ADMIN: One Thread per Person per Day?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

This suggestion was made (by me) on the Neccessary Post thread.

The presumption is that there are too many threads now and so perfectly good ones get overwhelmed by the silly ones. There is real actual scientific evidence (see other thread) to show that the number of new threads is shooting up while the amount of overall activity is pretty much the same.

(My experience backs this up too - if I'm away from ILE for even a day now than about half the small-but-interesting threads I was following will have fallen below the 100-thread cutoff, which makes reading it more frustrating.)

One thing we can do is adopt a one-thread-per-person-per-day guideline - this worked for a while on ILM. ILE's circumstances might be different, though.

The argument against is that it removes some of the spontaneity from the boards.

So - do people feel that there are too many threads on ILE? What can we do about it if there are?

(This is my thread for Friday obv.)

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:39 (twenty-three years ago)

I think that the people who post pointless threads must know who they are. If we all agree that we would prefer fewer pointless, ur-cliquey, abusive, punning, kitten-centric threads, and I can't really see who wouldn't, then those people can make specific efforts to restrain themselves. No?

― Mark C (Mark C), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:43 (twenty-three years ago)

as long as it's a suggestion and not a rule I don't see the harm.

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:44 (twenty-three years ago)

I think it's a good idea. yes.

Mark, are you engaging in your irony? the threads you lambaste are part of what makes this board great.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:45 (twenty-three years ago)

I liked it when Nick or Ronan or whoever comes on and starts 5 threads in a row, because it usually seems like they've been thinking about ILx. I do think people need to think a bit more about whether threads will fly though, ie whether there's a discussion to be had or just a list of disjointed answers to the question or puns or whatever (something I've not being doing much lately).

Or what Mark C said.

(Maybe having an Ask A Question link on every page isn't such a good idea, and we should hide it a bit like on Greenspun)

― Graham (graham), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:46 (twenty-three years ago)

How I see the guideline working - if you post other threads a little message appears at the top of 'post a thread' reminding you of it. Other than that nothing happens.

(It's like Filepile files, if anyone's familiar with that - there aren't any actual rules but posting loads of files in a row, or in one day, is frowned upon a bit.)

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:46 (twenty-three years ago)

If Mark C can't see who wouldn't prefer fewer pointless, ur-cliquey, abusive, punning, kitten-centric threads, then he must be reading a different ILX.

That said, freiwillige Selbstkontrolle is nearly always good.

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:47 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't really think someone should be able to dictate what constitutes a pointless thread. Some people come on ILE to discuss big life issues, some to discuss politics or music or lit, and some just to enjoy some virtual companionship.
I can't be the ONLY person who has increased happiness levels looking at picture threads and posting my finds. I can understand a limited number of threads for each day, but maybe 2 instead of 1? Or 3 a day max? And then, as per usual, if you are not interested in pix of kittens, you can just refrain from opening those threads. No need to hate on any of the thread topics. There is something for everyone. If there isn't, then one can post his/her own thread.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:48 (twenty-three years ago)

I really don't mind when someone starts more than one thread a day, but when it gets to the point where there are endless parodies of other threads it gets kind of tiresome and is in a way rude to the person who posted the original thread.

― Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:49 (twenty-three years ago)

What if before you post you get this on your screen?

http://www.utaka.org/misc/kitten.jpg

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:50 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree that so long as it's not a hard-and-fast rule, then an average of one a day is something to aim for. But as Graham suggests, sometimes people have a handful of decent questions in a day and you wouldn't really want to stop that.

― James Ball (James Ball), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:52 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with the idea of a guideline: if someone has three ideas for threads they can either (a) post all three if they are U&K or (b) decide which is U-est and K-est and save some for the next couple of days, giving each a little more time and exposure.

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:53 (twenty-three years ago)

picture threads are great even though I have no idea how to post to them

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Sarah: the problem as I see it is that the more threads get posted, the less chance any individual thread has of lasting a long time on the new answers page. That isn't as much of a problem if you're posting "Cover Connections X" because there'll be a "Cover Connections XI" along in a minute. But minor-interest threads can be completely swallowed before the 2 or 3 posters who might have really wanted to contribute even see them.

