Screw the bump feature

[Ryan_21]

Out of the last 30 threads on this board, 16 have 2 replies or less and 10 have zero.

10 threads have zero replies? And 16 have 2 or less? WTF is wrong w/ this picture?

Ryan_21

[B-Man]

Agreed. The new system causes the same threads to have reply after reply, while new posts get buried underneath. Under the old system, the interesting threads got the most replies. Under the new system, the longest threads get the most replies.

[IrishHand]

It's got nothing to do with "new" or "old" threads. Those threads that are intersting enough to generate discussion or debate remain at the forefront as they should, while those that nobody cares enough about to respond to disappear as they should. It's not my fault that nobody likes your threads. /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif

Irish

[Clarkmeister]

Wrong. What you are seeing is just how many more responses the more popular and interesting threads would get if only they didn't get buried under useless drivel.

Your analogy is overlooking the obvious: The interesting threads still get the most replies. This causes them to become longer. Hence your necessarily true statement "the longest threads get the most replies." I mean.....can the shortest threads get the most replies?

Besides, isn't it easier for you and M to drag up the same old Israel-Palestine thread and respond with "see my post above" rather than typing the same thing over and over two or three times a month when someone starts a new rehash?

[B-Man]

It's got nothing to do with "new" or "old" threads. Those threads that are intersting enough to generate discussion or debate remain at the forefront as they should, while those that nobody cares enough about to respond to disappear as they should. It's not my fault that nobody likes your threads.

Whats the matter Irish, you don't like people who point out poor analagies? /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif Actually, on the first page, a post I started has the most replies of any of the posts, but there are several others, as Ryan pointed out, which have zero replies. This is not simply because they are new or uninteresting, its because people log on, see the same thread on top, and are too lazy to see if there are any new, smaller threads down below. If a thread is truly interesting, it doesn't matter where you put it, people will make the effort to scroll down and see if there are any new responses. They wont make the same effort for a thread which they aren't even aware exists.

[IrishHand]

Whats the matter Irish, you don't like people who point out poor analagies?

No - I don't like people who can't spell. /forums/images/icons/blush.gif

[B-Man]

Besides, isn't it easier for you and M to drag up the same old Israel-Palestine thread and respond with "see my post above" rather than typing the same thing over and over two or three times a month when someone starts a new rehash?

Sure that would be easy, but believe it or not I get tired of that topic and would like to discuss other things. I'd like to see new topics get some attention; like I said in response to Irish, interesting threads will get responses whether they are at the top or the bottom of the page, but if you put a new thread at the bottom nobody will look at it.

[Ryan_21]

"while those that nobody cares enough about to respond to disappear as they should."

How can anybody care about them if they dont know about them?

When a new post gets buried to the bottom really fast, nobody ever gets a chance to read it.

"It's not my fault that nobody likes your threads."

I don't know if that insult was aimed at me or b-man, but my threads seem to do fine, the point of my concern had nothing to do w/ my individual threads, but more for the board as a whole, b/c when posters decide to stop posting new threads b/c nobody ever reads them and they get buried so quickly then their will be hardly any new original threads started by new posters, it will be the same ol crap by the same ol posters.

I just think the bump feature is going to stunt the growth of the forum and stunt the growth of new posters.

Ryan_21

[B-Man]

If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would be brilliant.

[B-Man]

[IrishHand]

if you put a new thread at the bottom nobody will look at it

You must have a better computer than me 'cause all the new threads I write start at the top.

[Ryan_21]

"What you are seeing is just how many more responses the more popular and interesting threads would get if only they didn't get buried under useless drivel. "

I agree that the more interesting threads get more replies due to the bump feature, but at the same time they take away from new topics.

Thats where my point of concern is. New posts get buried and overlooked because a larger older thread is taking up half the page and people are to lazy to scroll down and down and down to read the new threads.

Ryan_21

[IrishHand]

When a new post gets buried to the bottom really fast, nobody ever gets a chance to read it.

What's your idea of "really fast"? When I open up this forum, the thread at the bottom of the screen was last responded to on 11/30/02 04:39 PM.

