# Threads with Personal questions, redundant threads



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Folks, as a housekeeping measure, I suggest that if you have a bunch of personal questions to ask, do it in *one* thread - just lump them all together and say "I'd like to know about you guys, would you be willing to answer the following questions?"

And also, it's been done. It would be best to recover one of those old threads and add to them, rather than having 4, 5, 6 "new" personal questions threads on the front page.

Just trying to keep things organized.

I've noticed a large number of redundant threads later. For example, someone starts a thread about a composer... when there is already an active thread about the composer. Or "post the picture of your pet" when we had the exact same thread a while ago.

People, before starting something new, do a bit of leg work please; do a search, and see if there is already a thread with the exact same topic; then, just add to it, instead of starting a new one.

It's not the biggest of deals or sins to start a redundant thread, and when possible one of us in the moderation team may just merge the redundant ones, but if you start by doing the search, it will make everybody's lives easier, and we'll have a less clogged front page.

Thanks for your cooperation.:tiphat:


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

That's pretty reasonable.



> For example, someone starts a thread about a composer... when there is already an active thread about the composer.


I think this is because of the broken search function, though.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> That's pretty reasonable.
> I think this is because of the broken search function, though.


True, members complained, and this is what I like to do.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

In fairness, it is a little difficult to find any previous threads on a given topic because the search feature sucks so much.

EDIT: Ah yes, the Google approach. Trouble is I always forget about that option!


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

graaf said:


> True, members complained, and this is what I like to do.


 That's a pretty good idea, graaf, thanks. It also increases our Google hits, and may indeed solve the problem if more users do it like you.:tiphat:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> Folks, as a housekeeping measure, I suggest that if you have a bunch of personal questions to ask, do it in *one* thread...


Or don't mention them at all, sweep them under the carpet, like the issue of bullying & singling people out on this forum by one member in particular which I began to discuss on THIS thread but it was locked.

Way to go. Just put your head in the sand like an emu. I'm for naming and shaming this type of bad behaviour before it gets out of hand. Remember jtech? Oh, you don't Almaviva, as you weren't around then. I just hope that what we have on our hands now is not another jtech...


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> That's a pretty good idea, graaf, thanks. It also increases our Google hits, and may indeed solve the problem if more users do it like you.:tiphat:


Glad to be of help. :cheers:


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

I think it's best to limit yourself to about one thread per week, and not post another one until the previous one's more or less gone, or else been locked. Particularly when it concerns who was better, Bruckner or Brahms.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Or don't mention them at all, sweep them under the carpet, like the issue of bullying & singling people out on this forum by one member in particular which I began to discuss on THIS thread but it was locked.
> 
> Way to go. Just put your head in the sand like an emu. I'm for naming and shaming this type of bad behaviour before it gets out of hand. Remember jtech? Oh, you don't Almaviva, as you weren't around then. I just hope that what we have on our hands now is not another jtech...


Sid, I'm talking about a different kind of personal question.
Like I said there on that thread, my advice is that your beef with that particular member should be handled by PMs or the ignore function.
Other members are not necessarily interested in whatever is going on between the two of you.
The TOS do call for no personal attacks, so I trust that you, an esteemed member here, will refrain from them.
That thread was locked because it resulted in a number of personal attacks.
Better lock it than be forced to issue penalties.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Or don't mention them at all, sweep them under the carpet, like the issue of bullying & singling people out on this forum by one member in particular which I began to discuss on THIS thread but it was locked.
> 
> Way to go. Just put your head in the sand like an emu. I'm for naming and shaming this type of bad behaviour before it gets out of hand. Remember jtech? Oh, you don't Almaviva, as you weren't around then. I just hope that what we have on our hands now is not another jtech...


I think the 'more rope' principle is applied here to a greater degree than in any other moderated forum I have heard of (all data second hand for me). Personally I like the 'one foot over the precipice' effect.

Hmm. That is not necessarily an example of mixed metaphors.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I can understand particular threads if someone wants to know something specific like how many times we can pet our cats before they get bored.

If we have a "tell me about yourself thread", then it's open to all kinds of mundane information, and a sub-question won't always be noticed. But, yes, if there is a lot of random crappola flooding the forum all at once, then we might as well just set up a pageant.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I think the 'more rope' principle is applied here to a greater degree than in any other moderated forum I have heard of (all data second hand for me). Personally I like the 'one foot over the precipice' effect.
> 
> Hmm. That is not necessarily an example of mixed metaphors.