Tim is OTM - when ILM did this it was good discipline for me at least.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:54 (twenty-three years ago)

that does happen - I hate having to use the search option for a thread that's only a day old

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:55 (twenty-three years ago)

Picture threads are great, as are kitten threads.

But yeah, I think one thread per person per day is a good thing, as long as its a guideline and not rigidly enforced.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:56 (twenty-three years ago)

they are dangerous [picture threads]for those of us with our backs to the office. And I could safely go a long long while before I saw another cute kitten.

― chris (chris), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:56 (twenty-three years ago)

yes, this idea that there are "pointless threads" which are somehow wasting space on the boards is basically fascism by another name. If people don't like reading threads about kittens, then don't read them. Otherwise the terrorists have already won.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:56 (twenty-three years ago)

What is U & K?

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Hey, I love cats, but do people ACTUALLY like seeing lots of pictures of them? I thought was just a longrunning injoke!

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Sarah, U&K = urgent & key, sorry.

Of course if more people followed my example and didn't start threads at all, then we'd have a thriving community.

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:58 (twenty-three years ago)

Should I remove/increase the default number of threads on the New Answers page?

― Graham (graham), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:58 (twenty-three years ago)

Maybe a suggested limit on number of threads one may start in a day might lead to more thread revivals, which would be a good thing. I admit there are already a crazy number of cat pic threads gathering dust.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:59 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah sorry, the opening paragraph should read:

The presumption is that there are too many threads now and so perfectly good ones get overwhelmed by the silly ones (which are perfectly good too)

The thing is that if you have massive numbers of threads some of them lose out, whether it be kittens or iraq or soul-baring or anthony's latest art interest.

Graham you could do but I don't think that's the point - it's much easier to navigate using the top 50-100 or so anyway.

I think ILE's mix-it-all-up interface is a terrific thing but if there's much more noise than signal (by any individual poster's definition) it's a real nightmare to look through.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:00 (twenty-three years ago)

yes, this idea that there are "pointless threads" which are somehow wasting space on the boards is basically fascism by another name.

With all due respect, there's a world of difference between a moderated internet message board and a fascist government.

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:01 (twenty-three years ago)

is there a graham-programmed way that threads with pics in can AUTOMATICALLY be signalled b4 they're opened?

(my main worry abt kitten pix per se is that my co-worker who can see my screen is obsessed with cats and gets instantly vocally gushy as soon as she sees one, which generally causes me to start talking abt kitten barbecues in psychic self defence) (but i have no prob at all with sarah m's threads being started)

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:01 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes yes revivals!

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:02 (twenty-three years ago)

It's like Filepile files

Tom is there any way I can get into this (you can no longer register new logons)? Would you email me about it?

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:02 (twenty-three years ago)

This world's gone mad.

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah I suggested that on Ronan's thread, reviving is great and lets newer people (like me) see stuff they previously haven't. I always search, and anyway I've started like 15 threads or something ever (that's what it feels like, probably wrong)

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, an internet message board with just Tim H., Spencer and me would be quite dull.

― felicity (felicity), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:03 (twenty-three years ago)

they are dangerous [picture threads]for those of us with our backs to the office

Which is why there's the feature that identifies them with a hollow bullet, of course.

Personally, I think Mark C is right in that most threads are started by a small minority of posters, particularly the "frivolous" ones. I also think that self-restraint is the way to go, because sometimes you can get someone posting several interesting threads all at once - however you're defining "interesting". All we need is a method of creating a self-restraint culture, I guess.

Do people not know about the hollow-bullet-for-picture-threads thing? Surely it's U&K for anyone (like me) whose boss can see their screen all the time.

― caitlin (caitlin), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:05 (twenty-three years ago)

The 'eternal life' of threads is the main format thing that sets ILX aside from other messageboards I think.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:06 (twenty-three years ago)

With all due respect, there's a world of difference between a moderated internet message board and a fascist government.

it starts with moderated internet boards.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:07 (twenty-three years ago)

are there really that many newly-started kitten threads?

― Alan (Alan), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:07 (twenty-three years ago)

Look! I wasn't to know no-one had played Metal Gear Solid 2. Sheesh.

