A member has brought up the issue of "off topic" posting. So far, Machine Nation has taken a relaxed approach to "off topic" posting. Topics sometimes hop from thread to thread, there are lengthy digressions and chat sometimes pops up in the middle of discussions.

There has been a bit of discussion on this, and while some people like tightly focused threads, I think the feeling early on was that digressions can enhance a thread and that a return to topic usually happens naturally.

The disadvantages of going off topic include that it can interrupt the flow of discussion and discourage new posters from joining in. It also makes it hard to look back and find discussions that merit a second look but are hidden under an unconnected thread title.In the worst case, threads can completely disintegrate into friendly banter or a completely different topic (as opposed to P.ie threads that degenerate into name-calling) and the original topic dies.

For a while we tried spltting threads, but found that in a lot of cases both the new and old thread died after the surgery.

Your thoughts and suggestions on this issue, and on the related issue of creation of new threads, would be appreciated.

Th ISEQ thread has got a bit muddled lately. That is a pity because it will be an interesting thread to look at in a year or two if it is not choked with off topic posts. Perhaps a stricter policy should be applied to established threads? It might also be an idea to have general threads, e.g. Economics, for people to post in. The reason for peosting in established or general threads is that other people look at them and reply.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Th ISEQ thread has got a bit muddled lately. That is a pity because it will be an interesting thread to look at in a year or two if it is not choked with off topic posts. Perhaps a stricter policy should be applied to established threads? It might also be an idea to have general threads, e.g. Economics, for people to post in. The reason for peosting in established or general threads is that other people look at them and reply.

I have probably been the main offender on that thread, so it will be easy for me to do something about that. It does seem to be a good idea to try to protect particularly long running threads like the ISEQ or Weeds from digression.

I think most threads develop rather nicely. The Georgia/Russia thread being a model example! I think it's great that so much effort is being applied to constantly improve the site but perhaps there are also negative consequences to be found in excessive introspection. I think you only have to look over at the neighbours *twitches curtain* to understand that you are all doing a very satisfactory job as it is.

I don't think it is a huge problem yet, but we may need to tighten up a bit alright.

Slightly off-topic , I'm still not happy with the forum structure and I think this may lead to off-topicness if people can't find relevant threads quickly ?

This is an example of real off-topicness

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Th ISEQ thread has got a bit muddled lately. That is a pity because it will be an interesting thread to look at in a year or two if it is not choked with off topic posts. Perhaps a stricter policy should be applied to established threads? It might also be an idea to have general threads, e.g. Economics, for people to post in. The reason for peosting in established or general threads is that other people look at them and reply.

I don't think it has so much - the recent history of money is getting intertwined by posters there with the recent events in history which might affect money. It might be a bit bothersome to read back over it but I don't think certain news can be seperated from the main theme of the thread. Tech, metals and oil will all impact on the iseq in theory - as will wind, even. What do you have in mind as to the digressions there?

You have a good point about protecting established threads as they should be. Some threads go off into frivolities but that is absolutely necessary alongside the serious talk that some of try to engage in but that shouldn't happen with threads that are serious to posters who often 'own' that thread and live in it. It's often their dedication to that thread which determines what enters that thread and how it goes along.

I think unaligned is correct too - we are doing a good job overall but it is necessary for an eye to be kept on the ball too. I was thinking of making a comments box on the side if that could be a functional idea. Maybe posters could enter comments there anonymously and it would be about the site content - good or bad. What do ye think of that?

Interesting suggestion Audi - do you mean a kind of visitor's book? we could give it a try and if it was abused chuck it out of the defenestration window.

I agree with your comments and unaligned and EVM too - nothing to get very worried about, but if we can add to our site ethos an awarenss and bit of respect for the thread topic and as you say the posters who bring it along on topic.

Perhaps when we feel the urge for an off-topic natter some of that could be done in the chat box?

I think sometimes I post in the wrong thread and it is a bit lazy but also that what EVM says is right - it can be very difficult to find an old thread. The search function is pretty good though, provided you can remembe a key word in the title.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Th ISEQ thread has got a bit muddled lately. That is a pity because it will be an interesting thread to look at in a year or two if it is not choked with off topic posts. Perhaps a stricter policy should be applied to established threads? It might also be an idea to have general threads, e.g. Economics, for people to post in. The reason for peosting in established or general threads is that other people look at them and reply.

I've had the same thoughts as yourself. The economics discussion was in danger of being superceded by political debate and discourse. However, I am reminded of the reality that everything in the world is connected and the arena of politics is relevant to the field of economics.

