I think one of the things that people who are mods and leaders and what not is that for a new user finding these small things is going to be difficult. There is not easy link click to groups to even see a mod or someone who can provide help or answer questions. There is also not a description on these groups to say if you have questions go here or if you need x or y go to this group.
Maybe add an icon on the top bar that says help or maybe a ? icon and redirects you to the rules thread Update descriptions on groups and make more available, Provide more information on what each tier gets you and how you get to it etc. Just more filler data so people know how all the small things work.
Whenever a new user like @level1 joins and doesn’t like the way thing work here, don’t let threads like these happen, this was spawned from the Necro thread, it’s a non issue, instruct new users in how things are around here and have them accept it.
Everyone can make suggestions on how to improve the forum, but a brand new user saying “wow, hold on, this isn’t the way you should run the forum” seems off to me.
Regardless, the necro thread spawned this right?
Then that thread had to be locked, then we tried again with a meta discussion, then that had to be locked, now we’re making a third attempt, all in the span of two days.
I stand by my point, don’t let threads like this happen because of a new user.
Things are running smoothly (mostly) and thread necroing wasn’t a huge topic, but someone that’s only been here for a couple days comes in and makes a huge fuss about it, derailing our forums and causing arguments between users. It’s very disruptive.
On the other hand fresh views are never a bad thing. The ideas behind all of this are sound, it was just brought up and handled in a very poor manner.
It would seem as though you didn’t even read the one (and only) post I made in the original (Necro post) thread. That whole post was about plugging a hole in incomplete forum documentation so that there would be less necroing of old topics, moderators would have less work to do, and the new user experience could be more pleasant. Your objection to that would be…???
It would seem so. The community appears deeply divided on the issue (if that poll is even remotely representative). I had no idea it was a hot button topic.
One post. One. 1. You call that “a huge fuss”? Don’t you think that you are spinning that just a little too hard? You can’t hold me responsible for the responses of others, nor the (mis)handling of the thread by moderators from that point on.
It’s also called ‘evolution’. New DNA needs to enter the gene pool of small communities on a regular basis or inbreeding sets in and the community dies out. Leaders of such a community can consciously choose to actively encourage diversity, deepen the gene pool, improve resilience, and enhance the community’s long-term survival prospects. By embracing lots of small disruptions they have a much better chance of withstanding large disruptions (cf. use of prescribed burning to minimise highly destructive bushfires).
please do not further the toxic discussion about necro posting
Guys seriously, STFU. Jesus. There are rules. They’re fixing making it public. Let it fucking go. If you don’t like the rules petition the leaders or go somewhere else.
Stop crying about it. 3 threads now and people have been asked repeatedly to STOP TALKING ABOUT IT.
It’s a non issue. @level1 you now know that people on this forum are incapable of getting along or agreeing or the bare minimum of compromise. You are just starting shit at this point to win an e fight.
Let’s say that Thread A is old (but not locked). If someone creates a new Thread B and links back to Thread A, an entry is appended to the bottom of Thread A that points to Thread B. On platforms like Wordpress this is called a “pingback” — I’m not sure if it has a different name here. This “pingback” allows people who are reading Thread A to know that the discussion is ongoing in Thread B. I consider this to be a helpful feature.
If Thread A, however, has been locked, then adding a link to Thread A in Thread B does not seem to result in the creation of a pingback at the bottom of Thread A. Can someone confirm/refute/clarify this behaviour please? I tried it a few moments ago and it didn’t seem to work for me, at least.
If linking to a thread creates a pingback in that thread — regardless of whether or not it was locked — then that would be A Good Thing™.
If such a mechanism existed, and it was clearly explained in a guide, that would be even better!