Hilltroll, if you have suggestions or criticism about my moderating style, do send them to me (best done by PM) and I'll be happy to try and respond to the feedback, including, by implementing changes to my ways, if warranted.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I just like to speak my mind, I don't like to self-censor. That's what happened on another forum, so I got out of there. Me discussing certain things there that weren't considered "kosher" by these people - call them "highbrows" or whatever label you want - was beyond the pale. These people have a very covert way of operating & they want to force everyone to be "under the radar" like them. Well, I'm not like that, I like to be direct. Interestingly, not only myself, but also members some guy, Argus, regressivetransophobe have similarly garnered the disapproval of this member, for reasons good or bad. The main reason, of course, is that we are all not conservatives like he is (which is fine, as long as you don't rub it in another person's face) & are lovers of contemporary classical musics. There is no greater sin, is there, as some have already pointed out. Basically, I dislike intellectual ** strongly, I like to call a spade a spade, simple as that...


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

It's very late here, and early morning in other places. Posts are getting crossed. I don't know if I have been making much sense myself. Maybe we had better just cool it.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Sid James said:


> I just like to speak my mind, I don't like to self-censor. That's what happened on another forum, so I got out of there. Me discussing certain things there that weren't considered "kosher" by these people - call them "highbrows" or whatever label you want - was beyond the pale. These people have a very covert way of operating & they want to force everyone to be "under the radar" like them. Well, I'm not like that, I like to be direct. Interestingly, not only myself, but also members some guy, Argus, regressivetransophobe have similarly garnered the disapproval of this member, for reasons good or bad. The main reason, of course, is that we are all not conservatives like he is (which is fine, as long as you don't rub it in another person's face) & are lovers of contemporary classical musics. There is no greater sin, is there, as some have already pointed out. Basically, I dislike intellectual ** strongly, I like to call a spade a spade, simple as that...


My acting to curb personal attacks on this or that member doesn't mean I agree or disagree with either side's stance. You may be well justified in your complaints, I don't know. That area of the forum where your complaints may be most justified is not even under my watch, and I rarely read threads there. But experience shows that when there is strong prohibition of personal attacks, websites get to be more pleasant and friendly places for everybody's benefit. The anonymous character of these fora often makes people go overboard and engage in behavior that they wouldn't adopt, if they were face to face with their foes, due to sheer human decency and politeness. So, to compensate for this, we moderators need to be a bit on the strict side.

Sites that are not moderated will have the full freedom to express one's views against other members... but there's a price to pay for this: a generally hostile environment. Personally, I prefer the Talk Classical way.

And then, Sid, you need to think that this is just the Internets... Opinions are just that: opinions. Nobody should need to get this angry about any of this. We're here in order to have some fun. It's a hobby. It's just an Internet forum, not worth losing any sleep over. Let's just have fun and discuss our passion for Classical Music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ Fair enough.

& I think there should maybe be a rule against one member using information they have (eg. things they know) about another member against them. Eg. the way I was treated, not liking J.S. Bach or opera much meant that my opinions on whatever topic is of little value, or superficial, or whatever. In other words, the TOS here probably deals with overt bullying, belittling & intimidation, etc. but not with *covert* (eg. *indirect*) ways of doing those things...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> Let's just have fun and discuss our passion for Classical Music.


The classical music discussion is rather weak in comparison to:

What's Your Middle Name
What's The Last Thing You Ate
Would You Rather
Do You Like Fancy Food
What Breed Of Lap Top
Do You Smoke
Is Google Watching Your House
Blah, Blah, Blah...


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

starthrower said:


> The classical music discussion is rather weak in comparison to:
> 
> What's Your Middle Name
> What's The Last Thing You Ate
> ...


You know, there is *one* Community Forum where non-classical music topics are allowed, and *dozens* of classical music fora.
So, I think you observation is entirely inaccurate. There are literally thousands of classical music posts, and a few hundred off-topic posts, in the one are where off-topic posts are tolerated.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Sid James said:


> ^^ Fair enough.
> 
> & I think there should maybe be a rule against one member using information they have (eg. things they know) about another member against them. Eg. the way I was treated, not liking J.S. Bach or opera much meant that my opinions on whatever topic is of little value, or superficial, or whatever. In other words, the TOS here probably deals with overt bullying, belittling & intimidation, etc. but not with *covert* (eg. *indirect*) ways of doing those things...


