Kill the catch all thread

[Iwritecode]

Very true. I am scared to death to start a new thread ever. And believe me, I'd be starting a ton of threads if this board was new-thread-friendly.

 

I don't think it's the thread-starting. I think it's the fact that you have opinions that 99% of the people here don't understand or agree with.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Iwritecode

[southsider2k5]

I'm guessing that this thread getting a minimal amount of responses is probably a pretty good answer as to the status of the catch all's.

[lasttriptotulsa]

I very rarely read the "catch all" thread. Most of the time I forget it's even there.

[Iwritecode]

The catch-alls are usually the first thread I read in each sub-forum. In fact, I probably keep up with them more than the individual threads.

[YASNY]

Gee thanks. I like you, too.

 

I was just thinking about the Ozzie threads we'd see.

[YASNY]

The catch-alls are usually the first thread I read in each sub-forum. In fact, I probably keep up with them more than the individual threads.

 

This ^

[Buehrle>Wood]

The catch-alls are usually the first thread I read in each sub-forum. In fact, I probably keep up with them more than the individual threads.

Exactly. This ends up killing the real discussion on this board and it's why it should be banned.

[southsider2k5]

Exactly. This ends up killing the real discussion on this board and it's why it should be banned.

 

7 of the 16 unpinned threads have 50 or more responses in them. I think the catch-all prevents 1 to 2 post threads, which push decent discussions off of the front page.

 

I really do think there are something that are worth knowing, that don't need their own thread. For example, a guy moving from A to AA doesn't need its own thread on the minor league board. Something talking about the percentage of sliders Chris Sale through the other night doesn't need its own thread, but it is worth mentioning.

[knightni]

This thread is becoming a catch-all comment thread itself.

[greg775]

I don't think it's the thread-starting. I think it's the fact that you have opinions that 99% of the people here don't understand or agree with.

 

So that means 1 percent like me! They like me!

[BobDylan]

7 of the 16 unpinned threads have 50 or more responses in them. I think the catch-all prevents 1 to 2 post threads, which push decent discussions off of the front page.

 

I really do think there are something that are worth knowing, that don't need their own thread. For example, a guy moving from A to AA doesn't need its own thread on the minor league board. Something talking about the percentage of sliders Chris Sale through the other night doesn't need its own thread, but it is worth mentioning.

 

This would be a great point if not for the fact that a message board is already designed to promote the high discussion topics by pushing them to the top of the forum. The catch-all thread killed PHT. Let your userbase decide what they want to talk about and let the message board work how its supposed to work.

[Balta1701]

This would be a great point if not for the fact that a message board is already designed to promote the high discussion topics by pushing them to the top of the forum. The catch-all thread killed PHT. Let your userbase decide what they want to talk about and let the message board work how its supposed to work.

PHT is dead?

[BobDylan]

PHT is dead?

 

Why did you ignore what I was really saying and jump to defense against a statement that really meant nothing? Seems the status-quo hasn't changed around here. It's been dead for a few years now and it's in the same boring state it was when I left two years ago. But like I was saying, message boards are meant to have new threads. New threads keep s*** interesting, and even though it may look "messy," it encourages participation and discussion. You notice the growth of this place has been stagnant for years? Before you answer that question, it was rhetorical. The userbase very well could be growing. But the discussion isn't. By just looking around I can tell this place is in a never ending loop, forever caught in a self-created meme and circle-jerk.

 

Go Bears.

[Quin]

Why did you ignore what I was really saying and jump to defense against a statement that really meant nothing? Seems the status-quo hasn't changed around here. It's been dead for a few years now and it's in the same boring state it was when I left two years ago. But like I was saying, message boards are meant to have new threads. New threads keep s*** interesting, and even though it may look "messy," it encourages participation and discussion. You notice the growth of this place has been stagnant for years? Before you answer that question, it was rhetorical. The userbase very well could be growing. But the discussion isn't. By just looking around I can tell this place is in a never ending loop, forever caught in a self-created meme and circle-jerk.

 

Go Bears.

 

PHT is dead?

 

And you sir, need a cup of tea or something.

[southsider2k5]

Why did you ignore what I was really saying and jump to defense against a statement that really meant nothing? Seems the status-quo hasn't changed around here. It's been dead for a few years now and it's in the same boring state it was when I left two years ago. But like I was saying, message boards are meant to have new threads. New threads keep s*** interesting, and even though it may look "messy," it encourages participation and discussion. You notice the growth of this place has been stagnant for years? Before you answer that question, it was rhetorical. The userbase very well could be growing. But the discussion isn't. By just looking around I can tell this place is in a never ending loop, forever caught in a self-created meme and circle-jerk.

