feedback on the site

[khakipuce]

Kay,

personally I don't mind the idle chat and I think others are happy to ignore it. However it's a really annoying when it spills over into other topics. Some people just can't contain  themselves and have to pass judgement on absolutley everything.

In this thread http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php/topic,10687.msg138278.html#msg138278 Gerbil007 does a great trip report and shows that he is a real brave guy, not only for the caving but for having the guts to pour his heart out on here. And most of the comments were positive and encouraging, however the usual suspects had to make snide comments and nit pick. We can just do without it.

 

[kay]

Kay,

personally I don't mind the idle chat and I think others are happy to ignore it. However it's a really annoying when it spills over into other topics. Some people just can't contain  themselves and have to pass judgement on absolutley everything.

So if we idle chatters were to confine our chatting to "idle chat" you'd feel it was an improvement?

In this thread http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php/topic,10687.msg138278.html#msg138278 Gerbil007 does a great trip report and shows that he is a real brave guy, not only for the caving but for having the guts to pour his heart out on here. And most of the comments were positive and encouraging, however the usual suspects had to make snide comments and nit pick. We can just do without it.

Interesting the way different people see things differently. I've just had another quick read through this to see what you mean. There was definitely major thread drift after 12 posts (but that's pretty universal on the internet), and a good deal of flippancy - but I couldn't see anything that I'd regard as nit-picking or snidery. So which were the posts you disliked and why? I'm not trying to argue with you, just to understand what it is that so upsets people.

 

[dunc]

So if we idle chatters were to confine our chatting to "idle chat" you'd feel it was an improvement?

Two points:
The regulars probably can confine chatting to idle chat, there are those that don't seem to have any understanding of where to post a certain topic, although the mods do a good job moving things (and the annoying "topic moved" post has been resolved) .
The other point being certain respectable topics end up getting dragged down by off-topic "idle chat" posting, moderation needed to split it before it gets out of hand, or worse left. Whilst I find this site has its uses for finding information there is sometimes a load of crap associated with a topic that somewhat detracts from the value of it.

Whilst I'm here may aswell have a say, generally site ok. Moderation ok, but see above point. I have spoken to some people that hold the view that the site is dominated by know it alls that insist on having an opinion on everything (their words, not mine) and as such not keen on using it.

I think Goydenman makes some good points in his post above.

 

[kay]

Two points:
The regulars probably can confine chatting to idle chat, there are those that don't seem to have any understanding of where to post a certain topic, although the mods do a good job moving things (and the annoying "topic moved" post has been resolved) .
The other point being certain respectable topics end up getting dragged down by off-topic "idle chat" posting, moderation needed to split it before it gets out of hand, or worse left.

That's why I was wondering whether "idle chatters" could help things by ourselves "splitting" posts - ie starting a new thread in idle chat and quoting the bit of the serious post we wanted to make a flippant comment on. If we can sort these things out ourselves, it's less of a burden for the mods.

 

[graham]

There is a concept on one site I use of a "babble" thread, which is effectively an open ended chat thread that is renewed at regular periods. Seems to work well there. Mind there seems to be a lot less angst about off topic stuff and banter there than there is here.

One point I'd like to make is that a hell of a lot of people on here are good friends of mine, but I don't get to see them that often. However, when I do seem them, I don't just talk about caving. Is every conversation in the Hunter's about caving? No it is not. It may be what we have in common and what brings us together, but it is not the sole topic of our conversation. it is unlikely to be so here either.

 

[khakipuce]

Kay,

Not really sure I want to get into this for many reasons, but since you asked nicely:

there is the comment about solo caving - first respone to the post

then there is the "stupid boy" comment.

then it descends into another hyphen, apostrophe, spelling debate

I know these were meant to be humorous and I guess Gerbil007 was not bothered but it just seems that certain people cannot just leave it out.  The accumulated cruft of comments that add nothing (and I suspect are just ego massage for the posters) are just distracting noise, the quality of the threads is degraded like a street covered in litter. I'm sure non of us are that bothered either way, just like we are not bothered enough to pick up the litter but we don't like seeing it.

As Nick Williams said earlier "it's about having respect for other people's point of view. It's about giving people space to express themselves".  It's about having the humility to accept that the other person's point of view may be valid and that you may not have understood their point. It's about not belittling or trivialising the contributions of others, or bullying, or sometimes just butting out when you have nothing to add.