― Cozen (Cozen), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Good for ILX! Actually Tom it was prob you that said "REVIVE REVIVE" I don't remember, it was two hours ago

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:09 (twenty-three years ago)

The 'eternal life' of threads is the main format thing that sets ILX aside from other messageboards I think.

nyeh... the Bowlie Forum has threads which last forever and move up and down a new answers page, just like here. And the Bowlie Forum software is widely used for internet forums, so such things must be fairly standard.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:09 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't think it's about the kitten threads. It's about giving threads more of an opportunity to 'breathe', so to speak.

Actually - *are* any of the people who are feeling pissed off with or not enjoying ILE as much feeling that way because of the thread logjams? Because if not there's not much point in all this.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:09 (twenty-three years ago)

We need "thread-starting green cross code". Summat like - Stop! Think! Search! Post!

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:10 (twenty-three years ago)

Shows how out of touch I am DV.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:10 (twenty-three years ago)

I wish y'all'd bring back the color coding so you'd know which threads you were reading. It would be very helpful in this era of 'nobody reads all the threads anymore anyways'.

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:12 (twenty-three years ago)

Having a lot of threads makes it hard to see what I'll find interesting or not. I don't think having less threads on the New Answers page would help, really. What would be useful would be an "ignore thread" option so I could see at a glance which threads I'd decided probably wouldn't be worth reading; and maybe a page like New Answers but sorted first by category.

― caitlin (caitlin), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:13 (twenty-three years ago)

Actually - *are* any of the people who are feeling pissed off with or not enjoying ILE as much feeling that way because of the thread logjams?

I am.

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:13 (twenty-three years ago)

Also, more secret messages although it occurs to me there maybe one about me right now in which case I am hurt and wounded but turnabout is fairplay so whatcha gonna do.

and more logos maybe.

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:14 (twenty-three years ago)

the hollow bullet doesn't work in mozilla or way-old netscape i don't think (but yes, sorry, i'd forgotten it had been implemented already) (ps i'm not going to change browsers probably)

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:14 (twenty-three years ago)

ooh ooh ooh, echoing something posted elsewhere - more of those cool ILX graphs Graham had.

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:15 (twenty-three years ago)

I think ILE is at its best when everyone is bored enough to read all the threads. One way of doing this is to have less threads.

Yes graphs please.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:16 (twenty-three years ago)

To repeat what I said on Ronan's thread, I don't think we need anything more than a link to the search page on the Ask A Question page. People who want to start a new thread to start a new thread will anyway. And I really don't like the idea of even a soft quota.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:16 (twenty-three years ago)

Am I the only person who finds threads with hundreds of messages harder to wade through than hundreds of threads?

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:17 (twenty-three years ago)

I think ILE is at its best when everyone is bored enough to read all the threads. One way of doing this is to have less threads.

That's what I used to enjoy, because even threads you assume you would have no interest in would mutate into something spirited, thought-provoking or fun.

― Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:17 (twenty-three years ago)

The graphs and stats are great. Really useful for my fantasy ILE league.

― felicity (felicity), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:19 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah, alot of my favorite threads were threads I'd assumed I'd have no interest in. I used to love reading the arcane localized threads where I'd have no idea what the hell people were talking about, I like the FAP threads also although there there's an element of envy since I live in Athens and there ain't many ILXers around here (jus' me and trife I think).

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Am I the only person who finds threads with hundreds of messages harder to wade through than hundreds of threads?

No.

I don't go near any threads that are over a not that high number, unless I am particularly interested in them.

I think this is one reason why people keep starting threads on essentially the same subject as earlier ones.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:24 (twenty-three years ago)

What would you like graphs of?

― Graham (graham), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:25 (twenty-three years ago)

Whatever anyone else wants. I don't understand any of them, just that they look nice.

― felicity (felicity), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:26 (twenty-three years ago)

cool stuff

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:27 (twenty-three years ago)

This is a rubbish idea.

― Pete (Pete), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:27 (twenty-three years ago)

Graphs of number of times Pete has shot down ideas.

― felicity (felicity), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:28 (twenty-three years ago)

here is my graph of my opinion of pete during that last post:

| \
|__

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:29 (twenty-three years ago)

Instituting a guideline is a good idea, I think.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:29 (twenty-three years ago)

oooh, does the hangman word have an an asterisk in it?

