A suggestion for the "session" posts

[GrandmaStabone]

I'm not sure how long the session review posts have been running, but I just discovered the experiment last night. First off, I think it is a terrific idea. I personally do not have a single friend who plays limit hoild'em so the opportunity to review a session by another micro player is an opportunity I would not otherwise have.

The problem is that I am a obviously a few days behind on this post. I have just reviewed session 1a and had a couple notes I wanted to address. For instance I was curous about the coldcall in hand 65. I was going to make a post about it but I do not know if it was covered earlier. A search for the words "hand" and "65" is obviously useless. Scrolling back I cannot see anything but cannot really be sure.

SO, in my opinion we have a great idea with sub-optimal organization. I do not see why we do not keep the posts referencing the session in the session thread. If there were to be a session 2 post, with 80 hands in one post and the second 80 in a subsequent post, why not keep them confined to one post?

For example, if I wanted to discuss hand 65 in session 1a, I would (in THREADED mode), see if anyone has replied to the thread with the subject line "Hand 65", if there was, I would join the discussion, if there were not, I would start one. This approach would cut down on traffic on the main page, and be much easier to reference. As long as you viewed it in threaded mode, you would know what hands were being discussed by the subject line (Hand 65), and easily see all replies on that hand (ie "RE: Hand 65").

It's worth a try anyways...

[irishpint]

hmm ok let me get this straight. in the hand post, if you're the first you reply with the number, and everyone who wants to comment on it replys to you. that way it'd all be in one post, and organized, too. it's so crazy it just might work.

[GrunchCan]

I think I like the idea of each hand (or concept, as in this case (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2985810&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1)) being in it's own thread. Some of these threads have become very active, and I'm in particular thinking of some hands from the session 1 post. If all of these active discussions were to be in one thread, that thread would quickly become unwieldly.

However, I think it's pretty improtant that by keeping each hand in its own thread, we all follow some standard rules, such as:
<ul type="square"> One hand or once concept per thread. Putting multiple hands in a thread makes it hard to find things later.
Review threads should all be named the same, to make searchine easier. 'REVIEW Hand XX : A K' seems good.
Review threads should have the hand(s) in question at the beginning of the thread.
[/list]

[irishpint]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I like the idea of each hand (or concept, as in this case (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2985810&amp;page=0&amp;view=colla psed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;fpart=1)) being in it's own thread. Some of these threads have become very active, and I'm in particular thinking of some hands from the session 1 post. If all of these active discussions were to be in one thread, that thread would quickly become unwieldly.

However, I think it's pretty improtant that by keeping each hand in its own thread, we all follow some standard rules, such as:
<ul type="square"> One hand or once concept per thread. Putting multiple hands in a thread makes it hard to find things later.
Review threads should all be named the same, to make searchine easier. 'REVIEW Hand XX : A K' seems good.
Review threads should have the hand(s) in question at the beginning of the thread.
[/list]

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, i like the idea. All the hands would be under one main heading, and then say I had something tosay about hand 56, I could reply with "56" as my title and anyone who had comments would reply to it.

The hard part about making each an individual thread is that if you're gone or something you miss out. AK13 just started a thread on a hand we had already done. That's just extra clutter and is surely going to happen at least once or twice for each set of hands. I do agree, however, that each hand needs to be by itself and not 4 hands per post. But that makes the front page littered w/ MP hands, since over the course of 100 hands surely there are more than 1 or 2 that you want to discuss. Keeping them all in one thread would elimate front page noise and make it easy/acceptable to post thoughts for a variety of hands at the same time.

[Greg J]

This idea of having the session posts in all one thread was something I initially considered doing. After some thought I concluded having them all seperate, but specified by hand number, was better, basically for the reasons that Grunch outlined.

One drawback is the occasional duplicate post. What AK13 did was an honest mistake, and really not that big of a deal IMO. I should probably add another guideline though: search before you post on a hand. Other than that, this board really does, IMO, a pretty good job of running itself. If someone pollutes the brd with too many hands, we just ask them to stop and they comply. (The main thing I do, besides making the occasional sticky, is to delete spam threads. Despite being a die hard liberal, I think I am pretty laizze faire with regards to this brd.)

I like the thoughtful comments though.