I feel that, especially with complaints about the superfluity of threads, that the likes of the ISEQ thread should be kept woolly in its mission and concept. This means that we have the freedom to bring all sorts of facts, viewpoints, stories and influencing factors to the table to have a really good chat about why the ISEQ is the way it is. The ISEQ thread on P.ie has its meanderings and I feel that those meanderings are a source of strength since it keeps the discussion varied, vital and crisply current.

I'm relaxed about a degree of off-topicness since it allows people to relax and actually feel the warm and friendly atmosphere we have so painstakingly endeavoured to promote here in the Machine Nation. However, we must not allow threads to descend into a chaotic cacophony of nonsense so we Mods must crack the whip when this occurs. Then the off-topic discussion can be diverted to the Chat Box and the thread's original discussion can proceed unimpeded.

There is no such thing as off topic on the stock thread. For example a 2 page ramble about the new Joker movie would be on topic because a good opening would have an impact on the stock itself but more importantly as an indication of the spending power out there. It goes without saying that politics is on topic not to mention oil prices.

There is a widely held view that stock prices rise and fall with hemlines so fashion is not off topic

youngdan wrote:

There is no such thing as off topic on the stock thread. For example a 2 page ramble about the new Joker movie would be on topic because a good opening would have an impact on the stock itself but more importantly as an indication of the spending power out there. It goes without saying that politics is on topic not to mention oil prices.

There is a widely held view that stock prices rise and fall with hemlines so fashion is not off topic

I think that Xpose on TV3 is load of shallow twat .........stocks plummet

Howdy folks, I'm back.

I hate it when threads go off topic and become hard to follow. But I realise that an entity that calls itself a community must have room for banter, in order to grow.

If a thread should be taken wildly off course a mod should have a private chat with the offending navigator and self-moderation should result.

Another idea that might be applied would mean a lot of work for the mods but would be simple to apply and would be definitive with regard to preserving the integrity of important threads. Mods could decide upon the importance of a particular thread, they could pick out the good bits from it and publish under a new title. This new 'master thread' could be added to only by mods who'd take applicable material from other threads already on MN. This way, original threads can contain a certain amount of banter, yet we can have pure master threads that act as examples that new threads should seek to aim for. Master threads could be denoted by some new icon and would be considered to be something that all posters should want to aim for. In a nutshell: Good threads have the best of material taken from them and converted into partially locked master threads - the originating thread continues to exist and it allows a certain amount of off topic material. Mods can place any good material or debate from the originating thread or from anywhere on MN into the master thread, so that it continues to grow. Master threads could be housed in the same category as the originating thread, so there'd be no need to complexify things by creating a whole new body of categories. Might be an idea too to have a link up top on the same line as the portal link, that leads to a window containing all 'master threads' lined up in order of creation. Each master thread should have a link to the originating thread so that inspired readers might have input into whatever matters take their fancy.

The real problem with deciding upon a master thread is to decide when a thread is suitable for upgrade. It might be tempting to upgrade a good post that hasn't had any comments. This of course would mean a lot of work for mods, who'd have to add continuosly to the master thread as good comments arrived. A rule of thumb might be that threads could only be upgraded after a week or so (or some other timeframe that'd allow for lots of commentry). It goes without saying I suppose, that only high quality and important threads should be upgraded.

To set precedents is a way of influencing folks without the necessity of twisting arms etc.

Hermes wrote:

Howdy folks, I'm back.

I hate it when threads go off topic and become hard to follow. But I realise that an entity that calls itself a community must have room for banter, in order to grow.

If a thread should be taken wildly off course a mod should have a private chat with the offending navigator and self-moderation should result.

Another idea that might be applied would mean a lot of work for the mods but would be simple to apply and would be definitive with regard to preserving the integrity of important threads. Mods could decide upon the importance of a particular thread, they could pick out the good bits from it and publish under a new title. This new 'master thread' could be added to only by mods who'd take applicable material from other threads already on MN. This way, original threads can contain a certain amount of banter, yet we can have pure master threads that act as examples that new threads should seek to aim for. Master threads could be denoted by some new icon and would be considered to be something that all posters should want to aim for. In a nutshell: Good threads have the best of material taken from them and converted into partially locked master threads - the originating thread continues to exist and it allows a certain amount of off topic material. Mods can place any good material or debate from the originating thread or from anywhere on MN into the master thread, so that it continues to grow. Master threads could be housed in the same category as the originating thread, so there'd be no need to complexify things by creating a whole new body of categories. Might be an idea too to have a link up top on the same line as the portal link, that leads to a window containing all 'master threads' lined up in order of creation. Each master thread should have a link to the originating thread so that inspired readers might have input into whatever matters take their fancy.

