How to Improve (ie "save") the Forums

Cherokee Nunes wrote: I can assure you, gentle reader, that more rules are not going to solve the problems of forums. Understand, we the people are a rabble. We always were. Same rabble that starts revolutions and bar fights and riots and panic-hoarding. The only way to fix the rabble out of forums is to close the forums. Actually I think we all know and understand this, so, yeah.

Nick stated on another thread that active participation is a tiny fraction of the total membership. A large part of that participation is the "rabble" as you call it. However that is not the entirety of the membership.

I have many long term partners who do not participate on this forum because of the rabble. If they felt it was a place where they could participate without trolls jumping on them on every post, they would have a lot to contribute. And, these people have a hugle amount of climbing knowledge and experience to contribute which this forum never sees.

I respect your opinion, but this is not the only way. It is each individual's choice whether to participate in a culture that has rules or find another circumstance. Membership would likely change, but it would not need to be the end for everyone. 

Change is hard.

Doctor Drake wrote:

I don’t have many ideas off the top of my head, but I’ll try and share some later. 

Bingo. This is just a list of ideas. I eagerly await yours.

 It is each individual's choice whether to participate in a culture that has rules or find another circumstance.

Of course and yes I agree. That said, here we are. I've participated in forums in one form or another for more than 2 decades. I've seen them come and go, come and go. These patterns repeat themselves ad infinitum. Its a human nature thing. Yes you can lock down and neuter/spay the forums to the point no one posts. I've see than done many times. The end result is the same as if nothing was done at all - the forum dies, in this case from a lack of activity and interest, as opposed to the death by trolls. I hate to be negative and actually I'm not: I wrapped my head around it a long time ago. Don't get emotionally attached to a forum because that forum is going to go away and sooner than you may think. Enjoy it while you can!

One post for each lead/onsight tick!

Gotta climb to comment, just like when I was a kid, reading books for computer time.

;)

Cherokee Nunes wrote: Of course and yes I agree. That said, here we are. I've participated in forums in one form or another for more than 2 decades. I've seen them come and go, come and go. These patterns repeat themselves ad infinitum. Its a human nature thing. Yes you can lock down and neuter/spay the forums to the point no one posts. I've see than done many times. The end result is the same as if nothing was done at all - the forum dies, in this case from a lack of activity and interest, as opposed to the death by trolls. I hate to be negative and actually I'm not: I wrapped my head around it a long time ago. Don't get emotionally attached to a forum because that forum is going to go away and sooner than you may think. Enjoy it while you can!

I believe we are both of a similar vintage, and likewise, I am not new to online forums coming and going. 

Agree, everything is impermanent, but also the lotus grows out of the mud. 

Can't predict the future. Time will tell.

LOL! Enough cliches?

  

I think  Hacker News (news.ycombinator.com) would be an interesting model to look at.  The forum there seems to stay mostly civil but includes a lot of debating.  They use a upvote/downvote system for comments but the downvote button only appears for users that have a certain amount of positive "Karma" points.  These points are earned by making topic submissions that are upvoted and having upvoted comments.  A user looses karma points by a downvote.  

HN also has an interesting model for what shows up on the first page (basically their latest posts page).  This is from the FAQ

How are stories ranked?
The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was submitted. Comments in threads are ranked the same way.
Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, and moderator intervention.

I think this leads to a submission/topic naturally falling off the front page regardless of how much chatter is happening in the comments.  It feels like an appropriate life cycle for topics.

Josh Janes wrote:

Bingo. This is just a list of ideas. I eagerly await yours.

Its easier to tear down a barn than it is to build one.

Mikey Schaefer wrote: I think  Hacker News (news.ycombinator.com) would be an interesting model to look at.  The forum there seems to stay mostly civil but includes a lot of debating.  They use a upvote/downvote system for comments but the downvote button only appears for users that have a certain amount of positive "Karma" points.  These points are earned by making topic submissions that are upvoted and having upvoted comments.  A user looses karma points by a downvote.  

HN also has an interesting model for what shows up on the first page (basically their latest posts page).  This is from the FAQ
I think this leads to a submission/topic naturally falling off the front page regardless of how much chatter is happening in the comments.  It feels like an appropriate life cycle for topics.

The real "magic" behind HN's remarkable civility: there is a small, full-time, paid moderation team that keeps everyone in line.

I think the thumbs up/thumbs down votes would be too easy to exploit, and also open up a possibility of several people "ganging up" on someone. People don't distinguish very well between "I don't like this idea" and "I don't like this person". And some of the people I disagree with, strongly, on some subjects, but they are giving perfectly solid and responsible advice on other subjects. The thumbs down on a political post shouldn't affect someone's ability to respond to a question about rope soloing, or local beta.

Mikey Schaefer wrote: I think  Hacker News (news.ycombinator.com) would be an interesting model to look at.  The forum there seems to stay mostly civil but includes a lot of debating.  They use a upvote/downvote system for comments but the downvote button only appears for users that have a certain amount of positive "Karma" points.  These points are earned by making topic submissions that are upvoted and having upvoted comments.  A user looses karma points by a downvote.  

HN also has an interesting model for what shows up on the first page (basically their latest posts page).  This is from the FAQ
I think this leads to a submission/topic naturally falling off the front page regardless of how much chatter is happening in the comments.  It feels like an appropriate life cycle for topics.

agreed, HN is a pretty great model. you have to have a certain karma, (500 i believe) before you earn the right to downvote. and there's a sort of aura of civil-duty to keep the forums clean.

their moderation is strict about staying ON-TOPIC. i don't know the number of moderators present though. but moderation is PEOPLE problem, and no amount of algorithms will ever replace the need for enough people to handle the community. the people (mods and participants) just need to be given clear rules, and be allowed to make judgments.

i think the linear form of forums instead of threaded is also part of the problem.

it draws all post participants into every divergent thread because there's only one path to read: from first to last post.