― felicity (felicity), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:30 (twenty-three years ago)

3 quick ideas for graphs:

Dan innuendo's per day
Ned smileys per day
kittens per day

please come up with cooler stuff than this though

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:30 (twenty-three years ago)

graphs per day, obv

― Alan (Alan), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, more graphs!

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:32 (twenty-three years ago)

Graphs of kitten innuendo!

*I have just imploded in an fury of ILX lore.*

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:33 (twenty-three years ago)

Bloody hell! One hour off ILE each day for some of you wouldn't go amiss!

― Sarah (starry), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:35 (twenty-three years ago)

Accurate titles? So "Evolutionary Dead End" "Another Gay Thread" or something? I've missed things I'd have liked to see

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:36 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with Tom's suggestion: but I don't agree with Mark C that there are unnecessary types threads or that there are people who should restrain themselves. The mix of threads will keep varying as it always has, its just the volume that's getting to me.

― alext (alext), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:38 (twenty-three years ago)

What about the interesting use of icons?

(This one could be a sheriff's badge)

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:39 (twenty-three years ago)

surely a jackboot stamping on a human face forever?

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:41 (twenty-three years ago)

shirley

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:42 (twenty-three years ago)

This one = "Evolutionary Dead End"

I don't even want to think about this one.

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:42 (twenty-three years ago)

Would it be totally fascist of me to suggest something on the "ask a question" form that says, you know, "ILE works better when most of the questions are actual questions, with defined public topics that people are likely to know and care about; some examples of such topics would be crisps, bras, popular films, books, etc.?" I know I'm really bad myself about posting threads that are just personal stories I want to talk about, and I imagine if there were a little note on there it would shame me into keeping more of them to myself.

I think that's what creates the thread overflow -- the fun'n'free attitude of ILE leads everyone to post joke threads and "guess what happened to me" threads (which are more fun to post!), while fewer and fewer people do the work of asking good-conversation questions like "did you like this movie" or "what are good online shopping sites" or whatever. I'm not advocating policing, but I think even a tiny reminder to people to keep that in mind might lead us all to do a better job, like a voice in your head in group conversation that keeps saying "don't just talk about yourself, ask other people questions."

I mean, in the context of loads of questions like that it's really fun and interesting and liberating to hear someone occasionally say "there is a fish in a bucket in my living room!" but if it's all threads like that, all the time, they completely lose their effect.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:57 (twenty-three years ago)

fwiw, i think it would tend to sort itself out. new people are coming along all the time, and anyone who sticks around for at least a few months is going to witness a little meta-discussion like this about how people don't like ilx as much anymore. it gets talked about for a while, and the new people are left with a more responsible approach to how they post. unless of course they don't care about what others want to see on the board, in which case they will do what they want anyhow and there's not much use trying to stop them.

this was my experience at least - i came here about feb of last year and thought it was really fun at first. the first grumble-session i got to see was the "has ile gone down the dumper?" set of threads. (at least that one got it's very own jokey threads! oh, guess ronan's did too, didn't it? something about "unnecessary post". but that's not as funny as has the 'has the 'has ile gone down the dumper' thread gone down the dumper' thread gone down the dumper? - ok, it's not that funny)

the reason i have not been reading/participating much is because nothing has been interesting me. that's not really as much a criticism of ilx as a sad sad statement about my current mental state. i think less threads might be a good idea, but hopefully you'll see that happen simply for the fact that this discussion has taken place. it's all cycles.

one thing i would suggest is that people spend a bit more time thinking about the titles of their threads. i look at the new answers page and there is nothing that grabs me at all, which i think could be helped with more revealing titles. i'm more inclined to investigate if i have some clue about what the contents are.

― ron (ron), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Nabisco if ILE turns into a shopping site recommendation service I will beg for deletion.

The problem really isn't the types of threads or even the balance (especially as guess-what-happened-to-me threads can often turn out really interesting), it's just the sheer volume IMO.

An aside: threads where someone tells a story and then ends with a broader discussion-ready question are about my favourite format on all ILE.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:05 (twenty-three years ago)

and the new people are left with a more responsible approach to how they post

But it's not really about the new people! There's this assumption that the 'aren't the boards awful' threads must correlate with new arrivals -- but those who've been around forever (I include myself in this) are I suspect just as 'guilty' (not the right word). As nabisco put it so eloquently (as ever), we all need to be reminded of how things work when they work best, from time to time.

