The danger of fragmentation
The danger of fragmentation
Which is already happening, and the reason why some are not joining. Willy-nilly thread creation dilutes the content, loses focus and scatters in directions impossible to follow - which will lead to death of purpose. I propose, before it's too late, a simplified structure that is abided by as follows -
* Core endless thread a la ERV for all main discussion
* Pertinent sub-threads
-- FTB graphics and multimedia
-- FTB screencaps and data capture (I believe there is extensible function to handle .zip, .pdf etc. attachments?)
-- Phawrongula maintenance
-- Other projects, podcasts etc.
* miscellanea
-- site issues, intros, general secularism news etc.
K.I.S.S. If this structure is not controlled, it will run the risk of implosion. My $0.02
* Core endless thread a la ERV for all main discussion
* Pertinent sub-threads
-- FTB graphics and multimedia
-- FTB screencaps and data capture (I believe there is extensible function to handle .zip, .pdf etc. attachments?)
-- Phawrongula maintenance
-- Other projects, podcasts etc.
* miscellanea
-- site issues, intros, general secularism news etc.
K.I.S.S. If this structure is not controlled, it will run the risk of implosion. My $0.02
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 2669
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:05 pm
- Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada
Re: The danger of fragmentation
I can find no disagreement to that. And yes, too much is too much, especially in the beginning. If this group / place / whatever, becomes an ongoing success then several months or years down the road, we can expand. But ya, for now, simple is good.
Re: The danger of fragmentation
I too see no major problem here - there's a ton of stuff that is clearly Baboollie focused spread over a lot of threads.
I, don't however, want to prevent people from opening new threads - that is too restrictive and strait-jackets people too much, IMHO, but cutting it down to, say, five threads in total from what it is now, is likely no problem.
Let me work on it.
I, don't however, want to prevent people from opening new threads - that is too restrictive and strait-jackets people too much, IMHO, but cutting it down to, say, five threads in total from what it is now, is likely no problem.
Let me work on it.
Re: The danger of fragmentation
I'm not saying lockdown - a miscellaneous bunch of subthreads are a good thing, but the main conversation should be herded into one main thread.
Re: The danger of fragmentation
How's it looking for you now?
Re: The danger of fragmentation
+1 to that.
I was around for one of these splits many years ago for the same reason. Management brought the ban hammer down on the JREF forum and we splintered off into: http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/
This is now a den of infighting and flaming. Which is actually kind of fun, but for here we should probably stay focused.
(you are all welcome at www.skepticalcommunity.com btw)
I was around for one of these splits many years ago for the same reason. Management brought the ban hammer down on the JREF forum and we splintered off into: http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/
This is now a den of infighting and flaming. Which is actually kind of fun, but for here we should probably stay focused.
(you are all welcome at www.skepticalcommunity.com btw)
Re: The danger of fragmentation
Thanks, EveryMan. Keeping it tight, and possibly getting even tighter if necessary...
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 2669
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:05 pm
- Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada
Re: The danger of fragmentation
I'm in a state of shock.
No, not really of course. Give me a day to get used to it.
No, not really of course. Give me a day to get used to it.
Re: The danger of fragmentation
Better. Now make an undead thread that is a sticky - "return of the living slimepit"? - and encourage it as a first port of call. And btw - i tend to be abrupt (ever noticed?). Don't take anything I say personally - I really appreciated your effort. But this thing needs to be moulded before it does spin beyond control.Lsuoma wrote:How's it looking for you now?
Might also want to put a sandbox in the misc section for people to fuck around with bbcode and ask questions.
Re: The danger of fragmentation
so much better! thank you, LsuomaLsuoma wrote:How's it looking for you now?
-
- .
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:23 am
Re: The danger of fragmentation
I agree, a big thanks, it's looking nice and sleekified, now!
Cheers, Lsuoma!
Cheers, Lsuoma!
Re: The danger of fragmentation
Lsuoma,
I would like to see the endless thread that will be similar as possible to the original slimepit be named after Abbie. Abbie's slimepit or something similar. I'll ask Abbie is that is okay with her. I think it is important to credit Abbie in the title, and I also think it should be the first topic on the front page. Immediately visible and accessable.
I can explain in detail what franc was referring to in this post of his. There are quite a few of us, and I will not speak for anyone but myself, so I won't be naming names, just explaining in full about the vague reference. I'd like to do that privately, and cc franc.
Of course franc has my email address. Please get it from him.
cheers
I would like to see the endless thread that will be similar as possible to the original slimepit be named after Abbie. Abbie's slimepit or something similar. I'll ask Abbie is that is okay with her. I think it is important to credit Abbie in the title, and I also think it should be the first topic on the front page. Immediately visible and accessable.
I can explain in detail what franc was referring to in this post of his. There are quite a few of us, and I will not speak for anyone but myself, so I won't be naming names, just explaining in full about the vague reference. I'd like to do that privately, and cc franc.
Of course franc has my email address. Please get it from him.
cheers
Re: The danger of fragmentation
Sacha, there's a PM feature which delivers email alerts as well. It's quite handy.
Re: The danger of fragmentation
As decius says, you can use the PM system.
As the forums stands at the moment, though, I don't see that there necessarily has to be anything that is strictly similar to Abbie's threads.
At present stats look quite healthy to me:
so I see no immediate problem.
As the forums stands at the moment, though, I don't see that there necessarily has to be anything that is strictly similar to Abbie's threads.
At present stats look quite healthy to me:
so I see no immediate problem.
Re: The danger of fragmentation
Lsuoma,
I am unable to respond to your message. The default is no access to sending messages until one has posted a sufficient number of times.
Please get my email address from Franc.
cheers
I am unable to respond to your message. The default is no access to sending messages until one has posted a sufficient number of times.
Please get my email address from Franc.
cheers
Re: The danger of fragmentation
I'm wondering what there is that can't be discussed in public.sacha wrote: I am unable to respond to your message. The default is no access to sending messages until one has posted a sufficient number of times.
There's clearly a strong distaste for back chat around here, and I prefer to have stuff out in the open.