considering moving from California to St. Louis - am I crazy?

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by elvira310

City-Data is none of those things.

A lot of what happens on City-Data is that people from somewhere else come to a particular forum and ask what the region is like. They want honest questions, not a bunch of people only "allowing" the positive things to be expressed.

I likened it before to reviewing products on Amazon. If I don't like a product, I have every right to express that opinion, even if the manufacturer and those who like the product don't want me to say anything negative. I am expressing my opinion, not for them, but for future prospective customers. I want to share my opinion, to help other buyers, not the manufacturers and the fans of the product. My review is not for them.

I wouldn't want to seek information about a new city or region if I knew that anyone with a negative opinion was not "allowed" to express it freely. How useless is that? Then the discussion becomes more about protecting the delicate feelings of the locals, instead of helping people who might move there find out the things they need to know, good and bad, and from a variety of viewpoints.


You said before that they had to ASSIMILATE. What does that mean? Do they have to love the humidity, or love the scenery, because not loving these things makes the locals butthurt? That does seem to be what it boils down to for some here.

I've already said that it's a big no-no for transplants to keep on being really vocal to the locals about what they don't like. But assuming they are keeping their mouths shut, what other lengths should they go to in order to ASSIMILATE?

But I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how these threads work. They are meant to diversify and narrow down specific information points so that when someone searches about a specific topic they can get relevant information about that topic. When you talk about things outside of the scope of the thread topic you are degrading the integrity of the thread by making someone sift through information they may not consider relevant to their particular circumstance. You may think it is or should be relevant but that is you projecting your own thoughts and feelings onto what you think SHOULD be relevant.Treating an entire state as a "product" that can be reviewed based on any criteria anyone chooses to insert isn't really what this site is about.

Edited to add:
A law school professor once said: when you ASSUME it makes an ASS of U and ME :P

[elvira310]

Originally Posted by Bluefox

But I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how these threads work. They are meant to diversify and narrow down specific information points so that when someone searches about a specific topic they can get relevant information about that topic. When you talk about things outside of the scope of the thread topic you are degrading the integrity of the thread by making someone sift through information they may not consider relevant to their particular circumstance.

So again I will ask you. If that is TRULY the case, if that is the ONLY reason some of the locals object to negative opinions, then why doesn't it apply when someone volunteers a positive opinion that is outside of what the OP asked? You can't tell me that nobody ever does that, and you can't tell me that people get all in an uproar when they do, because they don't. So it has to be the nature of the opinion, not that it was given when it was unasked for.

Add to that, I can recall when I have given an opinion when someone asked about "scenery" and they also had been in the Southwest. Still there was a lot of butthurt about it. Scenery was brought up, and yet all of the butthurt people were ASSUMING that the OP "already knew" what the scenery was like in MO, and therefore they were trying to squelch any mention of it (well, since the mention was negative).

You may think it is or should be relevant but that is you projecting your own thoughts and feelings onto what you think SHOULD be relevant.Treating an entire state as a "product" that can be reviewed based on any criteria anyone chooses to insert isn't really what this site is about.

You want to squelch the OP getting more information that could be relevant, by assuming that it should not be relevant (because again, it's negative—that seems to be the main time it's considered not relevant!).

The state is not a 'product,' but neither is it something with feelings. It has no feelings to hurt. Therefore, there seems to be no reason to 'protect' it, which frankly is what this seems like.

The people who may move to any place want to know information, and they don't need to have it filtered, like, "it would hurt the feelings of the locals if this was volunteered, so any negative—and ONLY negative—comments are controlled and every attempt is made to shut them down."

ETA: Furthermore, if you were truly concerned about not cluttering up these threads with discussion that was not strictly related to what the OP was asking, you wouldn't add to the length of them by arguing about it. Presumably when someone volunteers something positive that is not part of what the OP originally asked, people happily let that slip by and the discussion can continue. But negative opinions seem to result in everyone getting butthurt and complaining, which furthers the hijack (if it is actually a hijack instead of being additional information that could have been useful to the OP).