David K wrote: I'll admit I don't see a lot of value in the forums--their basic function seems to be drumming up activity so people add the routes/areas which are the real value of MP.

Really? mountainhick up above wrote:

The funtional aspects of sharing climbing adventures, discussing gear, climbing techniques, training, dealing with climbing related injuries, trading, buying and selling gear, regional access and condition notification and discussion, and hooking up with other climbers is invaluable. 

...to which I'd add: for some of us who are either temporarily or permanently retired from climbing, it keeps us connected to a community we've been a part of for most of our lives. And we can even share some real knowledge or advice (some of it gleaned from total epics). We just don't have new areas or routes or much beta to contribute.
 

There are a few posters who post valuable content (rgold and Jim Titt, for example) but it would be a lot better if you just gave those people blogs--

Yet most of their valuable content is created in response to a question or comment. Arguably of more immediate value to those who desired to be a part of the discussion as opposed to blog posts.

...other people's uninformed responses to their informed posts actively detract value.

Sure, sometimes. Most of the time though those responses serve to enable those with the knowledge to clarify or expand on the topic.

 Overall, I'm not actually a big fan of social media. But if you're going to keep the forums at all, whatever changes are made should at least try to maintain some semblance of discussion.

IMO, much of social media is closer to a short-form blog - Twitter being the ultimate - where actual discussion really isn't the goal and where returning to a discussion is difficult if not impossible at a later date. Facebook is terrible at supporting ongoing debates. Discussion forums otoh are closer to conversations at a bar (or for those who remember, the Mory wine tastings at the Uberfall rescue box on Saturday evenings in the Gunks) that are easily returned to.

Upthread I advocated for getting rid of the up/down vote, for the reason that Lena chita cites. After reading Mikey's post, I like the Karma points concept very much. Empowers the users, decentralizes authority, and puts a check on abuse. 

Lena chita wrote: I think the thumbs up/thumbs down votes would be too easy to exploit, and also open up a possibility of several people "ganging up" on someone. People don't distinguish very well between "I don't like this idea" and "I don't like this person". And some of the people I disagree with, strongly, on some subjects, but they are giving perfectly solid and responsible advice on other subjects. The thumbs down on a political post shouldn't affect someone's ability to respond to a question about rope soloing, or local beta.

I'm not a programmer or mathematician but I can imagine ways to prevent exploitation with a strict set of rules.  Say if only one user continually downvotes another user each downvote holds less weight and has less impact.  Upvotes from the greater community should be able to offset the personal attack.   And regarding the thumbs down on political posts, this is easily solved.  Create a political/spray/bullshit/dumpster-fire  sub-forum that doesn't appear on the front page or in latest posts.  This forum is less moderated and doesn't affect karma points.  If a user chooses to go play in the dumpster fire they should have thick skin.   But on the other hand if your karma points follow you everywhere it might be incentive to behave respectfully even while you are talking politics/spray.  I do think you are right that some people struggle to distinguish between a persons ideas and the person but the community as a whole should be able to tell the difference. 

I'm supportive of ideas to block or screen people from over-posting, and from making new accounts to post spam or otherwise chime in with troll-y one-offs (or, as the case may be, twelve-offs). I always use the "latest forum posts" feed to browse when I have time and I enjoy the notifications feature button, so I'm glad Nick brought those back, although his explanation of why he's tired of managing it makes sense too.

Keep in mind that many people who post way too often have been longtime members and/or have posted database content, so those criteria alone aren't really good enough in and of themselves imo. I guess there is a daily post limit in place right now (I don't really know what it is because I've never hit it), but why can't there be a weekly or monthly limit as well? Does anyone really need to write 30 posts/month or 12 posts/week or whatever? This isn't a result of the pandemic either.

There's just a lot of junk posting these days. It's not always troll-y instigations, some of it is just clearly "oh, I thought of a witty repartee or observation, I need to log on and post this". Once in a while, ok, fine. But routinely? There's nothing useful about it.

Aerili wrote: Does anyone really need to write 30 posts/month or 12 posts/week or whatever?

Well, yes. Look at the back and forth that occurs when discussing a new-to-them technique, beta on an area, or climber's coalition group's interaction with land managers in some area as but three examples. The point is that a hard limit can really stifle good discussions. And when there's a hard limit, people start gaming it by editing their previous replies, which makes a thread really hard to follow and effing annoying.

As a 12 year veteran of numerous forums I have found this axiom:  Truth sinks, lies, insanity and twisted statements float at the top.

I found that I could sink just about any thread by being sane.

This lead me to trolling because those babies float for days.

I think this is why journalists write the way they do.  They write stories that they think people want to hear and then bend the fact to make them fit.  And lately, just make shit up.

Another way of putting it is; If everyone agrees there are no comments.  If lots of people disagree with each other it goes on for pages.

Also, can we get more badges? I love badges.   Sierra Club, BSA, GSA, CAC, NPS, Army, Navy,  etc. etc.  Clubs could maybe submit badges.   It's like having climbing stickers on your car. 

Marc801 C wrote: Well, yes. Look at the back and forth that occurs when discussing a new-to-them technique, beta on an area, or climber's coalition group's interaction with land managers in some area as but three examples. The point is that a hard limit can really stifle good discussions. And when there's a hard limit, people start gaming it by editing their previous replies, which makes a thread really hard to follow and effing annoying.

I feel like I've been able to discuss and post thoughtful responses for years without virtually ever approaching that number of posts - even in a week. I think people who feel they need to post that often just want like to write on forums a lot.