Quality Content

Jake

This is a continuation of a side trail in another thread which has since been closed.

It's just logistically impossible to subject each thread to vote by the moderators to determine priority, not to mention such voting would be subjective and fraught with political and topic bias by the moderators. — Hanover

It's impossible so long as every mod on every forum on the Internet focuses their intelligence on rebuking all constructive suggestions and declaring every idea that is not their idea to be impossible. In that situation, the current real world, yes, agreed, impossible.

The current system of moderator editing of weak posts and sinking low quality threads off the front page into Siberia or moving them to the lounge seems to work. — Hanover

This of course depends on one's definition of "works". Instead of debating that, here's another angle to consider.

As it stands currently, our mods have the job of janitor, taking out the trash (banning low quality posters). This is an essential function so it merits our respect, and those providing this essential function for free merit our respect too, but...

It might be a great deal more interesting for the mods to invent a higher level job for themselves. What's been accomplished so far is that this forum is marginally better than most other philosophy forums. Ok, we can celebrate that, agreed. But there's no law of nature which requires the accomplishments from ending there.

Most of the writers we might most like to read will never participate here in the forum's current form, because if they were to start a thread it would immediately be swamped with tons of marginal content. So the better writer gets bored, and wanders off, never to be seen again.

I'm not proposing there is some perfect solution to this, only that working on that challenge would seem to be more interesting than merely taking out the trash.

Posters will always have to sort the wheat from the chaff themselves to some degree, but such is inherent in a public forum. — Hanover

Agreed, and let's hear a round of applause for the new ignore feature. Very useful!

That said, there is no law which requires every section of this forum to be public. There could also be an "invitation only" section at the top which focuses on higher quality content. If the mods made their invitations carefully such a section would likely require little work, at least much less than the other sections.

All that said, this forum belongs to the owner and his chosen mods, and if it is their wish that this forum be pretty much like every other forum on the Internet (almost anybody can say almost anything) then ok, I respect their right to manage their private property in whatever manner works for them.

unenlightened

There are forums that are closed. Members only places that do not allow the riff riff to join, but I am part of the riff riff, so unfortunately I cannot induct you into their ranks.

There might even be a hidden forum here that no one sees until they are invited into it. Oh, but there cannot be, because you would already know about it.

Baden

There might even be a hidden forum here that no one sees until they are invited into it. — unenlightened

:zip:

:roll:

Hanover

It's impossible so long as every mod on every forum on the Internet focuses their intelligence on rebuking all constructive suggestions and declaring every idea that is not their idea to be impossible. In that situation, the current real world, yes, agreed, impossible. — Jake

As I said, we're all open to feedback. I provided reasons why I didn't agree with your suggestion. You didn't respond, but instead posted the above passive aggressive comment, summarily concluding the world is filled with mindless naysayers who refuse to take seriously your suggestions.

I'm not proposing there is some perfect solution to this, only that working on that challenge would seem to be more interesting than merely taking out the trash. — Jake

Is that what you're suggesting I'm doing right now?

As I said, we're all open to feedback. I provided reasons why I didn't agree with your suggestion. You didn't respond, but instead posted the above passive aggressive comment, summarily concluding the world is filled with mindless naysayers who refuse to take seriously your suggestions. — Hanover

Sarcastic passive-aggression is a quality of elites, and since I'm without a doubt the most sarcastic passive-aggresive son of bitch around here, I must be the most elite of the elites. As leader of the elites, I demand that you implement an exclusive forum for us, posthaste, or else I will continue to instruct my sub-elites to create more passive-aggressive feedback discussions like this.

Jake

As I said, we're all open to feedback — Hanover

He said, while immediately discarding the latest constructive suggestion to enhance the quality of the forum, and making no effort to improve it in to something that he could accept.

See? The entire focus of your response to the suggestion has very predictably been reject, reject, reject, nothing but rejection, just like I said it would be.

No worries Hanover. It's like this on every forum on the net. All input is wrong, unless it was the mod's idea. I'm ok with that.

I just thought you good fellows might be getting bored with being janitors. If not, then ok, case closed.

fdrake

↪Jake

If you want 'elite' content, make it, and ignore anyone who doesn't live up to your standards.

Jake

More of the same old tough mod guy automated rejection.

If I'm going to make my own "elite" content I don't need this site, I can do that on a blog. I'm on a forum because I'm hoping to find conversation with those capable of producing elite content. There's some here already. More would be better.

The current publishing model used by almost all forums is a serious obstacle to that. I'm just pointing out that there is nothing about forum software which requires the exclusive use of the "anybody can say anything" model. Philosophy forums could be something more interesting than a slightly improved version of Facebook.

