thread drift

[mavhc]

Theoretical discussion on thread drift.

 

Seeing as how there's many more "please stay on topic" posts from admins these days, it occurs to me that the Usenet hierarchical style of threads was much better than linear forum threads. Could easily change the subject line and people not interested could mute that subtree of posts.

 

[X-13]

I really don't know if this is serious or not...

 

In any case, #MakeUsenetGreatAgain

[elsiegee40]

in the meantime you could just start another thread when it starts to drift or report the start of the drift and ask for the thread to be split.

 

We're getting new forum software shortly; I have no idea of its capabilities.

 

Personally, I don't like Usenet's style

[mavhc]

in the meantime you could just start another thread when it starts to drift or report the start of the drift and ask for the thread to be split.

 

We're getting new forum software shortly; I have no idea of its capabilities.

 

Personally, I don't like Usenet's style

 

There is a slight downside of starting a new thread, you, I assume, lose all the subscribers to the original thread.

 

What don't you like about the Usenet system? I found it much more efficient.

[pcstru]

I can see a need to be on-topic in threads that deal with technical and professional matters. Much less so the recreational stuff especially when there is a natural link between the issues or exploration drilling down into specific details/aspects of it. I think Mods could make the message more positive : "great discussion, it would be really good in it's own thread" rather than the bald "back on topic you lot" - which to me appears quite negative and confrontational.

[bald_pig]

There is a slight downside of starting a new thread, you, I assume, lose all the subscribers to the original thread.What don't you like about the Usenet system? I found it much more efficient.

Nope, I've had notifications from split threads before!

I can see a need to be on-topic in threads that deal with technical and professional matters. Much less so the recreational stuff especially when there is a natural link between the issues or exploration drilling down into specific details/aspects of it. I think Mods could make the message more positive : "great discussion, it would be really good in it's own thread" rather than the bald "back on topic you lot" - which to me appears quite negative and confrontational.

I agree with this. I also think that sometimes the mods can jump on people too quickly, I've seen posts, usually in the annoying things thread, where there have been 2 or 3 replies to someones annoying thing sharing their pain, or offering a solution they found, when the mod steps in and all likeliness the replies would have stopped there or the op would have created his own thread for help.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the mods do an amazing job, I've seen spam accounts removed in the time it's taken me to open the thread and hit report! I just think that they are making more work for themselves by stepping in when they don't necessarily need to.

Edited November 17, 2016 by bald_pig
accidentally a word

[mavhc]

Nope, I've had notifications from split threads before!

 

In which case a button that says "split thread", and a link created at that point to the new thread would probably suffice.

[elsiegee40]

In which case a button that says "split thread", and a link created at that point to the new thread would probably suffice.

 

There is a perfectly usable Report Post button. We don't need new buttons.

[sparkeh]

I really can't see the problem with starting a new thread. If I do it I just leave a link in the old thread so those that are interested can follow the split thread. Easy.

 

The Usenet format would be horrific.

[elsiegee40]

What don't you like about the Usenet system? I found it much more efficient.

 

The Usenet format would be horrific.

 

"Retro" was going to be my choice of word. I was trying to think of a polite way of putting it.

 

I imagine the format is incompatible with 21st century things like the app too.

[Arthur]

it occurs to me that the Usenet hierarchical style of threads was much better than linear forum threads.

There's a good reason Usenet-style threading is rarely used these days (hint. it sucks! )...

 

• https://blog.codinghorror.com/web-discussions-flat-by-design/
   
  

  Before I defend threaded discussion, let's enumerate the many problems it brings to the table:
   
  

  • It's a tree.
    Poems about trees are indeed lovely, as Joyce Kilmer promised us, but data of any kind represented as a tree … isn't. Rigid hierarchy is generally not how the human mind works, and the strict parent-child relationship it enforces is particularly terrible for fluid human group discussion. Browsing a tree is complicated, because you have to constantly think about what level you're at, what's expanded, what's collapsed … there's always this looming existential crisis of where the heck am I? Discussion trees force me to spend too much time mentally managing that two-dimensional tree more than the underlying discussion.
     
     
    
  • Where did that reply go?
    In a threaded discussion, replies can arrive any place in the tree at any time. How do you know if there are new replies? Where do you find them? Only if you happen to be browsing the tree at the right place at the right time. It's annoying to follow discussions over time when new posts keep popping up anywhere in the middle of the big reply tree. And God help you if you accidentally reply at the wrong level of the tree; then you're suddenly talking to the wrong person, or maybe nobody at all. It absolutely kills me that there might be amazing, insightful responses buried somewhere in the middle of a reply chain that I will never be able to find.
     