I often start typing a reply and then just back out because I recognise I am not adding to the thread.

I know my suggestion of some form of user moderation has been thoroughly trashed, however one of the biggest and oldest surviving geek forums on the Web uses a very similar system and it works well. I can go to a discussion with 500 to a 1000 posts and be presented with only may be 50 that other users have moderated at the most interesting, informative or amusing comments on the thread. And it really does work (interesting the spelling/grammar stuff is pretty much always modded down to invisibility).

 

[graham]

khakipuce

What do you really expect people to say in a thread like that?

101 variants on "gosh weren't you brave isn't it lucky you got out alive" would make for splendidly dull reading and wouldn't add to anyone's knowledge of anything.

Are you saying that people shouldn't add comments? That would just look like no-one was interested; would that be better or worse for the author?

 

[khakipuce]

See, I said I didn't really want to get into this.  There are plenty of good comments on there that aren't "gosh...".

It is a good chance for people to relate their solo caving experiences, share experience on things to think about when solo caving, how to calm down, knowledge of the particalur route ... in fact exactly what that thread contained without the litter.

I like Kay's idea that you guys just take it over to idle chat and link back to the thread.

 

[Peter Burgess]

We are all from different generations and backgrounds. What might appear to be a flippant comment to one group of people will be a friendly empathetic remark to another. One thing we should never get into is the fear of walking on eggshells, but also being aware of sensible boundaries. We might assume that someone just doesn't care when they make a casual comment, but 9 times out of 10, that probably isn't true. We are all guilty of reading things into other people's motives for posting stuff that just isn't there. I know when someone has got hold of the wrong end of the stick over things I write, but would they believe me if I said so? Experience tells me not so in recent weeks.

 

[dunc]

One point I'd like to make is that a hell of a lot of people on here are good friends of mine, but I don't get to see them that often. However, when I do seem them, I don't just talk about caving. Is every conversation in the Hunter's about caving? No it is not. It may be what we have in common and what brings us together, but it is not the sole topic of our conversation. it is unlikely to be so here either.

I can see your point, but if I search for information on a particular cave or piece of equipment (or read an ongoing thread) I don't really want to trawl through idle chat between a couple of friends (chances are, none of whom I personally know!) and I'm sure others don't wish to either. I don't have an issue of it taking place in say, idle chat, but in the middle of a "what light" (just picked a random cave-related item) thread is well, not cricket!

Lets say you're in the Hunters, couple of people talking about the latest light and then you barge in and talk to your friend about his holidays and work for a bit (ignoring the other guys interest in this new light) before wandering off leaving them to pick up where they left off - assuming they haven't been distracted from their conversation..? Maybe it's me, but that's not what I would do.

That's why I was wondering whether "idle chatters" could help things by ourselves "splitting" posts -

Sounds reasonable to me..

 

[graham]

See, I said I didn't really want to get into this.

Too late

It is a good chance for people to relate their solo caving experiences, share experience on things to think about when solo caving, how to calm down, knowledge of the particalur route ... in fact exactly what that thread contained without the litter.

So anybody else who read the post and wishes to acknowledge that they've read it can only do so if they dilute the author's experiences with their own?

 

[cap n chris]

Not really sure I want to get into this for many reasons, but since you asked nicely:

there is the comment about solo caving - first respone to the post

Aha, that'll be me, then! - I'm a bit of a Billy NoMates, me, so I guess that I'm also a "particular individual"! - mind you, Gerbil wasn't being too harsh on me about my sarky comment(s) when we met up at the 115m pitch in Sima GESM last Thursday after his -1km marathon (not solo, please note). He was prolly a tad tired.

 

[dunc]

Just to add another thought about a comment I read a while back about moderation.

If the mods are too busy, can't get on as often then (if possible) could the workload not be split - say a couple of global mods with other mods covering certain boards - eg. one for digging, one for Mendip etc. I know some boards already have their own mod, why not expand upon that?

 

[Speleokitty]

Generally I think the site runs pretty well. There seems to be a reasonable balance between moderation and Trolls and although I personally would favour slightly more active moderation I don't think that the general consensus.

I would really suggest you change it as little as possible.