[GrandmaStabone]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I like the idea of each hand (or concept, as in this case (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2985810&amp;page=0&amp;view=colla psed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;fpart=1)) being in it's own thread. Some of these threads have become very active, and I'm in particular thinking of some hands from the session 1 post. If all of these active discussions were to be in one thread, that thread would quickly become unwieldly.

However, I think it's pretty improtant that by keeping each hand in its own thread, we all follow some standard rules, such as:
<ul type="square"> One hand or once concept per thread. Putting multiple hands in a thread makes it hard to find things later.
Review threads should all be named the same, to make searchine easier. 'REVIEW Hand XX : A K' seems good.
Review threads should have the hand(s) in question at the beginning of the thread.
[/list]

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, i like the idea. All the hands would be under one main heading, and then say I had something tosay about hand 56, I could reply with "56" as my title and anyone who had comments would reply to it.

The hard part about making each an individual thread is that if you're gone or something you miss out. AK13 just started a thread on a hand we had already done. That's just extra clutter and is surely going to happen at least once or twice for each set of hands. I do agree, however, that each hand needs to be by itself and not 4 hands per post. But that makes the front page littered w/ MP hands, since over the course of 100 hands surely there are more than 1 or 2 that you want to discuss. Keeping them all in one thread would elimate front page noise and make it easy/acceptable to post thoughts for a variety of hands at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is he way I imagine it working.

Addititionally, the thread would be available for future use. If someone comes across this thread six weeks from now and has opinions, it will be nearly impossible to find the random posts about single hands.

If the session remain in 2 parts w/ 80 hands each there will not be THAT many hands in an 80-hand post that require attention. Therefore the size/organization will not should not be too confusing.

It's at least worth trying in the second session to compare, IMO.

[Kumubou]

I have an idea regarding duplicate threads: In the original session thread, for each hand leave a space that would link to the thread dicussing that hand, if one has already been created.

Doing that, people would not have to use the Gord-forsaken search function on the forum. They could just peruse the session thread and see if a thread had already been created (within a sane timeframe, but any new threads should be near the top of the forum). It will also make archiving the sessions and dicussion easier later on, as all one would have to find is the session thread and all reveleant dicussion would come after.

-K

[irishpint]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I like the idea of each hand (or concept, as in this case (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2985810&amp;page=0&amp;view=colla psed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;fpart=1)) being in it's own thread. Some of these threads have become very active, and I'm in particular thinking of some hands from the session 1 post. If all of these active discussions were to be in one thread, that thread would quickly become unwieldly.

However, I think it's pretty improtant that by keeping each hand in its own thread, we all follow some standard rules, such as:
<ul type="square"> One hand or once concept per thread. Putting multiple hands in a thread makes it hard to find things later.
Review threads should all be named the same, to make searchine easier. 'REVIEW Hand XX : A K' seems good.
Review threads should have the hand(s) in question at the beginning of the thread.
[/list]

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, i like the idea. All the hands would be under one main heading, and then say I had something tosay about hand 56, I could reply with "56" as my title and anyone who had comments would reply to it.

The hard part about making each an individual thread is that if you're gone or something you miss out. AK13 just started a thread on a hand we had already done. That's just extra clutter and is surely going to happen at least once or twice for each set of hands. I do agree, however, that each hand needs to be by itself and not 4 hands per post. But that makes the front page littered w/ MP hands, since over the course of 100 hands surely there are more than 1 or 2 that you want to discuss. Keeping them all in one thread would elimate front page noise and make it easy/acceptable to post thoughts for a variety of hands at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is he way I imagine it working.

Addititionally, the thread would be available for future use. If someone comes across this thread six weeks from now and has opinions, it will be nearly impossible to find the random posts about single hands.

If the session remain in 2 parts w/ 80 hands each there will not be THAT many hands in an 80-hand post that require attention. Therefore the size/organization will not should not be too confusing.

It's at least worth trying in the second session to compare, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt even think about the future. but ya, if all the links were in one spot then each post would be SO valuble in the future. as it stands now the if you come across the main MP thread you wont have any idea what people have said about the hands. That's reason enough to put them all in one thread, below the original hands.

[GrandmaStabone]

Another Suggestion would be to add links to the various hand posts in the original session thread. Maybe have just one reply with a list of hand links. It would look like this:


Hand 12
Hand 31
Hand 72
Hand 75
ETC

My point really is that the post containing the session should be a hub for the discussion it generates. Otherwise the threads long term value will drop extremely fast. I foud this thread just a few days late and putting it all together is an unecessary chore.