     
    
  • It pushes discussion off your screen.
    So the first reply is indented under the post. Fair enough; how else would you know that one post is a reply to another post? But this indentation game doesn't ever end. Reply long and hard enough and you've either made the content column impossibly narrow, or you've pushed the content to exit, stage right. That's how endless pedantic responses-to-responses ruin the discussion for everyone. When we play the "indent everything to the right" game, everyone loses. It is natural to scroll down on the web, but it is utterly unnatural to scroll right. Indentation takes the discussion in the wrong direction.
     
     
    
  • You're talking to everyone.
    You think because you clicked "reply" and your post is indented under the person you're replying to, that your post is talking only to that person? That's so romantic. Maybe the two of you should get a room. A special, private room at the far, far, far, far, far right of that threaded discussion. This illusion that you are talking to one other person ends up harming the discussion for everyone by polluting the tree with these massive narrow branches that are constantly in the way.
     
    At an absolute minimum you're addressing everyone else in that discussion, but in reality, you're talking to anyone who will listen, for all time. Composing your reply as if it is a reply to just one person is a quaint artifact of a world that doesn't exist any more. Every public post you make on the Internet, reply or not, is actually talking to everyone who will ever read it. It'd be helpful if the systems we used for discussion made that clear, rather than maintaining this harmful pretense of private conversations in a public space.
     
     
    
  • I just want to scroll down.
    Reddit (and to a lesser extent, Hacker News) are probably the best known examples of threaded comments applied to a large audience. While I find Reddit so much more tolerable than the bad old days of Digg, I can still barely force myself to wade through the discussions there, because it's so much darn work. As a lazy reader, I feel I've already done my part by deciding to enter the thread; after that all I should need to do is scroll or swipe down.
     
    Take what's on the top of reddit right now. It's a cool picture; who wouldn't want to meet Steve Martin and Morgan Freeman? But what's the context? Who is this kid? How did he get so lucky? To find out, I need to collapse and suppress dozens of random meaningless tangents, and the replies-to-tangents, by clicking the little minus symbol next to each one. So that's what I'm doing: reading a little, deciding that tangent is not useful or interesting, and clicking it to get rid of it. Then I arrive at the end and find out that information wasn't even in the topic, or at least I couldn't find it. I'm OK with scrolling down to find information and/or entertainment, to a point. What I object to is the menial labor of collapsing and expanding threaded portions of the topic as I read. Despite what the people posting them might think, those tangents aren't so terribly important that they're worth making me, and every other reader, act on them.
    

  Full bore, no-holds-barred threading is an unmitigated usability disaster for discussion, everywhere I've encountered it.

   

  [*]http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/BuildingCommunitieswithSo.html

   

  On Usenet, threads last for months and months and go off onto so many tangents that you never know where they've been. Whenever a newbie stumbles by and asks a germane question, the old timers shout him down and tell him to read the FAQ. Quoting, with the ">" symbol, is a disease that makes it impossible to read any single thread without boring yourself to death by re-reading the whole history of a chain of argument which you just read in the original, seconds ago, again and again and again.

[ZeroHour]

Ahh joyous usenet, that brings back memories

Regarding usenet's threading, I was one who would read every subpost as well as try to follow the main discussion which was a bit of a nightmare when you would have the topic being discussed in both subthreads so the conversation would get very split by its nature. The only big forum software I know that has this approach is actually vBulletin 5 which is otherwise a disaster, it allows you to comment on an individual post in the thread which can be good or bad.

 

Now onto thread drift, it is a problem when it continues for too long, I am personally happy to allow a little drift as long as it doesnt spiral into a large amount of posts and I too have asked a question about a post which was not necessarily related to the OP. As long as it tapers out and things get back to the original point its not derailing things then I would let it slide as part of natural conversation. It can also be hard to decide how to split that subtopic into its own thread as it may only be relevant in the context of the post made and may not require a large amount of discussion. We are moving to a new platform but it doesnt fully handle this scenario right now as only vBulletin 5 has post comments as a feature but I am going to think how to handle these situations better along with moderation guild lines to help keep it clear for all. Thinking out loud I would like 3 scenarios, off topic discussions that require its own thread for further discussion as it would be its own talking point for an extended period, off topic discussions that need to be separated from the OT but dont necessitate its own thread as they dont really add or have a large interest base necessarily but require more than 5 or 6 posts with that subtopic linked into the original thread and then thread drift that will naturally conclude quickly which doesnt really need any further action. I would love it if it was all linked nicely in the thread with pointers to each subthread but I do actually see a possible use for a post comments type feature now as a possible solution. Threads should be clean ideally for people coming with fresh eyes but there are other threads where this can be a bit looser as its more a conversation than technical like you say within reason.