You people might want to change your viewing options if you're all that concerned about this:
View: Collapsed Threads
Parent Posts per Page: 40
Posts on one Page: 30

Or something like that. You'd be amazed what nifty features this site has.

[IrishHand]

I am glad you recognize and appreciate my brilliance. *hugs*

[Ryan_21]

"all the new threads I write start at the top."

But how long do they stay there before they get bumped down?

It only takes a couple hours for a new thread to get bumped down to the bottom, and the further down it goes the less likely it is to get any views/replies.

Ryan_21

[B-Man]

You must have a better computer than me 'cause all the new threads I write start at the top.

Sure, but they may only stay there for a few seconds until they get bumped... and once they get bumped below a couple of big posts, they are likely to be ignored/unseen by the masses.

[IrishHand]

Ummm...didn't I just say that the oldest thread on my screen was 6 days old? I'd hardly equate a few seconds to 6 days. How about you re-read my above post, change your options, then see how you feel?

(Same reply to Ryan_21, since he too missed my post in his enthusiasm.)

[B-Man]

I see once again you are engaged in selective reading within sentences.

[IrishHand]

I have faith that you'll be able to enlighten me along with "the masses." /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[Glenn]

"Besides, isn't it easier for you and M to drag up the same old Israel-Palestine thread and respond with "see my post above" rather than typing the same thing over and over two or three times a month when someone starts a new rehash? "

That exactly why I don't like this new format. Very often, these threads become a discussion between two or three people that goes on and on. Obviously this is fine, and everyone has probably been one of those 2 or 3 at one time or another. The point is after about 20 responses, most of the readers don't care anymore. The people that do can just go find the thread that contains their discussion. The fact that threads keep getting responses often doesn't have any correlation with how interesting they are /forums/images/icons/smile.gif. A lot of times someone will post a joke or a link to an interesting article that doesn't get responses because it is not an arguement. Now this stuff is buried.

[Six_of_One]

As someone who has been reading this forum for a couple of years now, I'd have to say that I believe things have definitely taken a turn for the worse since the bump feature began.

I know that one of the moderators responded to someone's complaint by saying that the change was voted on and approved, but I doubt very much that people understood what they were voting for, or what the results would be.

Can't they at least give us the option of having the posts display how we like? I hate having to scroll halfway down the entire board just to find out if there are any interesting new threads.

[IrishHand]

Just out of curiosity - do any of you people opposed to the current system participate actively on any other internet forums? Up until the change, this was the only one I'd ever seen that kept the posts in their posting order regardless of viewer interest. Every forum I've been involved in has worked exactly as this one does now (although some have more bells and whistles).

At any given time, there will be maybe a dozen "active" posts, meaning 6 with dialogue, and 6 news ones that the viewers might consider for dialogue. After a couple days, those that the viewers aren't interested in naturally fall to by the wayside, while those that surfers like remain prominently displayed near the top. As people lose interest, the threads drop - it's that simple.

What you seem to be advocating is a system where threads remain active for a couple days, after which surfers must go out of their way to continue what they consider interesting dialogue. That method is guaranteed to kill a lot of interest in popular threads.

Basically, the arguments against the current system are a factor of complete laziness. Change your display options to collapsed threads and more posts per page, and you'll be able to see EVERY SINGLE POST in the past 2+ days. New, old, interesting, mindless - they'll all be there for your viewing pleasure.

Regards,
Irish

[Six_of_One]

I guess it just comes down to personal preference, and maybe my preference is in the minority. I hadn't used collapsed threads in my preferences before, because I liked being able to see all posts at once. With the new feature, scrolling down through all posts is far too much effort, so I've changed to collapsed display, which helped some.

With a collapsed display, though, I dislike having a separate link for every post. The one other internet forum I visit regularly, rottentomatoes.com, does sort threads according to most recent post, but when you click on the thread, it displays all the posts at once...you don't have to click on each post separately, something that gets very tedious for me, waiting several seconds each time for it to load.

[Clarkmeister]

Ah good sir, the settings allow for the viewing method you request. Look for the "Flat mode" option when viewing threads and your problems will go away.

[Six_of_One]

I am eternally in your debt. It seems that I have run out of things to complain about on this forum.