― alext (alext), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:07 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with Tom, I think anecdote threads are fine, some people do anecdote threads cos they want to hear a funny story back or just cos the story is too funny not to tell (I have one of these today actually). And highly personal threads are fine, it's just when they become too commonplace or controlled by the poster that stuff goes mad. Anecdote threads often lead to "but you wouldn't do that would you" style discussions which are funny and as far as I recall used to be some of the best.

I remember there used to be grumble sessions all the time and I'd say "oh this happens every few months" hence me not calling my thread "ILE has gone to shit" or something because it was my own opinion only, even if I knew already a few people agreed.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:09 (twenty-three years ago)

Okay well nevermind then. I'm just thinking of crap I do that leads to useless threads, like posting questions because I've been thinking about them and actually have some argument I just want to make. (As with conversation, threads go so much better when you're really honestly asking about something.) Also I never really shop online and feel like there must be great items available somewhere that I'm just missing out on, like Tweekitten carrying the Girls at our Best comp.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:09 (twenty-three years ago)

Hm cross posting but I'm just going to post this anyway.

I'm not sure I agree, Nabisco: ILE works better when people are minded to talk. It's quite possible that a fish-in-the-living-room thread will turn into a good conversation, and equally some sensible questions never quite fire, the key is ILxers' readiness to blab. My instinct says that more blab (and possibly mo better community) might arise from fewer threads but I have no evidence for that.

I like it when jokes and references span various threads, and (as Mr. E said above) that's helped by folks reading more / most threads.

I'd like to see the thread a day guideline because I don't see how it can do much harm and I think it has the capacity to do some good.

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:10 (twenty-three years ago)

Okay, I agree it was a rubbish post too (but at least Igot a graph made of me). I getthe feeling this is an entirely false phenomenon. Yes we have reached a thread posting high, but we have also got a much larger usership. If we say one post per day this only affects people who regularly post more than one thread per day. So its more like saying - multiple thread posters = rubbish thread posters.

I go for weeks without posting threads, then maybe do three in a day. Are we allowed some sort of average? What if my first thread was terrible, and my third would have been genius?

The older threads also had more response because there were more threads - and people are far more used to using New Answers now it has hyperfunctionality. Why do peoplke only want to post to the popular threads is an interesting question beyond the fact that it isn't necessarily the interesting threads which get all the posts.

I think we are chasing a non-existant bear here.

― Pete (Pete), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:12 (twenty-three years ago)

We're not, I saw him behind you making faces.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:13 (twenty-three years ago)

No, I like fish-in-a-bucket threads! (Especially that particular one!) I think what I mean is that in the context of 50,000 of them they just lose all appeal for me. So far as I can tell what used to make fish-in-a-bucket threads work so well was that everyone scrolled down and saw:

sensible question
slightly sensible question
known topic
FISH IN A BUCKET???
sensible question

And so everyone went straight to the fish-in-a-bucket question and started blabbing. Whereas many days now I look in and it's:

fish in a bucket
worm in a coke can
turtle in a flowerpot
frog in a water bottle

And I just think "oh screw it, it will take all day to figure out which of these has led to interesting conversation and which ones are just three joke posts and over."

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:15 (twenty-three years ago)

(NB this post was written 2 hours ago. I then went swimming, thinking it had sent. It hadn't. Onbly the first line is irrelevant, though)

Okay, keep the kittens if you must. But I shall keep savaging them (literally and metaphorically)

Colin, I'm not saying take the life and soul out of the boards, but totally the opposite. Are you seriously saying that there are people who get their kicks just from the stuff that's, frankly, shit? The whole point of recent conversations, and this thread, is to cut out as much of the rubbish as we can without resorting to more drastic measures. My list of adjectives wasn't really necessary - substitute "bad" and be done with it if you like.

There'll always be a huge diversity between what people think is bad. The board won't lose any of its appeal if people simply think a little bit more about what they're posting and why.

― Mark C (Mark C), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:16 (twenty-three years ago)

I know I'm really bad myself about posting threads that are just personal stories I want to talk about, and I imagine if there were a little note on there it would shame me into keeping more of them to myself.

