|
psnoonan
Oct 31, 2002, 11:24 PM
Post #51 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 26
|
I agree with headcrak. This site can be used for educational purposes and for entertainment. I like it for checking out other people that climb and to pass time. Some of you are too intense about the wrong thing. Use the intensity for climbing, not ranting about the climbing website.
[ This Message was edited by: psnoonan on 2002-10-31 15:27 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jules
Oct 31, 2002, 11:29 PM
Post #52 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 3099
|
It's not "real life"?
Then what the hell is it? My imagination?
|
|
|
|
|
spandexomo
Oct 31, 2002, 11:38 PM
Post #53 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 34
|
unless your gonna use this on ur resumes and prove me wrong, YEH, teh internet is in your HEAD.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Oct 31, 2002, 11:53 PM
Post #54 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Chekit.
Some topics need to be talked about again, with different people.
People don't come here to read about what SOME PEOPLE 2 MONTHS AGO felt about Sharma gettin' baked... they want to hear what the current, active users feel about certain things.
What if everyone just went and looked up old HELMET THREADS and read them instead of posting new ones ?
It wouldn't suck, except for 2 reasons:
1. Technology, prices and availability change over time.
2. People come here not only for good advice, but to INTERACT with OTHER PEOPLE who are visiting the site at the same time they are.
If you direct them to old threads because YOU already tlaked about it before... then how will they ever have the same experience with the site that YOU got ?
How did YOU get YOUR post count ?
In the Community Thread?
If not, you probably aren't into upping your post count with meaningless drivel. But that stuff exists as well, and people should be allowed to interact with other people in that fashion, without somoene else deciding that it isn't WORTH as much. amazingly enough, upping post counts with community forum posts is important to some people, and if you take it away from them... it will cause them to enjoy their rc.com experience LESS, man.
And you don't wanna be THAT GUY.
Let people talk about what they want. Keep the forums distinct, but with purpose. Lets the TARDS have their postcount.
And let what people don't want to talk about just go down the list into oblivion.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 1, 2002, 2:37 AM
Post #56 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
OMFG.
That's your only critique of my post ?
Jeuss fcuking chirst!
I cunt spell 4 sith!°"!°!°°||||11
Concede everything else to me because I am a fast typist and the phpbb1 doesn't have spell check feature enabled!!!
WHY DONT THOSE OF YOU WHO BITCH ABOUT SPELLING CHIP IN AND PAY FOR THE SOFTWARE UPGRADE THAT EXISTS !!!111
Read the message not the words, SOUrpuss!
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Nov 1, 2002, 5:15 AM
Post #57 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
Ok Crackhead...
Quote:People don't come here to read about what SOME PEOPLE 2 MONTHS AGO felt about Sharma gettin' baked...
How do you know? You joined October the 1st, 2002.
[ This Message was edited by: andy_lemon on 2002-10-31 21:18 ]
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Nov 1, 2002, 5:56 AM
Post #58 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
Doosh has been around a lot longer than last month, and has seen a bunch of things change. Not least of which was his own conduct.
I prefer his contributions to those of many other users, but I'm a pretty sick puppy... anyways, the point is that the userdata you can see, isn't always the whole truth.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 1, 2002, 5:19 PM
Post #59 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
How do I know ?!?!?!
I *think* I know a bit about why people log onto the internet. I have qualifications which give me insight.
BUt, rather than stoop to letting you rub my sheepskin, I'd prefer to deal with your question as it is posted...
Since I just joined in 1 October, 2002 (wink wink)... there is NO WAY I am going to search the archives to see what people before I got here felt about Sharma's drug use. I would prefer to ask the current set of users posting what THEY think about it.
And if old users who have seen the topic before don't want to respond, well THEN THEY SHOULDN'T OPEN THE THREAD.
And they especially shouldn't open the thread to point a new user at an old thread and lock the damn thing. Why does the new user come here to post ? FOR ARCHIVED READING PURPOSES?? ? Hell no.
Interaction.
Between people, sharing communication.
The action of moderators pointing to old threads and locking the topic just pisses people off and drives away new users.
DUh.
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Nov 1, 2002, 6:38 PM
Post #60 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
Quote:there is NO WAY I am going to search the archives to see what people before I got here felt about Sharma's drug use. I would prefer to ask the current set of users posting what THEY think about it.
