ADMIN NOTE: Board changes...

[TIDE-HSV]

When you read this, you will have noticed some changes. We have closed some long threads, in an attempt to have a “fresher” board. Without belaboring the details too much, our devoted posters who read every day seem to prefer the long threads but they are daunting to anyone who wants to enter on a current basis, particularly new members. From this point, as soon as the software can be configured, threads will end at a maximum post count of five hundred, something which is standard on many boards. We’re hoping to avoid our members having as a first thought “which thread will this fit best in.” Instead, “is this topic interesting enough to support a thread” should be the first thought.

Also, we’re going to enforce the dreaded “civility” rule. It’s not OK to call someone names. It’s also not OK to call a group names by posting “everyone who supports ‘X’ is an idiot.” In fact, sarcasm using “civility” and similar terms is going to end. Attacking on issues is fine. Ad hominem attacks by insulting certain groups is not. If this is something essential to you, you need to be posting elsewhere. Persistent offenders will be disciplined. We hope these are changes all can get on board with…

 

[Crimson1967]

So current threads like the ones on Trump, COVID, etc will be closed? Will it automatically open a second thread? What about game threads?

 

[BamaNation]

So current threads like the ones on Trump, COVID, etc will be closed? YES

Will it automatically open a second thread? NO. But feel free to start a new thread possibly with a slightly different theme/topic. We're forcing megathreads into dying a painful death. I h.a.t.e. them. It doesn't speak to the "worthiness" (or not) of any particular topic, but threads with huge number of replies become nightmarish to manage for mods and enter into for new members. They also stifle a more nuanced topic discussion when all threads of a certain characterization have to go into the "Giant Super Mega Thread about All things COVID" (for a hyperbolized example). Refer to Earle's comments above.

What about game threads? Not yet enabled on FB board.

 

[BamaNation]

As of 10am ET, the software is now configured to automatically close threads at 500 replies (about 25 pages).

We did a cursory analysis of threads across the forums over the past week and determined that this is more or less the right number before threads get too unwieldy. This threshold may go up or down in the future as determined by the admins and feedback.

This currently only applies to both Non-Sports forums. The football forum may have this enabled in coming weeks as we see how it does here.

Admins/SuperMods/Mods are excepted from this so you might occasionally notice they post after thread is closed. This is mainly to allow links to be posted to any continuation threads.

95%+ of threads will never reach 500.

Thank you all for supporting this update!

 

[TIDE-HSV]

To add just a bit to what Brett said, we don't normally have an anti-thread drift rule like a lot of boards do. On a lot of boards, you post something OT, you get hammered by a mod. However, by the time a thread mounts up into the hundreds, so many topics are included, it's often impossible to tell what the thread discusses...

 

[MobtownK]

So which won the longest thread contest? There was at least 1 with 1000 pages of replies.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Overall I like it but it will take some adjustment for everyone. Instead of a "Trump" thread it will be good to break out to different policies/events.

I'm thinking out loud here, but is there a way of "exempting" a thread if further discussion is warranted in a short time on a popular topic?

An example would be (if let's say this is enabled on the FB board) when Coach Saban retires. A thread like that or (God forbid) one on certain global events might blow up pretty quickly.

I don't know the limitations of the software, so forgive if the question is "silly". I don't know if some combination of time and/or posts in the thread could be a trigger for the software or if that could be manually done.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Overall I like it but it will take some adjustment for everyone. Instead of a "Trump" thread it will be good to break out to different policies/events.

I'm thinking out loud here, but is there a way of "exempting" a thread if further discussion is warranted in a short time on a popular topic?

An example would be (if let's say this is enabled on the FB board) when Coach Saban retires. A thread like that or (God forbid) one on certain global events might blow up pretty quickly.

I don't know the limitations of the software, so forgive if the question is "silly". I don't know if some combination of time and/or posts in the thread could be a trigger for the software or if that could be manually done.

That's probably something for Brett to research. It's taken research to get this far on this one. Probably an easy way to handle it would be for one of us to insert a link in a final post to a new thread. Other than game threads, it would take something like Saban's retirement to run past 500. Even in that case, there would be many different aspects which could support several threads...

 

[NationalTitles18]

That's probably something for Brett to research. It's taken research to get this far on this one. Probably an easy way to handle it would be for one of us to insert a link in a final post to a new thread. Other than game threads, it would take something like Saban's retirement to run past 500. Even in that case, there would be many different aspects which could support several threads...

Good points.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Good points.