 

Go Bears.

 

Way to ignore the last 10 years where technology has shifted from the message board style format to one centered around twitter and facebook, and blame it on not having one post topics on the front page.

[Kyyle23]

This would be a great point if not for the fact that a message board is already designed to promote the high discussion topics by pushing them to the top of the forum. The catch-all thread killed PHT. Let your userbase decide what they want to talk about and let the message board work how its supposed to work.

 

g**damn i missed that gif. Whats up Bob

[Iwritecode]

Why did you ignore what I was really saying and jump to defense against a statement that really meant nothing? Seems the status-quo hasn't changed around here. It's been dead for a few years now and it's in the same boring state it was when I left two years ago. But like I was saying, message boards are meant to have new threads. New threads keep s*** interesting, and even though it may look "messy," it encourages participation and discussion. You notice the growth of this place has been stagnant for years? Before you answer that question, it was rhetorical. The userbase very well could be growing. But the discussion isn't. By just looking around I can tell this place is in a never ending loop, forever caught in a self-created meme and circle-jerk.

 

Go Bears.

 

Anytime something big comes up (like the AJ on peds rumor) a new thread is created and it gets discussed. It's just that those big events don't happen all that often. There's only so much to talk about during the season. Most people have a pretty good idea of what deserves it's own thread and what can be thrown in the catch-all.

 

I think the catch-all actually promotes better discussion about the minor things that happen day-to-day with the Sox. The subject gets discussed and the conversations ebbs and flows as needed. Commenting on a guys batting average or who you think should start a certain game doesn't necessarily deserve an entire thread.

 

With the major threads, there are usually only so many things that can be said. Typically everyone decides which side they are on, it gets discuss for a few pages, then somebody new comes in and repeats a thought that has been expressed 100 times already in the same thread. Then it all starts over again. Either that or the thread goes off-topic and a completely different discussion breaks out.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Iwritecode

[southsider2k5]

Anytime something big comes up (like the AJ on peds rumor) a new thread is created and it gets discussed. It's just that those big events don't happen all that often. There's only so much to talk about during the season. Most people have a pretty good idea of what deserves it's own thread and what can be thrown in the catch-all.

 

I think the catch-all actually promotes better discussion about the minor things that happen day-to-day with the Sox. The subject gets discussed and the conversations ebbs and flows as needed. Commenting on a guys batting average or who you think should start a certain game doesn't necessarily deserve an entire thread.

 

With the major threads, there are usually only so many things that can be said. Typically everyone decides which side they are on, it gets discuss for a few pages, then somebody new comes in and repeats a thought that has been expressed 100 times already in the same thread. Then it all starts over again. Either that or the thread goes off-topic and a completely different discussion breaks out.

 

And anything something is deemed as important, it is split out and given its own thread, the AJ PEDs thing being a perfect example.

[BobDylan]

Way to ignore the last 10 years where technology has shifted from the message board style format to one centered around twitter and facebook, and blame it on not having one post topics on the front page.

 

So SoxTalk is centered around Facebook and Twitter now? What are you talking about?

[BobDylan]

g**damn i missed that gif. Whats up Bob

 

Still love you.

[BobDylan]

Anytime something big comes up (like the AJ on peds rumor) a new thread is created and it gets discussed. It's just that those big events don't happen all that often. There's only so much to talk about during the season. Most people have a pretty good idea of what deserves it's own thread and what can be thrown in the catch-all.

 

I think the catch-all actually promotes better discussion about the minor things that happen day-to-day with the Sox. The subject gets discussed and the conversations ebbs and flows as needed. Commenting on a guys batting average or who you think should start a certain game doesn't necessarily deserve an entire thread.

 

With the major threads, there are usually only so many things that can be said. Typically everyone decides which side they are on, it gets discuss for a few pages, then somebody new comes in and repeats a thought that has been expressed 100 times already in the same thread. Then it all starts over again. Either that or the thread goes off-topic and a completely different discussion breaks out.

 

I'm just saying, in my asshole way, that the admins are promoting the catch-all thread for the wrong reasons. In their typical fashion, they defer the point to something else entirely.

 

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but I don't agree with it either. SLAM handles catch all threads much better than PHT because there are different categories for them. Over there, it works. In PHT, it's one giant thread with god knows what in there. When you click the thread, there's very little telling what the new post(s) is going to be. To me, it makes more sense to let the community decide what a popular topic is.