Ok, so Sharma's drug use can be a ongoing project, reaping various changes. But what about Top Rope setups. There is only so many topics that need to be posted about how to rig a top rope setup. A little moderation is in need here... or what about directions to J-tree like 100 times??? We only need this once.
Quote:And if old users who have seen the topic before don't want to respond, well THEN THEY SHOULDN'T OPEN THE THREAD.
This conflicts with your next quote...
Quote:The action of moderators pointing to old threads and locking the topic just pisses people off and drives away new users.
...Then they shouldn't post it.
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Nov 1, 2002, 6:44 PM
Post #61 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
Quote:I *think* I know a bit about why people log onto the internet. I have qualifications which give me insight.
Then fill out your profile and let us know a little about yourself. No need to hold back on any qualifications.
|
|
|
|
|
mshore
Nov 1, 2002, 7:00 PM
Post #62 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2002
Posts: 114
|
Just one question for everyone.........
Who the frig cares how many posts each user has? Do you feel important because you have 819 posts on this site. Stop the bitching - who cares - go climb something.
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Nov 1, 2002, 8:12 PM
Post #63 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
Most of the advice in the genre of "get over it" seems to come from the newer users, the younger users, and the people who are relatively new to climbing overall. Obviously, these folks don't have the experience with RC.com to be able to appreciate this topic.
It's pretty incredible to me to hear someone say, seemingly with pride, that they don't care what someone has said before they got interested in the topic. It's not a surprising sentiment, but it's surprising that the person has the "guts" to so publicly admit to his own solopsism.
There are a number of reasons to Search the Forums before starting a new thread. One is similar to the good sense that is shown by someone who reads all the posts in a given thread before posting a reply. To not do so is like coming into the middle of a conversation, and assuming that you know all there is to say, that what you have to say is uniquely important, is an original thought unique to you, and everyone else's thoughts are subordinate to yours. And, it also assumes that what other people have already said will not spur your own thoughts, and is not worth considering.
When an "old" thread is posted to, it brings the whole thread back to the front of that Forum directory (and to the front page). It's like a "real life" (yes, Virginia, the internet is real) example of how history is always being written; it's a continuum. Instead, you seem to want to assert that you (or people who act like this) are somehow removed, above, special and apart from the whole contiuous spectrum of climbing, and the thoughts and discussions of issues thereof.
That could be arrogance. It could be laziness. It could be naivete. It could be stupidity.
There is no less quality to the interactive experience of a user of RC.com from reading through the Forums and threads that pre-exist their posting. In fact, reading the posts that other people have submitted would significantly enhance the experience. The suggestion that people don't want to have to read what other people have already had to say, is like saying it's okay to come into a crowded room and just start shouting for attention, irrespective of the conversations that are already under way.
Another important aspect of this discussion is the concern for what RC.com is, or wants to be. It is not, and the owners don't want it to become, a wide open free-for-all set of Forums. There are other places for that on the web. As the number of visitors grows, there also grows the risk of losing the identity of the site to its visitors. There are stated purposes for the Moderators and the Administrators, and I believe that the majority of us want them in place to keep RC.com a superior climbing website. Greater and greater numbers of visitors could cause an overload of junk on the site and in the forums; as the number of visitors increases, the number of posts can grow exponentially, overwhelming the Moderators who try to keep the site organized, cohesive, and of high quality. That's partly why some of us are trying to raise a bit of an alarm to what we, many of whom have been at RC.com for awhile, see as a growing problem that threatens the quality of the site.
I suspect that if anyone is truly offended by this kind of discussion, they would probably also be offended by my objection to their shitting on my lawn, playing their radio at a concert, and talking on their cell phone in church. If their offended: good.
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2002-11-01 12:17 ]
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 1, 2002, 8:35 PM
Post #64 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
This topic is all well and good, and it's terrific for all you "old hat users" with "enough rc.com experience to appreciate this thread" to sit here and outline the way things SHOULD be done by new users of the site...
But you overlook one important fact.
IT WILL NOT CHANGE THE WAY THAT USERS BEHAVE.
Sure, they SHOULD "continue the continuum of history" (although the arguement can be made that conversations ON THE SAME SUBJECT are stopped and restarted with different people multiple times a day) and search and READ the ARCHIVES and shit.
BUT THEY WON'T.
So, you can either approach the issue from a "I have enough rc.com experience to know that this place shouldn't be a free for all, so you guys better do what I say" stance, or you could approach the issue from a "well, people are going to behave THIS WAY, regardless of how I personally feel they should behave" point of view.
The first point of view is wonderful and all, but YOU CANNOT MAKE PEOPLE DO IT.
And by locking threads, taking away community forum post counts, pointing people who want dynamic interaction to static archived topics... you will diminish their experience.
Sure, it might be the 1000th time you have had to see a "How do I get to Jtree" thread floating around... but you never know when that new thread will offer up some new information or allow a new user to offer up their experience... and not on page 9 of a thread from last year.
I have, since August 2000, posted at least 8500 posts to various messageboards across the web. I have seen HUNDREDS of topics about going to bishop. However, next time I go to Bishop, I will prolly start a new thread on it, if not for the directions (which I know I can find, but its nice to have someone give them right there...) then for the simple fact of knowing WHO ELSE from internetland is going to be out there.
Interaction.
Reading 9 pages of Old Thread is not interacting with people on the site.
Not one of you olde tymers has addressed this issue of interaction, and why interacting with new people on a regular basis is bad.
If you did, and your arguement was good... I might leave and just go read the archives.
Perhaps they will have some insight as to when Y'ALL were N00bs and not stuck up tightasses about how new people SHOULD post.
|
|
|
|
|
thrillseeker05
Nov 1, 2002, 8:45 PM
Post #65 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 612
|
This thread is completely pointless and khanom should be banned for trying to up his kiddie post count.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 1, 2002, 8:56 PM
Post #66 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Quote:There is no less quality to the interactive experience of a user of RC.com from reading through the Forums and threads that pre-exist their posting.
How is reading the same as interacting ?
When I want to interact with people, I don't go read a magazine.
I start a conversation.
Even when you walk into a room filled with people conversing, you generally don't make people repeat the entire conversation they have been having just so you know what you are talking about when it's your turn... you generally just jump right in and learn backstory as you go along.
Even a "so what were you guys talking about?" won't get you the entire conversation repeated at you... and if it did, you'd prolly just ask for the gist of it.
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Nov 1, 2002, 9:26 PM
Post #67 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
This thread is addressed to the Moderators, generally urging them to keep the Forums better organized. Some of the suggestions for user behavior are idealized, in part because if we don't know what the ideal objective is, then we can't plan a course of action to move towards it.
And, there are things that can be done to influence, restrict, moderate -however you want to put it- the behavior of visitors to RC.com. If there are user behaviors that are restricted or moderated to such an extent that such users find it too incovenient to keep coming back, then those behaviors have effectively been changed or stopped.
If RC.com adopted your '"well, people are going to behave THIS WAY, regardless of how I personally feel they should behave" point of view' then the site would indeed become an anarchic free-for-all. Are you suggesting that Trevor and the Admins, and users with my opinion have no choice? That this is the inevitable way RC.com will go?
Other than in the specific Archive Forum, previous threads on a topic within a Forum are not inactive. People who go to a thread with many pages can easily go to the last page, if it's so vital to get a dose of how you define "interaction". You seem to assume that the sole purpose of RC.com is to have this "interaciton", and that elements such as the Route Database, Articles, Photos, etc. are not worth the visit. And, no one said that interacting with new people on a regular basis is a bad thing. I am asserting that RC.com is much more than just that, and that moderated and organized interaction, other than in the Community Forum, generates a far higher quality experience.
You're right, when I encounter an ongoing conversation, I don't demand a recap; I also don't enter a room demanding attention from all the people there ahead of me. I don't assume that I have the funniest joke, the wisest insight, the most interesting or unique experience to share. I get to know something of who is in the room, and wander around first to hear some of the different conversations going, before I take it upon myself to assume that I am welcome to join in, or have anything of value to contribute. It's pretty arrogant to assume that in a party of strangers -and that's what a website forum is- you are going to be warmly welcomed to burp, scratch, fart, pick your nose, and repeatedly ask, "Where's the bathroom?" It's also extremely rude to come to BYOB party with nothing to contribute.
I don't agree with your characterization of "interactivity", and I certainly don't agree that RC.com cannot hope to moderate the use of its site to keep it a high quality place to visit.
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2002-11-01 13:30 ]
|
|
|
|
|
bsperes
Nov 1, 2002, 9:46 PM
Post #68 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2000
Posts: 292
|
Hey Andy and jds, whom I will call newbies (that's right check my join date bucko). I am not a newb, not new to climbing and I agree with headcrak.
Yes people need to stop opening double topics or starting them again cause no one responded. But if someone wants to ask about Anasazi velcros they should not have to read through every shoe post first. This is an internet forum, not a research database. I know a lot about climbing shoes and have post the same things in countless topics to try and help out my fellow climbers.
If you want less duplicative postings, which I have argued is a bad idea, then the site needs to be redesigned to have a list of posts in certain categories, i.e. belay devices, shoes, ratings. The search function is only so useful.
Some of you "older, more experienced" boardmembers might wonder why I have been around for so long with so few posts. 'cause I post where it is fun and interactive, i.e. not here. This should be both a place to get info on climbing and to interact with other climbers. Don't underestimate the importance of the community forum.
If any of you want to interact with climbers, but rarely discuss climbing head over to boldering.com. We won't make too much fun of you...well at first we might.
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Nov 2, 2002, 12:13 AM
Post #69 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
Gee, bsperes, thanks for underscoring a few of my points. No one said that a "member since date" was an indication of greater "rights", or whatever you're trying to get at. I'm unclear on your point about your tenure since registering at RC.com. My observation was that most of the comments to the effect of "get over it" were (are) from people with relatively less time at RC.com, and less time climbing, and therefore have less of a perspective on this particular topic. Congratulations if you happen to not be one of the people to whom I refer, for whatever that's worth. If you don't care to contribute here, don't. If b.com is more what you like, have at it over there.
The Forum Search functions quite well, actually. Someone wanting info on Anasazi velcros could find the info they're looking for, from opinions, where to buy 'em, how the fit, etc., just by typing in "Anasazi velcro" into Search, and glancing through the threads that result. If someone wants information, isn't a database of forum threads on the very subject they're inquiring about a good idea? Searching the Forums as a whole will likely generate a good number of threads to check for the info, and if they narrow the Search to just one Forum, then the results are narrower, which may be exactly what they want. So, what's wrong with Search?
If, however, someone is just looking to socialize, then the Community Forum is there, the Chat Room is there (though, apparently, there are problems with it that I don't know about, because I don't go there). AND, there are plenty of existing threads to participate in.
No one is saying don't post new topics; I am speaking for myself when I strongly urge that people Search the Forums first. Saying that this is an "internet forum" does not mean that it cannot have structure that makes it more effective, efficient, informative, and entertaining (depending on your definition of entertaining). If you don't like the style, layout, guidelines, tone, or whatever, of a structured website forum, then, sure it makes sense that you wouldn't spend much time here. I hope you enjoy your time wherever you do spend your time, but I enjoy RC.com for what has been its much greater efficiency at finding what I'm looking for quickly, and locating a discussion to participate in quickly. The alternative, as clearly displayed at other websites, is to troll the miscellany, trying to decipher goofy titles, checking some to see what they actually mean, and maybe -just maybe- finding an interesting topic. Then, you post. Then, you wait. And, wait. Sometimes you wait for your post to appear; sometimes you wait for someone else to respond. It's usually a fairly long wait.
At RC.com, people can generally navigate in and out of different Forums and threads, and reply far more quickly than at other websites. And, the rest of the site has, again, a far superior bunch of features, that are easier to navigate.
But, I suppose you mean more-or-less real-time interaction with other climbers. That's very do-able here. So, what's the problem with the guidelines for "interaction" that have gotten RC.com to the level of participation and reputation that it enjoys? How have the guidelines hindered its success so far? You and others may argue about RC.com's reputation, but the high number of visits are a good indicator, as is the level of participation as observed by the all the responses made in the forums on any given day.
Quote:"If any of you want to interact with climbers, but rarely discuss climbing, head over to boldering.com." If that's what you want from your climbing website experience, I think you're probably right that you can get that better from a website other than RC.com. You can still get some of that here, in the Community Forum. No one is "underestimating the importance of the Community Forum"; but the stuff that goes into the Community Forum shouldn't be found in the other topical Forums.
Let's see: RockClimbing.com is mainly about climbing, so if you want to "interact" with climbers about climbing, then this is the place.
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2002-11-01 16:25 ]
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 2, 2002, 12:33 AM
Post #70 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Okok...
I at least understand what you are talkin about.
You are making my arguements worse than they seem. I am not saying that rc.com should kotow to every behavior of every user and write it all off as "we can do nothing about htis..."
I think that they SHOULD allow for more interaction, because as bperes said, this is a FORUM, not an information databse.
This doesn't mean that they should allow people to walk in and mess stuff up (hack, superflaming, etc...) without taking notice and taking an appropriate step to counteract teh disruptive person. I am not calling for a TOTAL LACK OF MODERATION.
I just think that locking topics and pointing people to archives does not make this a friendly forum to visit.
To do this with as FEW words as possible:
Say YOU want to know what the best helmet is and you are about to walk into a room of people. Would you prefer to ask them and have them welcome you and your gumby question, or would you rather they point you to a copy of Mountaineering, Freedom of the Hills and a chair in the corner ?
Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
climberchic
Nov 2, 2002, 1:03 AM
Post #71 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2000
Posts: 2077
|
I haven't read through all of the posts on this thread, so if this has been stated previously, please excuse my interruption.
I think a lot of the reason behind deleting old threads, keeping post counts down and locking redundant threads have to do with server memory. This server has crashed many times due to depleted bandwidth due to users online and the sheer memory it takes to run this site. Upgraded servers costs $$ and donations from users are hard to get. A way to increase the memory is to keep redundant threads from happening (i.e. not "How do I get to Bishop?", but maybe "Who is going to Bishop this weekend?") and delete some of the useless stuff. I know that "useless by whose standards?" would be an issue, but maybe a consensus could be reached.
Please correct me if I am wrong since I really know very little about running a website and maybe forums take up too little space to even bother with cleaning house. But if they do take up some space, that may be the issue. Otherwise, why would anybody delete anything old or direct others to new threads and then lock them? Why would anybody want to take up their free to do such a task?
~Erica
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Nov 2, 2002, 1:16 AM
Post #72 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
To be honest, I would probably prefer to have 'em give me the book so I could do a little learning on my own, but that's really just my personality, and doesn't have to be analogous to this situation.
I think it's actually helpful to be pointed to threads that discuss the topic that a "new" post is asking about. With very rare exception, the few locked threads I've seen have included good and friendly explanations and directions. That's what makes the unfriendly, heavy-handed lock-outs seem that much worse, by contrast to the intended use of that tool.
With the ever-growing number of visitors to RC.com, and the accompanying posts to the Forums, if the site isn't managed fairly, closely, and consistently, it will become too unwieldly to be of any value.
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2002-11-01 17:16 ]
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Nov 2, 2002, 6:05 AM
Post #73 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
For the guy calling people "bucko". WTF does your "joined on date" have to do with anything? John Gill joined on May 18, 2002, tell him he is a newbie...
[ This Message was edited by: andy_lemon on 2002-11-01 22:09 ]
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 2, 2002, 7:22 PM
Post #74 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
How will the site become too unwieldy to be of any value ?
The topics which are locked and have links going to them ARE ALREADY STORED IN THE DATABASE.
This means that, if I search the archives for "Helmets," I'll get a certain % of legit topics and a certain % of topics pointing me to other topics.
Since those topics are already in the database, why not just let them all become discussion topics IF PEOPLE WANT TO DISCUSS THAT TOPIC AT THAT TIME ?
What does it hurt ?
Certainly, database SIZE is not so important, what with all the atopics being discussed already and the size of small bits of txt written to mySQL or whatever database backend they are using. (In other words, the posts aren't going to break the database size and the topics all already are written to the database)...
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Nov 2, 2002, 7:48 PM
Post #75 of 145
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
I don't mean "unwieldy" in the sense of servers and technical reason. I mean that the Index pages for the Forums could easily become crowded with "new" topic threads that have been (or are being) covered in other threads that are not locked in the Archive Forum, but are either active in the appropriate Forum, or dormant (not locked) in the appropriate Forum, that will be moved to the front again by virtue of the new post to it.
As people kind of age with RC.com, as they come back time and time again, they're looking for something new, relative to their own experience on the site. If the Forum Index pages are consistently overloaded by new threads on topics that are already opened elsewhere, then the site will become mostly a place for people new to RC.com. Frequent and long-time users will find (are finding) it too inconvenient and inefficient to troll through the Forum Index pages, looking for something that has substance to someone who is not so new the site.
"Unwieldy" in the sense of an imbalance of weight on the side of relatively newer visitors, instead of supporting a broader range of new and experienced users.
(Do you mean "the topics that are locked and have links going from them..."? I know that the threads that have links directed to them are in the database; they should still be active -unlocked. And, yeah, the threads that are locked, and have re-direct links posted in the final post are also stored. But, yeah, I don't know that storage size is an issue; that's not my arguement.)
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2002-11-02 11:53 ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