Nabisco, the threads you post (at least the ones I see; I don't have time to read every thread on ILE) are all interesting and make me think and there's nothing wrong with personal stories that do that instead of specific questions. Also, a lot of the time personal stories are neat in themselves, even if they don't provoke lots of discussion. Please do not be shamed into keeping things to yourself!

We could try having the limit for a week or two, as a guideline, and scrap it if people don't like it. It might be good to see what happens. I'd prefer if there were older threads and fewer on the New Answers page, but maybe if that happened and they all got 1000 answers I'd change my mind. And people who have more than one interesting question a day should know that the other posters aren't silly enough to go "OOOH you broke the rule, OOOH!"

― Maria (Maria), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:17 (twenty-three years ago)

(Nabisco's last thread was totally right I reckon and probably explains why I've been staying away lately. Not cos of him, cos of vast impenetrable swathes of threads.)

― Emma, Friday, 14 February 2003 16:23 (twenty-three years ago)

(But as for the guideline itself: I look at New Answers and I have no idea which threads I should bother opening. People on threads I'm not hugely interested in start talking about amazing hardcore action going on on threads whose titles I don't even recognize. Sometimes I only realize a thread must be good when it's been on New Answers forever and I finally look in and everything's pretty much over. So yes, less threads would be great; it would bring everyone into the same rooms and I think guarantee even the ones with "frivolous" or even no topics get something going.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:24 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes.

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:26 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm with Andrew on the importance of accurate thread titles as well.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:31 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with nabiscoteque. (Also: the scripted reminder idea for "ask a question" is a good one.)

― bnw (bnw), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:32 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah I agree, it's like impossible to know where to start posting, just a big wall of shit all at once and PARTICULARLY if you've been working at something all morning and come on it's like being deaf and blind and having to read a radio.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:34 (twenty-three years ago)

Mark -- I do think that there are folks who think that the heart and soul of ILX is what you consider the shit. I don't number myself among them, but they're here.

There is a distinct irony to calls for focus and discipline on an Internet BB called "I Love Everything".

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:51 (twenty-three years ago)

Colin is completely OTM.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:56 (twenty-three years ago)

Reading this thread a bit more... I don't think there is anything seriously wrong with ILX at the moment. I don't think anything should be done to encourage the suppression of threads Mark thinks are "Bad". Maybe there are two many threads, but as I said on the thread Ronan started, I'm getting more enjoyment from ILXOR than I have in ages, and a lot of that is down to reading posts about people's mentalist love lives, kittens, puppies and whatnot.

if there is a problem, it's a surfeit of threads. the one-thread-a-day thing should stop that. Beyond that, let me say again that if you aren't interested by a thread, don't read it.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 14 February 2003 16:59 (twenty-three years ago)

There'll always be a huge diversity between what people think is bad. The board won't lose any of its appeal if people simply think a little bit more about what they're posting and why.

Well quite. I personally really don't like seeing too much frothy meta stuff, ILE backslapping - but I know some people get off on that so who am I to insist?

My only real beef is with people who just think it doesn't matter to start loads of threads even they don't care about (and who give them some meaningless title) on the grounds that 'hey - you can just ignore a thread'. And yeah, on occasions that has included me.

Other than that, I think we should all lighten up write something interesting on another thread now.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 14 February 2003 17:05 (twenty-three years ago)

The only thing I have to say is that I think this is a great idea, Tom. Or perhaps even a friendly note to say that you've posted [x] messages in the past [x] minutes/hours, just to give people* a sense of perspective.

*people = me and some other folks

― Amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 14 February 2003 17:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Actually, one more thing: it's only this past week that I've really felt overwhelmed by the proliferation of threads, to the point where I ignore new ones until it seems they've already grown to 200+ posts. I feel that I may have had something to do with this, er, degeneration and I want to apologize for that. I'll limit myself to--at most--three or so posts a week, maybe less than that. And I won't create new threads on a lark anymore. I can, I can, be what I want to be...

― Amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 14 February 2003 17:36 (twenty-three years ago)

Er, I meant three or so threads a week. I'm not crazy. But maybe three or so posts a week would do me good.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 14 February 2003 17:37 (twenty-three years ago)

I am really having trouble seeing why people are differentiating so much between threads and posts.