To enlarge a bit on my original post, on most boards, you open it up to see a variety of threads on a variety of topics. We, however, have become so focused on "catch-all" threads under one topic, newcomers have to excavate anything interesting out of a mere handful of threads. There is no novel thread topic to catch the eye. It's fine for those who read every day and know what's discussed three pages back - not so good for someone trying to see if the board interests them...

 

[BamaNation]

I'm thinking out loud here, but is there a way of "exempting" a thread if further discussion is warranted in a short time on a popular topic?

There is no functionality for that. Took forever to find this add-on that gives us forum & usergroup control.

We, however, have become so focused on "catch-all" threads under one topic, newcomers have to excavate anything interesting out of a mere handful of threads. There is no novel thread topic to catch the eye. It's fine for those who read every day and know what's discussed three pages back - not so good for someone trying to see if the board interests them...

Then there's the small fact that I ***h.a.t.e.*** them. Did I mention hate? Yes, loathe might be a better term.

 

[BamaNation]

To emphasize .... It is O.K. to start NEW threads on topics that are similar but not the same as another thread. EVERYTHING related to C19 doesn't go in ONE mega thread. EVERYTHING on china seeds doesn't have to go in one megathread. EVERYTHING on music/books/movies DOES NOT go in one ginormous unwieldy megathread for each. EVERYTHING on college quarterbarcks doesn't go in one thread. EVERYTHING on signee John Boy Brown doesn't have to go in one giant John Boy Brown superdupercalafragilisticexpealidocious thread!

Start some new ones!

That said, moderators should merge threads that are about the same news article whereby it's commenting on the same thing. However, even posts with links to the same article might have different topics or takes and those should be left as separate.

 

[Bamaro]

There is no functionality for that. Took forever to find this add-on that gives us forum & usergroup control.



Then there's the small fact that I ***h.a.t.e.*** them. Did I mention hate? Yes, loathe might be a better term.

Now I'm confused. I thought they were preferred sometimes by mods, adms etc. as a way to keep the board from becoming too cluttered. (ie. the yearly in memoriam thread)

 

[BamaNation]

Now I'm confused. I thought they were preferred sometimes by mods, adms etc. as a way to keep the board from becoming too cluttered. (ie. the yearly in memoriam thread)

Not me for most topics. That one might be an exception to my rule but in most cases a new thread could be started if it's more than just a link to an article.

Now, let's say we start getting 500 fresh newly started threads per day as a result of this on this board. We might have to make another announcement saying dial it back some and/or merge threads. But that's not what's happening right now.

By the same philosophy, we don't want new threads to be started for every post someone makes. Certainly there are many posts that belong together in one thread. But not just because they're on the same broad topic. This is more about making the board more manageable and friendly & welcoming to new and old members.

Some things I'm "ok" with like "post a photo / video of your pet" or things like that. However, if your pet does something interesting, you could start a "My cockroach Butch learned a new trick ... watch this!" thread.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Now I'm confused. I thought they were preferred sometimes by mods, adms etc. as a way to keep the board from becoming too cluttered. (ie. the yearly in memoriam thread)

Years ago, one of our admins greatly favored them. There's some reason for more consolidation in the football board, in season, so that the front page doesn't roll over day by day with many dupe threads. We'll play that by ear, when/if season happens. However, it's been carried too far, way, way too far. We need to move back towards a golden mean...

 

[BamaNation]

This might be more of a learning opportunity for all of us until we're comfortable with letting forums "breathe" with fresh air of new threads and members get used to what's encouraged/discouraged. We will try to have patience in this brave new world but also have patience with the staff!

 

[Chukker Veteran]

The change seems to have made the board more interesting in my opinion.

 

[MattinBama]

Thanks, I hate it.

Kidding although it will take some getting used to after so long of everything getting shoved together here, but won’t be that different from reddit (my only other real forum that I keep up with).

One thing I like about some of the subreddits I follow regularly are weekly threads for common topics that they don’t necessarily want cluttering the boards. Could work here for things like memes or even covid. Usually they have links to the past ones if they do it regularly for people that may want to check them out. Guess it really depends on the volume of similar postings that come through.

 

[Bazza]

Thank you @BamaNation for your continued efforts here.

I'm looking forward to the changes with optimism and interest in the process.

Maybe when Bama and Florida play I can have my own thread, so I can say whatever I want without getting kicked out of the thread!

(just kidding!)

 

[Crimson1967]

What happened to the Trumpism thread? Either I just don’t see it or was it split up like AT&T?