Nothing is simple to implement but you have certainly given a lot of food for thought.

 

Regarding moderation, I would just like to thank the mods for all their work trying to keep things organised, its a very hard job moderating and we always have people who think we over moderate or under moderate and its very hard to find a common middle but the mods do a brilliant job. I am considering asking you guys the users to fill in a survey about how you would like things to be moderated in the future to see how things are going and if there are any tweaks that would help ensure everyone feels moderation is fair. Posts have to be dealt with quickly usually to prevent things spiralling further out of control when we have to moderate out of necessity and I know it can frustrate people when it happens as we have seen with the hugely personal opinions on political threads as there is no *right* answer most of the time, just opinions but as long as everyone posts cleanly and avoids getting personal or posting sweeping generalisations that could cause offence it usually doesnt have to be moderated.

If you ever feel a post requires moderation or splitting simply hit "Report Post" and put a message in the box in we will take a look at it, reports are not just for reporting bad things, anything you need us to do such as moving a thread to a different forum would be fine to report.

 

This was a much bigger post than I had planned but I hope you guys understand the various aspects I have covered, we are always listening and appreciate feedback good or bad as we want to ensurer EduGeek is working well for you all. If you ever want to submit private feedback you can use the contact us at the bottom of the page or create a post in Message the Admins.

[elsiegee40]

If you ever want to submit private feedback you can use the contact us at the bottom of the page or create a post in Message the Admins.

And only the Admins (Dos_Box and ZeroHour) see those messages. Not the Moderators.

[unixman_again]

Ahh joyous usenet, that brings back memories

 

I still use Usenet every day and I am a big fan of threading. I have no problem with tree structures - no doubt as a result of many years working with bills of materials, gantt charts and activity networks.

 

Personally I'd like to see Usenet style Edugeek.

[jinnantonnixx]

Thread drift can be engaging and useful, up to a point. However, when two (or more) parties engage in simultaneous discussions about different (off-)topics, a flat thread can become very difficult to follow as the posts alternate between topics.

Trees would solve this problem.

Edited November 18, 2016 by jinnantonnixx

[mavhc]

Ahh joyous usenet, that brings back memories

Regarding usenet's threading, I was one who would read every subpost as well as try to follow the main discussion which was a bit of a nightmare when you would have the topic being discussed in both subthreads so the conversation would get very split by its nature.

Maybe the hard part is joining split threads back together.

 

Thinking out loud I would like 3 scenarios

 

1. off topic discussions that require its own thread for further discussion as it would be its own talking point for an extended period

 

2. off topic discussions that need to be separated from the OT but dont necessitate its own thread as they dont really add or have a large interest base necessarily but require more than 5 or 6 posts with that subtopic linked into the original thread

 

3. thread drift that will naturally conclude quickly which doesn't really need any further action.

 

As usual it's the middle group that's hard to deal with.

 

I'd go back to your points on what the site is for, I suggest: 1. asking questions, getting answers. 2. finding already answered questions. 3. general chat.

 

2 works better the fewer posts there are in a thread, non-useful replies could be auto hidden, only to be expanded if wanted.

1 depends on the nature of the question: Sometimes "how do I do this in Office365" "just use Google Apps it's better" is the right answer, sometimes it's a terrible answer, sometimes it's terrible for the person asking, but great for the 10 people who'll find it via google in the future.

As for 3 I'd just let it drift on the wind.

 

If you ever feel a post requires moderation or splitting simply hit "Report Post" and put a message in the box in we will take a look at it, reports are not just for reporting bad things, anything you need us to do such as moving a thread to a different forum would be fine to report.

 

Due to the name, I'd never think of using Report Post to split a thread.

 

Thanks for the detailed reply.

 

Now how to split off a thread about the pros and cons of threading...

[LeMarchand]

I'm not sure a "split thread" button would be good - I can see it being used inappropriately, or accidentally pressed. Far better to have to ask a mod to do it (I'm assuming that it doesn't happen too much?)

 

Have to confess that I find "tree" discussions unsatisfactory as not everyone adds to the correct "branch" and you have to scan through the whole darn thing to keep up to date.

 

As for thread drift, I'm fine with it in "General" topics but I do think that it's good to keep "technical" threads on topic.

[pcstru]

I don't think threading makes much difference to on-topic. Usenet used to be replete with arguments about off-topic posting, sometimes erupting into a kind of warfare between groups when cross posting exacerbated the issue of what is on topic within multiple groups. For an example of a modern threaded browser based forum, probably better to look at reddit.