IMO

[GrandmaStabone]

[ QUOTE ]
Another Suggestion would be to add links to the various hand posts in the original session thread. Maybe have just one reply with a list of hand links. It would look like this:


Hand 12
Hand 31
Hand 72
Hand 75
ETC

My point really is that the post containing the session should be a hub for the discussion it generates. Otherwise the threads long term value will drop extremely fast. I foud this thread just a few days late and putting it all together is an unecessary chore.




IMO

[/ QUOTE ]


I wrote this at work (read: slowly) and by the time I posted it similar suggestions had been made.

I like this idea tho.

[GrunchCan]

Forgive me for saying so, but I think the 2+2 search facility is pretty good. And if you really don't like it, you can always use a google site:twoplustwo.com search.

[irishpint]

[ QUOTE ]
Forgive me for saying so, but I think the 2+2 search facility is pretty good. And if you really don't like it, you can always use a google site:twoplustwo.com search.

[/ QUOTE ]

i cannot forgive you for this; it is an unforgivable.

for example, IT NEVER WORKS

ive never tried the other search thing you mentioned, maybe i ought to. or maybe i just dont know how to search? today i searched for meh and got 95% soMEHow and 5% meh.

[Greg J]

I purposefully designed the format to be used in responding to the session post to be search friendly.

[GrunchCan]

Well then try searching on +meh -somehow.

[irishpint]

Maybe I am just not a good searcher, but i looked for the most recent hand post and it was HAND 119. I then searched for HAND 119 (in micros) and it was the 4th link from the bottom. why does this happen?

Greg, why not try having all the posts go to in the same post like was suggested? That way every comment ever made about any of the hands will be right there, all together and sorted vs having to search fo certain hands, etc. If it was all grouped together I think it would be easier to make assumptions regarding hero's play, and certainly easier for hero to go over at the end. just a thought.

[GrunchCan]

How about having a session review digest post that has links to each of the review threads? two birds one stone.

[trainslayer]

[ QUOTE ]
In the original session thread, for each hand leave a space that would link to the thread dicussing that hand, if one has already been created.

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg, would it not be possible for you to paste a link to each hand discussed back into the original post? When someone wants to discuss a particular hand they could then look to see if there is a link to a discussion already started. If not they could start a new thread and maybe PM you the link to be pasted. Or would this be too much trouble?

[irishpint]

[ QUOTE ]
How about having a session review digest post that has links to each of the review threads? two birds one stone.

[/ QUOTE ]z

im not picky regarding the method we chose, i just think it's important that they are all linked together. i think everyone would agree on that.

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]

How about having a session review digest post that has links to each of the review threads? two birds one stone.


[/ QUOTE ]
I like this idea a lot. I would post a link to this in the sticky. With this dial up internet I have right now (visiting in laws) it would take me all day to accumulate all the links, so either someone would have to volunteer to do this or this idea will have to wait a little over a week.

[GrandmaStabone]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How about having a session review digest post that has links to each of the review threads? two birds one stone.


[/ QUOTE ]
I like this idea a lot. I would post a link to this in the sticky. With this dial up internet I have right now (visiting in laws) it would take me all day to accumulate all the links, so either someone would have to volunteer to do this or this idea will have to wait a little over a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about putting the actual session(s) in the digest with the links included at the end of the session?

I can also gather them tonight and have them ready tomorrow morning.

[GrandmaStabone]

We could also make this a weekly part of the digest....

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How about having a session review digest post that has links to each of the review threads? two birds one stone.


[/ QUOTE ]
I like this idea a lot. I would post a link to this in the sticky. With this dial up internet I have right now (visiting in laws) it would take me all day to accumulate all the links, so either someone would have to volunteer to do this or this idea will have to wait a little over a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was the first idea I had--whenever you make a new thread, post a single reply in the sticky with a link to your new thread.

I don't think any other replies should go in the sticky thread--not even meta-issue discussions. Just links. I use flat mode, and having to change my preferences just for this one forum is too high a hill for me to climb. Plus threaded mode means "don't bother reading posts from names you don't recognize and respect," which leaves out some good commentary.