Or not. I'm just trying to expand your vision in a useful direction. If you don't wish to have your vision expanded just erase the thread and we're done. I'm ok with that, no problem.

Jake

I just, well, um, duh, discovered the follow feature. Useful! I felt an obligation to say so, so I did.

Baden

Well, I suppose this complaint is at least an improvement on telling us the only topic worth talking about is nuclear war.

Streetlight

↪Baden

Which is not to say the only topic worth talking about isn't nuclear war.

Baden

↪StreetlightX

Maybe a hidden bunker nuclear war forum?

Shamshir

↪StreetlightX

I'll have you know stick war is a way better topic.

Jake

Well, I suppose this complaint is at least an improvement on telling us the only topic worth talking about is nuclear war. — Baden

And now I will be the one doing the rejection. :smile:

Anyway, moving along...

I know some of the highly inexpert word choices I make can make this feel like a complaint. I plead guilty to often falling short of my own "elite" content goals, and often deserve the attitude I receive as a reply to the attitude I give.

But this is not really a complaint. If you're happy with the forum as it is, ok, we're done.

But if you're not happy, if you're getting bored with being a janitor, there are things that can be done about that.

Baden

↪Jake

Please refrain from insulting janitors by comparing them to us. Those people actually get paid. We are somewhere between drudges and the Borg.

Valentinus

↪S

As leader of the elites, I demand that you implement an exclusive forum for us, posthaste, or else I will continue to instruct my sub-elites to create more passive-aggressive feedback discussions like this. — S

It is a buzz kill but you have to accept that you just weren't invited.
I left when it turned out that there were no virgins being offered.

The brochure promised virgins.

Jake

Ok, so just as an example, threads in an edited section might not dissolve in to random cleverness Facebook style quips. Some people might prefer the de-quiped service to the one currently being offered. Some of those people might be inspired to share interesting content as a result. And those who preferred to quip etc could still do so in the now somewhat demoted sections of the forum.

Or, as yet another option, we could convert this thread in to an endless series of hysterical anti-nuclear rants, with insanely clever quips included at no extra charge!!!

Personally though, I would rather discuss Mickey Mouse.

Jake

OMG, OMG, OMG, OMG!!!! Nuclear weapons are really bad!!! Here, look, I'll prove it!

Really, really, really bad!!

But, wait, somehow strangely beautiful....

Hanover

He said, while immediately discarding the latest constructive suggestion to enhance the quality of the forum, and making no effort to improve it in to something that he could accept. — Jake

No, it wasn't constructive criticism. It was an uncritically evaluated suggestion that was then critically evaluated and rebuked. Your response was not responsive to the criticism, but was just a general lament that no one wants to listen to your ideas. This thread is the precise sort that you're asking be relegated to the lower tier of this board.

What you suggested was a hierarchy of posts as determined by the moderators. I pointed out (1) the logistical impossibility of holding moderator sessions where we vote on the hundreds of new threads weekly, (2) the subjectivity inherent in evaluating thread quality, (3) and the ideological biases of the moderators that could lead to claims of post suppression. I also pointed out there existed a current solution, namely that moderators can remove low quality content and they can sink discussions off the main board to deprioritize them (as currently exists with all lounge discussions).

The disease of low quality posts that you believe invades this board is preferable to the cure your prescribe. That I've disagreed with you doesn't mean that I've stubbornly refused to listen. It means I really believe you've arrived at a particularly bad idea.

Ok, so just as an example, threads in an edited section might not dissolve in to random cleverness Facebook style quips. Some people might prefer the de-quiped service to the one currently being offered. Some of those people might be inspired to share interesting content as a result. And those who preferred to quip etc could still do so in the now somewhat demoted sections of the forum.

Or, as yet another option, we could convert this thread in to an endless series of hysterical anti-nuclear rants, with insanely clever quips included at no extra charge!!!

Personally though, I would rather discuss Mickey Mouse. — Jake

How about goggles equipped with Boring Vision™? That way, when you browse the forum, you won't see any of those quips you so despise, yet oddly partake in.

They're usually £49.99, but for you, only £174.99!*

*Terms and conditions apply.

↪Hanover

It's a catch 22: you either accept his proposal or you're not giving it a chance.

0 thru 9

If I remember correctly, the whole idea of upvoting and/or downvoting was either nixed or physically not possible with the current forum software. For instance, Reddit subs have multiple interesting and perhaps useful post sorting functions, like sorting by time, popularity, or controversial-ness. Some may like it, some not. But the Philosophy Reddits imho are of mixed quality, with some odd rules like not posting questions. The cream rises to the top, like pond scum.