The real problem with deciding upon a master thread is to decide when a thread is suitable for upgrade. It might be tempting to upgrade a good post that hasn't had any comments. This of course would mean a lot of work for mods, who'd have to add continuosly to the master thread as good comments arrived. A rule of thumb might be that threads could only be upgraded after a week or so (or some other timeframe that'd allow for lots of commentry). It goes without saying I suppose, that only high quality and important threads should be upgraded.

To set precedents is a way of influencing folks without the necessity of twisting arms etc.

Fáilte ar ais arís Hermes and how make I go off topic for you?

Hermes wrote:

Howdy folks, I'm back.

I hate it when threads go off topic and become hard to follow. But I realise that an entity that calls itself a community must have room for banter, in order to grow.

If a thread should be taken wildly off course a mod should have a private chat with the offending navigator and self-moderation should result.

Another idea that might be applied would mean a lot of work for the mods but would be simple to apply and would be definitive with regard to preserving the integrity of important threads. Mods could decide upon the importance of a particular thread, they could pick out the good bits from it and publish under a new title. This new 'master thread' could be added to only by mods who'd take applicable material from other threads already on MN. This way, original threads can contain a certain amount of banter, yet we can have pure master threads that act as examples that new threads should seek to aim for. Master threads could be denoted by some new icon and would be considered to be something that all posters should want to aim for. In a nutshell: Good threads have the best of material taken from them and converted into partially locked master threads - the originating thread continues to exist and it allows a certain amount of off topic material. Mods can place any good material or debate from the originating thread or from anywhere on MN into the master thread, so that it continues to grow. Master threads could be housed in the same category as the originating thread, so there'd be no need to complexify things by creating a whole new body of categories. Might be an idea too to have a link up top on the same line as the portal link, that leads to a window containing all 'master threads' lined up in order of creation. Each master thread should have a link to the originating thread so that inspired readers might have input into whatever matters take their fancy.

The real problem with deciding upon a master thread is to decide when a thread is suitable for upgrade. It might be tempting to upgrade a good post that hasn't had any comments. This of course would mean a lot of work for mods, who'd have to add continuosly to the master thread as good comments arrived. A rule of thumb might be that threads could only be upgraded after a week or so (or some other timeframe that'd allow for lots of commentry). It goes without saying I suppose, that only high quality and important threads should be upgraded.

To set precedents is a way of influencing folks without the necessity of twisting arms etc.

I've thought about this before and it does sound like a lot of work though worth it because some comments and posts are top class and should be collected in a booklet and printed. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this were to happen with the Property Pin threads - theirs is a detailed trainspotting account kept over a number of years of the rise and fall of the property market - maybe they even had a part to play in it themselves.

And welcome back!

Seconded Hermes !

A slightly different approach would be for the person who opens the thread to mark it as an "OT" on topic thread. Posters would then know that the original thread opener would appreciate it being kept on topic.

Good to have you back Hermes.

I like your idea, cactus (and not just because it involves less work than Hermes).

Hermes idea has a lot of merit too though; superthreads would be brilliant - but it would involve a lot of decision making and picking and choosing and framing in the style of a particular mod. It would be especially perfect if we could copy posts but we can't; afaik we can only merge them.

We could start shifting some off topic stuff on subjects not in the Chat forum onto threads there - in the Síbín or somewhere; but just those daft nested discussions that are clearly utterly off the point frivolity.

Kate P wrote:

Good to have you back Hermes.

I like your idea, cactus (and not just because it involves less work than Hermes).

Hermes idea has a lot of merit too though; superthreads would be brilliant - but it would involve a lot of decision making and picking and choosing and framing in the style of a particular mod. It would be especially perfect if we could copy posts but we can't; afaik we can only merge them.

We could start shifting some off topic stuff on subjects not in the Chat forum onto threads there - in the Síbín or somewhere; but just those daft nested discussions that are clearly utterly off the point frivolity.

What about the chatbox - perhaps we can gradually wean ourselves on to jumping into it when we feel chattiness coming on? I think editing threads if we cant keep a shadow version might really put posters backs up.

Thanks to the antagoniser on p.ie last night I learned a new thing about threads and sub-threads and finally why nesting of threads can be useful.

Then p.ie crashed.