The ignore function is your friend, in this case.
You can also bring any post to the attention of moderators by clicking on the black triangle icon.
But yes, a very direct, almost obscene personal attack, will be seen more harshly by moderators than various shades of gray and differences of opinion.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> I think you observation is entirely inaccurate. There are literally thousands of classical music posts, and a few hundred off-topic posts, in the one are where off-topic posts are tolerated.


I wasn't referring to the past five years, but this week the participation in trivialities looks to be much more popular than music discussion. But if that is what people are in to, carry on...


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

starthrower said:


> The classical music discussion is rather weak in comparison to:
> 
> What's Your Middle Name
> What's The Last Thing You Ate
> ...


Actually, from just now checking the Statistics on this forum, it was interesting to note the following:

The most popular forum (the one with the most activity): Classical Music Discussion with 3,405 threads & 74,132 posts.
The most viewed thread: Current Listening in the Classical Music Discussion forum area.

Granted the Community Forum is increasing in activity, but at present has about half the number of total posts as opposed to the Classical Music discussion.

Bottom line is that the Community Forum isn't hurting our internet 'ratings'. Those threads may actually cause others to notice this site and take a look inside. The more people we can expose to the wonderful world of Classical Music, the better, at least imho.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"I think the 'more rope' principle is applied here to a greater degree than in any other moderated forum I have heard of (all data second hand for me). Personally I like the 'one foot over the precipice' effect."



Almaviva said:


> Hilltroll, if you have suggestions or criticism about my moderating style, do send them to me (best done by PM) and I'll be happy to try and respond to the feedback, including, by implementing changes to my ways, if warranted.


My observation quoted above applies to the entire moderator/administrator team, not just to you, _Alma_. And it was intended to express approval. If anything, your rope is the shortest of the bunch. If you want to more closely conform to the 'mean rope length of the team' , and I see no particular reason for doing that, you could lengthen your rope.

[My original post used metaphor, and now I seem to be stuck with it. It isn't obscure, I think, and converting it to 'plain English' now strikes me as being rather condescending.]

:angel:


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

That's it, I had it.
For a while, I'll be merging into a mega thread all sorts of 'personal questions' kinds of threads that have been popping up so frequently, lately.
This is in congruence with numerous complaints that members have issued.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ That's good, they seemed to be kind of cluttering up the whole system, it was just too much (even though they can be fun, it was like total overload)...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> That's it, I had it.
> For a while, I'll be merging into a mega thread all sorts of 'personal questions' kinds of threads that have been popping up so frequently, lately.
> This is in congruence with numerous complaints that members have issued.


I applaud your efforts, but really, what an abortion. Is it really worth destroying these friendly community-building threads to save the antisocial members the pain of reading a few extra lines?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Couchie said:


> I applaud your efforts, but really, what an abortion. Is it really worth destroying these friendly community-building threads to save the antisocial members the pain of reading a few extra lines?


 What abortion? They haven't been deleted, they're just clumped together, now. People can continue to reply to the various questions as often as they feel like, just, they won't be occupying half of the front page.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Nay, all the buried questions are dead, they'd be just so happy deleted, methinks.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> ...People can continue to reply to the various questions as often as they feel like, just, they won't be occupying half of the front page.


I tend to agree, it was becoming a bit like facebook, twitter, etc...


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Couchie said:


> Nay, all the buried questions are dead, they'd be just so happy deleted, methinks.


You're underestimating myaskovsky2002's incredible ability to resuscitate old threads and old questions.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Sid James said:


> ^^ Fair enough.
> 
> & I think there should maybe be a rule against one member using information they have (eg. things they know) about another member against them. Eg. the way I was treated, not liking J.S. Bach or opera much meant that my opinions on whatever topic is of little value, or superficial, or whatever. In other words, the TOS here probably deals with overt bullying, belittling & intimidation, etc. but not with *covert* (eg. *indirect*) ways of doing those things...


I don't see a distinction here between what you are willing to deal with and what you aren't willing to deal with. You don't mean to say that you don't feel like tolerating anything adversarial any more, do you? I mean, I had my professional experience attacked when a member tried to tell me I was a phony, which is a laughably bad no-no when you can politely ask a person for credentials, and I'm still alive and kicking.

So, where are you at with this? Would you prefer nothing but opinion presenting here, without dialectical logic? Or would you prefer that those with an academic bent just leave you be?


----------

