Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What have we come to? Of the last ten posts or so, the only poster who was on topic was...............Vizio.
I'm not so sure that only one poster was on topic, but, speaking for the moderators, we'd prefer for this thread to stay on the topic: Why do you think this forum is popular?
I'm not so sure that only one poster was on topic, but, speaking for the moderators, we'd prefer for this thread to stay on the topic: Why do you think this forum is popular?
Aside from Karaoke Night, I believe it's because some intelligent people discuss/argue about topics that most folks shy away from in meatspace.
And sometimes stupid people interject with ridiculous comments which are disparaged by some and applauded by morons which ups the entertainment quotient and...so it goes.
The Great Unwashed, those-who-read-but-do-not-join-in, enjoy the banter and by-play and keep viewership high which pleases the Great Administrator.
I assume the standard being employed for popular is number of posts or number of topics. Those two statistics are provided on the main page and I'm unaware of any others.
There are ten boards which have attracted more than a million posts. They are:
1)Politics...6,658,893
2) Other Topics...2,354,711
3) Relationships...1,935,234
4) Texas...1,731,540
5) North Carolina...1,328,753 6) Religion..1,298,850
7) General US...1,232,626
8) New York...1,117,198
9) California...1,098,419
10) Florida...1,080,749
I would guess the overwhelming majority of the state boards are composed of posts from residents of those states, and "other topics" isn't actually a topic, so in terms of most popular of general topics, it would be Politics, Relationships and Religion.
All three of those tend to attract, among others, obsessive types, people who are close to or over the line which defines "fanatic." What boosts the total posts on those boards are the obsessive people, the ones who cannot let go, who must have the last word, who can let no disagreement go unanswered, and never seem to get bored while staging and restaging essentially the same argument over and over...no matter what the actual thread topic may be.
I think this serial repeat posting from a relatively small number of posters is what bloats the stats and makes the topics seem more popular than they actually may be.
That is not the only reason, the three most popular topics have passion in common. lots of people tend to get intense and emotional about politics, religion and relationships. Passion creates drama and drama generates audiences.
And commonality would also be a big factor. X percentage of the population likes gardening, x percentage likes aviation or education or basketball, but nearly everyone has some sort of stake in politics, relationships or religion.
I come here to this particular forum because Miss Blue and June are great moderators, think the world of them, nice ladies too, that I have known for quite a few years.
I come here to this particular forum because Miss Blue and June are great moderators, think the world of them, nice ladies too, that I have known for quite a few years.
That seems like going to a baseball game to watch the umpires.
Discussion is a fluid thing. Pretending it is some monolithic regimented interaction is just silly. Questions are raised and answered. It is the way things are. Get over it.
It is not mine to decide, but FWIW up to a point I agree with you, Mystic. Conversations evolve. One way to respond to it is the way we did on another site where I was a mod for awhile ... we would split threads into new topics if an off-topic discussion became dominant. It was a recognition of the inherent nature of conversation. But it was labor-intensive to identify and move individual messages to a new thread.
Another and arguably better way to handle this (and I quit as a mod largely because I didn't have that kind of time to dedicate) would be for someone in a thread to suggest that particular conversation be moved to a new thread topic which they will volunteer to create. The earlier this is suggested and agreed to the better.
Where this topic has devolved to of course is where several of them have devolved to lately, which is people arguing that Mystic isn't making a valid case for his beliefs and Mystic asserting that he has ... and there are by now probably a dozen fairly recent threads that should have "gotten their own room". I suspect no one has had the heart to take the conversation elsewhere because it's become tiresome.
As such I propose an "argue with Mystic" thread where all of this stuff can be banished to -- Mystic and monumentus and a couple of others can have a field day there. I for one am for the most part no longer interested unless and until something new comes of such "discussions", but such a thread would serve as a reference point for newcomers who want to see where the arguments and ego investment bets have been placed and why.
Once in awhile I have contributed to this myself so as usual when pointing fingers at others my thumb is pointing at me. Although I will say in my defense that on those increasingly rare occasions where I indulge it is because as far as I know a point can be made from an angle that hasn't been assayed before. But all in all I sail right past these sub-conversations anymore.
I put it to the other posters, do you want a dedicated thread for this purpose?
It is not mine to decide, but FWIW up to a point I agree with you, Mystic. Conversations evolve. One way to respond to it is the way we did on another site where I was a mod for awhile ... we would split threads into new topics if an off-topic discussion became dominant. It was a recognition of the inherent nature of conversation. But it was labor-intensive to identify and move individual messages to a new thread.
Another and arguably better way to handle this (and I quit as a mod largely because I didn't have that kind of time to dedicate) would be for someone in a thread to suggest that particular conversation be moved to a new thread topic which they will volunteer to create. The earlier this is suggested and agreed to the better.
Where this topic has devolved to of course is where several of them have devolved to lately, which is people arguing that Mystic isn't making a valid case for his beliefs and Mystic asserting that he has ... and there are by now probably a dozen fairly recent threads that should have "gotten their own room". I suspect no one has had the heart to take the conversation elsewhere because it's become tiresome.
As such I propose an "argue with Mystic" thread where all of this stuff can be banished to -- Mystic and monumentus and a couple of others can have a field day there. I for one am for the most part no longer interested unless and until something new comes of such "discussions", but such a thread would serve as a reference point for newcomers who want to see where the arguments and ego investment bets have been placed and why.
Once in awhile I have contributed to this myself so as usual when pointing fingers at others my thumb is pointing at me. Although I will say in my defense that on those increasingly rare occasions where I indulge it is because as far as I know a point can be made from an angle that hasn't been assayed before. But all in all I sail right past these sub-conversations anymore.
I put it to the other posters, do you want a dedicated thread for this purpose?
To be fair to Mystic I don't see it as wholly his fault. There are a handful of posters that do seem to systematically follow him around and bring up the same old topics time after time - most of the time it's not him that instigates it (sometimes it is). The 'synthesis' has been absolutely beaten to death in multiple threads and I wish people would stop bringing it up and derailing threads with it. Regulars on the forum who have read it understand that it is flawed and doesn't support notions of god - yes we all get it. Can we please all move on from that?
I am however on Mystics side about some of the other things he has to say about consciousness. I'm probably one of the most staunch atheists on here where 'god' is concerned but I share a common ground with him on ideas to do with consciousness. It would be nice if we could have a thread where we could all be a bit grown up and have a proper discussion about it.
Maybe I'll start a thread myself.
but I share a common ground with him on ideas to do with consciousness. It would be nice if we could have a thread where we could all be a bit grown up and have a proper discussion about it.
Maybe I'll start a thread myself.
Good idea but, as I've suggested before, once the god part of it is out, it has forums better suited to it, like philosophy or even science.
Good idea but, as I've suggested before, once the god part of it is out, it has forums better suited to it, like philosophy or even science.
I agree. However the topic comes up time and time (and time) again on THIS forum. The people who are interested in discussing it post here. It would be good to have one thread devoted to it so we could really thrash it out here and keep it out of the other threads.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