 

The assessment of on-topicness will always be a somewhat arbitrary and a largely subjective decision - which means that wherever you draw the line, there will be mistakes. That is important because people post for a reason. They are motivated to spend time writing and they have a personal investment in it. Even when the decision is right to encourage a focus on the agreed subject, it can be easy to take a stark and public "keep on topic" as a personal admonishment; as "shut up, we don't want to hear your point of view", rather than as it is intended. So IMO it is worth looking for a positive way to guide content because then, even when the decision is 'wrong', the reaction is less likely to be charged with personal slight if the message was positive.

 

Of course, that depends what you are looking for. Reddit's "Ask Historians" is exceptionally good quality and the rather harsh, no quarter given moderation is essential to that. But ask historians does not rely on building community in the way that (IMO) this place does and it is less clear from the context here, especially in the 'recreational' threads, exactly what constitutes being off-topic when the subjects themselves have an extremely wide gamut.

 

IMO the mods here do a very good job and that quite obviously takes a lot of their time and effort, all of which they give for free (as i understand it). It is not an easy thing and the personal investment applies as much to them as anyone. I think just being positive about requests for being on-topic and facilitating the discussion wherever it is going (i.e. encourage a thread split or even set it up) would be even better.

[elsiegee40]

IMO the mods here do a very good job and that quite obviously takes a lot of their time and effort, all of which they give for free (as i understand it). It is not an easy thing and the personal investment applies as much to them as anyone.

Thank you. We are not paid. We are all volunteers doing this when we can. I'm currently typing this in M&S while waiting for my daughter, for example.

 

I think just being positive about requests for being on-topic and facilitating the discussion wherever it is going (i.e. encourage a thread split or even set it up) would be even better.

We do split threads. I do it at least once a week, but it is fiddly and a pain if it's gone more than a few posts.

 

We are often trying to sort things from a mobile phone out while living our real world lives.

 

Generally, I try to nudge people into staying on topic as it saves a lot of work later on.

Ahem!

 

But when it's getting bad or a previous instruction has been ignored (as happened yesterday when witch was ignored) then the message gets stronger.

 

We also shouldn't confuse thread drift moderation with the breaking up of fights. Sometimes the BRIGHT RED BLOCK CAPS are the only way to get over that boundaries have been pushed to far. "Shouting" has become essential as there's no way to post my silent death stare. PMs to some parties will be inevitable.

Edited November 18, 2016 by elsiegee40

[LeMarchand]

"Shouting" has become essential as there's no way to post my silent death stare.

 

Here you go:

 

[pcstru]

We also shouldn't confuse thread drift moderation with the breaking up of fights. Sometimes the BRIGHT RED BLOCK CAPS are the only way to get over that boundaries have been pushed to far. "Shouting" has become essential as there's no way to post my silent death stare. PMs to some parties will be inevitable.

I agree. When discussion descends into ad hominem personal attacks, the message should be stark and uncompromising because that kind of behaviour is not acceptable anywhere in here. IMO over the last 3-4 years the quality of the more contentious discussion here has been raised largely because the moderation has been spot on in that area.

[mavhc]

I don't think threading makes much difference to on-topic. Usenet used to be replete with arguments about off-topic posting, sometimes erupting into a kind of warfare between groups when cross posting exacerbated the issue of what is on topic within multiple groups. For an example of a modern threaded browser based forum, probably better to look at reddit.

 

The point is threads can go off topic, and be ignored by most, they just Mute Subthread.

 

Where did that reply go?

In a threaded discussion, replies can arrive any place in the tree at any time. How do you know if there are new replies? Where do you find them? Only if you happen to be browsing the tree at the right place at the right time. It's annoying to follow discussions over time when new posts keep popping up anywhere in the middle of the big reply tree.

 

As to complaints about it being annoying to read posts in multiple threads, that's just a function of the software, usually you'd just press "next unread post" and it would skip. Then mute or skip the subthread if you don't care about it.

 

The software highlights the new replies, you can view by time, or threaded, not that hard

[pcstru]

The software highlights the new replies, you can view by time, or threaded, not that hard

It's quite hard with a stateless browser based view which shows multiple posts on the same page. It also involves a lot more data. Here the software can just record a high watermark for each user for each thread. To properly maintain read/unread status on a truly threaded discussion, you need to record the status of each read post for each user, which involves a lot more data. With usenet the processing and data used to reside on the client but that wouldn't work at all well with web sites.

[mavhc]

Does it involve more data than sending me 9 posts I've already read just to also send me the 10th?

 

Dunno if anyone's done this as you can't google for usenet without just getting stuff about binary piracy

[Joanne]

This thread is highly ironic. Love it.