I just, well, um, duh, discovered the follow feature. Useful! I felt an obligation to say so, so I did. — Jake

Which reminds me of an inspirational saying... Don’t lead, for I may not follow. Don’t follow, for I may not lead. Just walk beside me, and try not to fart too much...

Please refrain from insulting janitors by comparing them to us. Those people actually get paid. We are somewhere between drudges and the Borg. — Baden

:lol:

will continue to instruct my sub-elites — S

Is that like minions? Minions seem to have a sense of purpose and job security.

SophistiCat

I am totally in favor of adding a hidden elite forum where only Jake can post, and henceforth restricting him to posting in that forum.

Shawn

There's another philosophy forum that reviews every post made by some moderator. This site inherently gets a lot more traffic, and unless a revolution is fermenting I don't see the same peer-reviewed standards applying here as opposed to this place:

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums

praxis

Jake doesn’t want exclusion, he wants protection, from critical thinking.

Jake

No, it wasn't constructive criticism. It was an uncritically evaluated suggestion that was then critically evaluated and rebuked. Your response was not responsive to the criticism, but was just a general lament that no one wants to listen to your ideas. This thread is the precise sort that you're asking be relegated to the lower tier of this board. — Hanover

I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, WRONG!

What you suggested was a hierarchy of posts as determined by the moderators. — Hanover

What I'm suggesting are conversations which might consider a variety of such options. Or not. Again, if mods aren't interested in any of this, ok, no problem, so delete the thread and we can all just forget it. I'm agreeable if that's the case.

I pointed out (1) the logistical impossibility of holding moderator sessions where we vote on the hundreds of new threads weekly — Hanover

Right, you focused on the wrong, wrong, wrong, impossible, impossible, impossible, while making no attempt to edit the idea to better suit your taste, or replace it with a better idea.

(2) the subjectivity inherent in evaluating thread quality, — Hanover

Yes, that's what editing is, subjective judgment. There is no scientifically approved math equation which can settle the question. Pick up any newspaper, any magazine. Somebody has decided what should appear there. If you generally like their decisions, you subscribe. If you generally don't like their decisions, you put it down and walk away. This has been going on for hundreds of years, it's not some crazy new concept.

(3) and the ideological biases of the moderators that could lead to claims of post suppression. — Hanover

Let the competing claimants claim away, while you build a higher quality section where the writers address more interesting subjects.

The disease of low quality posts that you believe invades this board is preferable to the cure your prescribe. That I've disagreed with you doesn't mean that I've stubbornly refused to listen. It means I really believe you've arrived at a particularly bad idea. — Hanover

Every single thing you've typed has focused on rejection, and you've offered no new ideas which might improve the forum. Again, this is not personal, every mod on every forum does essentially the same thing. Mods only like one kind of idea, THEIR idea. You're just the latest in 10,000 mods to express that mode of thinking.

Which is fine, totally ok. Again, if you're happy with what you've got, then there is no problem which requires a solution.

Jake

I am totally in favor of adding a hidden elite forum where only Jake can post, and henceforth restricting him to posting in that forum. — SophistiCat

Says the person who just yesterday offered us a way to do one version of what I'm describing, editing. It was a great contribution (thanks!), which I've already applauded a number of times. And now you're arguing against your own contribution.

Shawn

Why the hostility, @Jake?

Are you not satisfiable with what we've got already?

Jake

I'm not mad at anybody Wallows. And I've already said a number of times that I'm agreeable that the subject should be dropped and we return to the sleepy mediocrity of the status quo.

I'm attempting to raise the vision of what the forum might be. You know, perhaps it might someday be a place where professional philosophers participate. This forum could be unique, and not just yet another version of what already exists elsewhere. What I'm attempting to shine a light on are all the intelligent interesting people who might land here in a web search, open a thread full of twaddle, and say to themselves, "Oh, I see, just another forum" and then vanish without a trace.

There's nothing about forum software which prevents a forum from both serving those people, and a more general audience too. There just has to be a desire to serve both groups, to elevate a forum above the usual vision of what a forum can be, to not be another forum more or less just like all the others. Once such a desire exists, then a way will be found to serve that desire. Without such a desire, then the focus will be problems, problems, problems, problems, etc.

Jake

Steve Jobs is a role model of sorts. The key to his success at making Apple the richest company in the world was that he was never happy with anything for long. He embraced a permanent state of chronic dissatisfaction.

This isn't a rule everyone has to follow, it's just an option that can be interesting to consider. Or not.

Quality Content

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions