everywhere.
For example, on the dope, you have enough people whose only statistical knowledge is “correlation does not equal causation”. Whenever there’s any discussion of any kind of study and the word correlation appears, a bunch of people will proudly trot out that correlation does not equal causation, regardless of how relevant it is to the topic. Most dopers refrain from posting this, but because it’s a statistical “fact” that overwhelmingly more people think needs saying than any other, there’s always someone who has to say it.
This will always be an intrinsic factor of any discussion medium where the number of readers vastly exceed writers. Tiny fluctuations affect who writes about what, in gross disproportion to the underlying beliefs about the reader base.
That’s a matter of personal preference, wouldn’t you agree? To wit:
- I have the option of posting in the original thread, knowing that it’s a slight hijack, but also sensing I will get some responses by the people already posting in the thread and in the original context of the thread, which quite often has the background information people need to know what I’m talking about and respond coherently.
- I also have the option of breaking it out into another thread with no hijack but also with none of the above (perceived by me) advantages.
Personally, if I am going to start a new thread, I am going to put work into it with quotes from the other thread providing sufficient background, etc. It’s a lot more work than simply hoping that what I wanted to say in the original thread isn’t too much of a hijack.
Further, a lot of the “hijacks” are not sudden 90º turns like a TRON lightcycle but evolutions of the conversation. I’m for letting the latter live on without much moderation, especially if the main topic has been dealt with thoroughly already.
I think ultimately a lot of us are pretty online-fluent and as a result, posting in threads gets more or less conflated with participating in a spoken group conversation in our minds. And as we all know, group conversations often meander across topics at their own pace, and as people bring up different ideas and thoughts.
At least that’s how it works for me when I hijack/participate in a hijack. We’ll be discussing the relative merits of pour-over coffee vs. drip, and then someone will have a thought about breakfast, and then I’ll think “Yeah, that’s a good point. French toast would be good”, and off the hijack goes…
I think if it was more formal, and interaction was more difficult, we would stay on topic more, but as it is, I think it’s just close enough to a normal group conversation that we tend to forget that we’re in a specific thread within a specific forum, etc…
It does, and I think it’s not a good analogy. Posting in threads is more like speaking at a panel on a stage in an auditorium.
Well, I’m just describing what goes on in my head when I go off on tangents or reply to tangents. It’s more of an act of unawareness than anything deliberate.
Oh, I’m agreeing with you, if it isn’t clear enough. It’s our implicit approach as an informal chat among friends rather than public speaking before an audience that shapes how we post. For better or worse, forums like this are more like the latter.
I definitely approach posting in threads more like a conversation than like speaking formally at some event.
The great thing about starting a thread as a response to another thread is that you don’t have to do that. If you use Discourse’s “reply in a new thread” function, the context is in the link. A short comment about how the other thread inspired this off-topic thought is really plenty of background.
I think we strike a good balance between organized categories and too much rigidity. For example, “Factual Questions” is policed well but, after the OP’s question is correctly answered to his satisfaction, the conversation is allowed to expand to some extent as long as it’s on the same basic topic. And Why not? Many things are not totally cut and dried and cannot be completely compartamentalized because so many things are interrelated with other things.
I try to stay on topic because that’s the request from the rules committee. Personally, though, I don’t care one bit if threads get derailed.
Me too.
I do not see this place as a symposium. I get the need to stay close to the posed topic but never see this so formal as a speech on a stage. I see it as debating/chatting with friends and the discussion may meander a bit. Again, staying on topic is important but ISTM there is some wiggle room in the interest of having a dialogue.
I think the SDMB mods have found a good balance here and keep things on track.