Kitty

 

[Peter Burgess]

If somebody posts a new topic that they really don't want to see taken off-topic, or want the debate to be kept serious, then it isn't difficult to say so right at the start. I have done this elsewhere, and it worked well. People respected that I was posting something that was important and for thoughtful consideration. Yes, I can be serious when I want to be. I can't recall doing this here, but see no reason why it wouldn't work. Let's say it was a tribute to someone who had died, or a discussion on a bad accident, for example. I also feel there is a certain amount of "ownership" on a thread which resides with the originator, and if that person were to ask for the topic to be locked if they thought their feelings were not being respected, I think a Mod should respect that view and lock it, or even delete it if requested. Circumstances of particular topics might dictate otherwise, but as a general rule, I think the idea has merit.

 

[cap n chris]

... indeed. Maybe a good idea, there.

...Perhaps something along the lines of putting the acronym "NSFW"* at the front of the topic?

* Not suitable for Whitelackington.

 

[kay]

Kay,

Not really sure I want to get into this for many reasons, but since you asked nicely:

there is the comment about solo caving - first respone to the post

I don't think that would have worried me in similar circumstances, but I think I see where you are coming from - someone opens their heart, and the first response is a joke.

then there is the "stupid boy" comment.

ah, I didn't spot that one

then it descends into another hyphen, apostrophe, spelling debate

I know these were meant to be humorous and I guess Gerbil007 was not bothered but it just seems that certain people cannot just leave it out.  The accumulated cruft of comments that add nothing (and I suspect are just ego massage for the posters) are just distracting noise, the quality of the threads is degraded like a street covered in litter. I'm sure non of us are that bothered either way, just like we are not bothered enough to pick up the litter but we don't like seeing it.

I don't know, but I wonder whether it's partly frequency of reading ukc - I look at it every day, so I saw that thread start off seriously and then drift into lighter stuff, just as a real life conversation might do. Whereas if I'd come in later and read say 15 posts in one go, the trivial stuff might have seemed rather a shocking response. Do you think there might be anything in that?

As Nick Williams said earlier "it's about having respect for other people's point of view. It's about giving people space to express themselves".  It's about having the humility to accept that the other person's point of view may be valid and that you may not have understood their point. It's about not belittling or trivialising the contributions of others, or bullying, or sometimes just butting out when you have nothing to add.

The trouble is, I see very little bullying or belittling on ukc. I see a lot of thread drift and a lot of fairly trivial posting, but very little with malice in it. So I'm really struggling with the degree of animosity being shown by some of the posters on this thread, and trying hard to see what ukc looks like from their point of view.

I know my suggestion of some form of user moderation has been thoroughly trashed, however one of the biggest and oldest surviving geek forums on the Web uses a very similar system and it works well. I can go to a discussion with 500 to a 1000 posts and be presented with only may be 50 that other users have moderated at the most interesting, informative or amusing comments on the thread. And it really does work (interesting the spelling/grammar stuff is pretty much always modded down to invisibility).

But I enjoy the spelling/grammar stuff!

 

[Badlad]

Have I counted correctly?  Peter has posted 16 times already on this topic.  Nick's, measured, yet unusually outspoken comments have been ignored.

I would log in more often and probably post more if nearly every thread wasn't dominated by the opinions of those (very) few regular posters (and some are very much worse than others).  Comparing the forum to a chat in the pub is good.  If I get stuck at a table in the pub with someone dominating or boring the discussion I can move to the bar or a different table.  Unfortunately on here you just can't get away from them - so I don't go to this particular pub very often.  I know quite a few who drink elsewhere too.  Hope this helps thesiger, good luck.

 

[whitelackington]

I expect the excessive moderation on this forum is to make the place more friendly to potential advertisers
but while this may well be the case it is loosing cavers who do not want seemingly endless, arbitrary moderation.

 

[j4nny]

If it was ALL about caving we?d lose the ?Friday joke? and many other quality posts.

I see it as a place for cavers to talk on line, about anything. Primarily about caving of course, but there is life over ground (sorry to say). It?s a fantastic resource and can be highly entertaining.

I?ve made allot of connections through the forum that has lead to trips up and down the country. I also meet cavers get chatting and quite often they are on the forum to, and voice an opinion on the latest goings on.

I think its part of the caving community, and reflect the different personalities with in.

What would life be like with out WL and PB ? online caving celebrities in their own right (please note, rhetorical question and not intended to spark debate)  :-\