 

Since there is a divide on whether or not to use a catch all thread (and one is being used), the community is already failed. The current catch-all destroys the way a message board is supposed to work. My point is that there is very little overall effect with more 1 or 2 post threads because the software is designed to weed those out. By having a catch-all thread, you're making decisions for your users instead of letting them decide whether or not to make a reply. In the end, a portion of the user base feels alienated and the forum gives off the appearance that it's dull because only a select few threads stay at the top. It never f***ing changes. And then when you have people who don't like the catch all thread, they don't read it. In turn, they don't post. And they eventually leave.

 

Furthermore, more topics means more search engine results, which means more people who've never seen this site have an opportunity to see the site. Thus, the userbase grows.

 

With the major threads, there are usually only so many things that can be said. Typically everyone decides which side they are on, it gets discuss for a few pages, then somebody new comes in and repeats a thought that has been expressed 100 times already in the same thread. Then it all starts over again. Either that or the thread goes off-topic and a completely different discussion breaks out.

 

I am of the belief that the catch-all thread encourages this effect. Although this effect will always be around to some extent, I think there's more chance different types of discussion open up if more topics are created. Under the current idea, there's much less chance for it.

Edited September 7, 2012 by BobDylan

[southsider2k5]

I'm just saying, in my asshole way, that the admins are promoting the catch-all thread for the wrong reasons. In their typical fashion, they defer the point to something else entirely.

 

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but I don't agree with it either. SLAM handles catch all threads much better than PHT because there are different categories for them. Over there, it works. In PHT, it's one giant thread with god knows what in there. When you click the thread, there's very little telling what the new post(s) is going to be. To me, it makes more sense to let the community decide what a popular topic is.

 

Since there is a divide on whether or not to use a catch all thread (and one is being used), the community is already failed. The current catch-all destroys the way a message board is supposed to work. My point is that there is very little overall effect with more 1 or 2 post threads because the software is designed to weed those out. By having a catch-all thread, you're making decisions for your users instead of letting them decide whether or not to make a reply. In the end, a portion of the user base feels alienated and the forum gives off the appearance that it's dull because only a select few threads stay at the top. It never f***ing changes. And then when you have people who don't like the catch all thread, they don't read it. In turn, they don't post. And they eventually leave.

 

Furthermore, more topics means more search engine results, which means more people who've never seen this site have an opportunity to see the site. Thus, the userbase grows.

 

 

 

I am of the belief that the catch-all thread encourages this effect. Although this effect will always be around to some extent, I think there's more chance different types of discussion open up if more topics are created. Under the current idea, there's much less chance for it.

 

I think you are completely missing a couple of things here. first that wasn't some singular decesion that was made. There was the usual posts and threads discussing this when it happened originally. second this thread has been here for days and something likr two or three people have agreed with ditching the current format, one of whom doesn't even post here anymore. Unless a bunch of people start speaking out of no where, I would tend to say the people have spoken with their silence.

 

[BobDylan]

I think you are completely missing a couple of things here. first that wasn't some singular decesion that was made. There was the usual posts and threads discussing this when it happened originally. second this thread has been here for days and something likr two or three people have agreed with ditching the current format, one of whom doesn't even post here anymore. Unless a bunch of people start speaking out of no where, I would tend to say the people have spoken with their silence.

 

I'm not sure why I chimed in, or why I visited the site in the first place. I will disappear again, but if I remember correctly, the catch-all thread happened because the admins didn't know how to handle the waves of new users after the World Series title. It was an understandable decision. Now that things have calmed considerably, it's odd that the system is still there. I don't frequent this place anymore, so you're probably a better judge of the sites activity than I am, but just by looking around and also seeing this complaint leads me to my case. Sure, not a lot of people have spoken out against the catch-all thread. But the community and quality of discussion doesn't appear to be growing either.

 

10 years though. Very impressive. Congrats Jason.

[Chisoxfn]

I'm not sure why I chimed in, or why I visited the site in the first place. I will disappear again, but if I remember correctly, the catch-all thread happened because the admins didn't know how to handle the waves of new users after the World Series title. It was an understandable decision. Now that things have calmed considerably, it's odd that the system is still there. I don't frequent this place anymore, so you're probably a better judge of the sites activity than I am, but just by looking around and also seeing this complaint leads me to my case. Sure, not a lot of people have spoken out against the catch-all thread. But the community and quality of discussion doesn't appear to be growing either.

 

10 years though. Very impressive. Congrats Jason.

Long time man. How's it going? Good to see you around here. From what I can remember, the catch-all thread was started because posters here wanted it to. I actually am probably the sites biggest hater of the catch-all. I've axed it at times, but ultimately it seemed like the majority has supported/preferred it. Personally I think if a thread stinks or isn't that popular, it will fall and the popular ones will stay on the main page anyway. I've always felt that way, however, it always seems that I (and you) are in the minority on this camp.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Bump for kyyle. Ever our dear leader agrees.