Here everything is packed into one page — Posty McPostface

The old forum had that page as well, and it's really the only one I used ("New Posts" I think it was called). The difference here is that I made that page the home page, that's all. Anyway, see the breakaway discussion for my opinion about the home page.

Interesting. I'd recently taken a break from posting in part as a consequence of what I considered to be the low philosophical content of posts (though also in part because of the low interest I had in what were perfectly adequate posts in terms of quality). I used to write for an in-house journal back in my academic days, and we had exactly the same problem with low submission quality. What I thought was interesting at the time, and is now writ large over the Internet, is the extent to which "low quality submission" simply acts as a proxy for "submission I don't approve of". Its like Tolstoy's happy families, the good ones are all alike, but the bad ones are all bad for different reasons, only here we will not even all agree on the reasons.

@John Doe's comments are a good case in point. I found myself going along with his analysis almost entirely in general, until he provided his example (Steelight). Personally, I find Streetlight's posts to be mostly nothing but either pomo mumbo jumbo, or posts arrogantly dismissing other threads (usually on the grounds that they're not pomo mumbo jumbo). No offence, of course, there's noting intrinsically wrong with that. This, though, is the problem with trying to 'improve' the quality of posts somehow. Unless we have a widely approved definition of 'quality' we have no target to aim for and any attempt will just be personal bias. Personally, for example, I'd shut down any post which uses the word 'narrative' more than is strictly necessary and posts which have more than three words prefixed with 'post-' or (worst of all) 'neo-' would be similarly expunged.

So, for what it's worth, I'm all in favour of removing the Lounge from the main page (I have my main page set that way anyway and never post there), but if there's any further move to try and improve post "quality", I'd like to put in an early request to ensure that 'quality' and 'quoting extensively from that latest fashionable philosopher' are not confused.

This discussion is not intended to be a debate on any particular poster. If it were, and that poster was Street, I'd say he's one of our best. But it's not, so let's try to keep this about general ways to improve the site. All feedback on that welcome. Future personal criticisms of posters will be deleted as will any posts not about site improvements. This is intended as a constructive rather than a contentious discussion.

What happened happened, and unless I win the lotto, I can't buy out the old database and revive the old forum. — Posty McPostface

Really? You'd go back to that inferior quoting system and drafts that aren't saved automatically? Also, in hindsight, those internal comments and the rating system were bloody awful, and we're much better off without them, although they could be removed.

It's odd. Some people just prefer the traditional forum design (I don't mean just PF, but in general on the web), though they never seem to be able to properly explain what they like about it, at least in my experience.

My post was intended to be entirely about ways to improve the site, or rather a warning about not going to far in certain directions. The fact that it contained a (very mild) jibe at the philosophy of a particular poster is wholly in keeping with a huge proportion of the posts on this site and if you're now deeming some of them to be so intolerable as to warrant deletion if repeated, then I think that the personal bias I feared in dictating which posts are acceptable and which are not is already here.

My thought is that there are few differences in moderation and the membership isn't dramatically different. The software is the most striking change, and it might be time to reconsider it. It's just less organized than the former software. This isn't to say the site can't survive and even thrive as is, but the software offers limitations.

Politics does dominate here and I can't recall if that were the case before. As noted, current academic trends are not discussed, but maybe those with such knowledge could start such discussions and move us in that direction. Again, though, different software formatting might even help for that.

I make the software modification suggestion with no understanding of the cost, labor, or complications involved, so I don't want to appear naive in that regard or act like it's a simple and obvious thing to do, but that's what I note as the major difference. This is not to say I don't find some real advantages in this site over the last (which I do), but I'm offering constructive criticism here in order to make the web's best philosophy site better.

I make the software modification suggestion with no understanding of the cost, labor, or complications involved, so I don't want to appear naive in that regard or act like it's a simple and obvious thing to do, but that's what I note as the major difference. — Hanover

Losing all posts and user accounts.

Voting for categories as a default homepage would go some way to making it organized similarly to old PF.

Our current software is more polished and less easily hacked.

I've just thought of a way to improve the site. What if all of the most active discussions appeared on the home page by default? Then it would be more convenient for members to access those discussions which they themselves most actively participate in, providing a benefit to the membership, based on their own activities, instead of an obstacle, imposed by those who want to direct them.

I miss Paul. I hope he's doing well. — Caldwell

He is doing wonderfully Paul. I can pass on a message to him for you or if you want, you can send him a PM here @Paul and I will nudge him to check in on his messages here. :flower:

I've just thought of a way to improve the site. What if all of the most active discussions appeared on the home page by default? Then it would be more convenient for members to access those discussions which they themselves most actively participate in, providing a benefit to the membership, based on their own activities, instead of an obstacle, imposed by those who want to direct them. — Sapientia

I second this suggestion.

I second this suggestion. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It's a good idea, isn't it? I don't know why we didn't think of it before. :smirk:

Please don't improve the site very much. Some of us are getting old and changes are upsetting. Gmail is about to spring a new version on me. I don't know how much more I can take before I soil my Depends.

I second this suggestion — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I second this suggestion. I'm seconding your second, not thirding Sapientia's first that you firstly seconded.

Where did the Donald Trump thread go?

Here.

Discussions from the Lounge no longer show on the front page. You have to click through to the Lounge category to see them.

Then it would be more convenient for members to access those discussions which they themselves most actively participate in, providing a benefit to the membership, based on their own activities, instead of an obstacle, imposed by those who want to direct them. — Sapientia

Oh, I thought we were just voicing our opinions.

Oh, I thought we were just voicing our opinions. — Posty McPostface

Well you're not! You're oppressing my freedom! :razz:

Well you're not! You're oppressing my freedom! :razz: — Sapientia

Freedom away. :blush:

Unless you agree with me, that is.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Indeed. Good point. I actually changed my mind due to the latest posts not being able to be seen under the category format. So, this works with the lounge excluded from the main view of the homepage.

Why can't things just be more convenient like they used to be in the good old days? Now I'm forced to tap on an icon to bring up a menu, tap on the categories option, then scroll down, then tap again on the right category, and then tap once more on the discussion I want to bring up. It's either that or seriously discuss philosophy, and who in their right mind would want to do that?

Life is hard. :groan:

I second this suggestion. I'm seconding your second, not thirding Sapientia's first that you firstly seconded. — Hanover

Yes, but even at a total of three, it appears to not be enough to keep the change from happening that way.

I am also with timw and BC, don't fix what ain't broke.

I expect it will stay as is with the change in place for the foreseeable. I have swapped the category positions of the Lounge and Feedback though, as you suggested above, to make the former a bit more highlighted (and it seems more logical to me anyway). Hope this is some compensation. Overall the change is relatively minor, and I'm sure everyone will get used to it (except @Sapientia who's just a little crybaby).

You need to change the heading too, as it's no longer "All Discussions". I'd suggest "Philosophy Discussions", except we still have other stuff...

Unfortunately, that minor irrationality is baked in as far as I can see. Let's charitably call it a quirk and hope no-one notices.

I've added the following though to the welcome message for new members:

Please note: Lounge category posts are not included on the default front page, but you can navigate there using the sidebar.