At the moment, we have, say, 15 threads in a given time period, half of which are these carelessly created threads that we seem to agree exist. Probably the majority of posts on these "bad" threads aren't worth much of our time (vast sweeping generalisation, but I can't see how that's avoidable right now)

However, if we got disciplined and created only 5 threads with more or less interesting titles, BUT THEN MADE NO EFFORT TO INCREASE THE QUALITY OF OUR POSTS, each of these threads would be far *more* unreadable, not less.

Each person who posts to ILX is responsible for considering the rest of the readership. See it like voting, if you like - individually you might not think you're making a difference, so you do what you want. But as soon as everyone starts thinking that, it all goes to shit.

p.s. DV and others, I'm using the word bad to describe the stuff that we are all in agreement isn't adding to the community. I'm not actively judging anything.

― Mark C (Mark C), Friday, 14 February 2003 17:44 (twenty-three years ago)

Whaddaya mean "we", White Man?

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Friday, 14 February 2003 17:46 (twenty-three years ago)

Mark, there is no way that you can seperate posts into a category called "good" and a category called "bad" and not judge them.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 14 February 2003 17:46 (twenty-three years ago)

There should be no more new threads. Graham should switch off the 'Ask A Question' function. All new posts can go to old, revived threads: possibly appropriate ones.

― the pinefox, Friday, 14 February 2003 17:48 (twenty-three years ago)

That would be a fun (temporary) experiment.

― felicity (felicity), Friday, 14 February 2003 17:49 (twenty-three years ago)

Luke Haines (and the people he copied it off) to thread.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 14 February 2003 17:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Aaargh! Right, let's try again. Do you really feel that any and every post has validity simply because of its post-ness? If so, then we disagree. If not, then the posts which don't have validity - subjectively, each to his own, as we'd never reach a consensus - are the one I was tyring to categorise using the word bad. Got that?

I am saying some of us - all of us? - could sometimes do with thinking more before posting. That's all!

And Colin, stop having a go. I'm trying to fucking help.

― Mark C (Mark C), Friday, 14 February 2003 18:08 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm quite serious, Mark. I'm saying that you're taking on a task that's both impossible and unwise. I don't doubt your sincerity, but I think you're tilting at windmills and somebody's going to lose an eye.

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Friday, 14 February 2003 18:10 (twenty-three years ago)

Mark, have you double-flipped the leaf?

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 14 February 2003 18:19 (twenty-three years ago)

After thinking about this some more, I am coming more round to Colin's way of thinking, though I still have some knd of Utopian ideal for ILE which I'm sure is only going to get me tied up in knots talking about it. It can't hurt for people to be more aware of what they post.

I also realise it's always a fool's job to speak for anyone else, especially when you don't know they'd agree with you. So apologies and retractions for that.

― Mark C (Mark C), Friday, 14 February 2003 18:24 (twenty-three years ago)

how about dividing the new questions into their respective categories, or is that rubbish? is it 1 post per ilx or 1 for each board?

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Friday, 14 February 2003 18:35 (twenty-three years ago)

i.e. dividing them into categories on the main page.

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Friday, 14 February 2003 18:35 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with the Pinefox.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 14 February 2003 19:15 (twenty-three years ago)

If threads were categorised ILE would lose some of its spontaneity.

― Ed (dali), Friday, 14 February 2003 19:21 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah, there should always be a view showing the latest threads irrespective of category.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 14 February 2003 19:30 (twenty-three years ago)

yes and there should be a way to include your email address with each post

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 14 February 2003 19:32 (twenty-three years ago)

(or were you already making that joke, vicar?)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 14 February 2003 19:34 (twenty-three years ago)

tracer stop being so demanding.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 14 February 2003 19:34 (twenty-three years ago)

ummmm I am a little late to the thread... I think that a self-regulated limit of one thread a day is ideal. as for the content, i am only bugged by "variant" threads when they are started just for the sake of starting them, BUT i think any content regulations are no good. the thing is, i remember reading somewhere when i got here about one thread per day being the limit, and I have practiced that rule ever since, with only one exception (and i felt terrible guilty, which is quite funny to me now!).

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Friday, 14 February 2003 19:54 (twenty-three years ago)

I think Ron was pretty much on OTM back there somewhere!

I always find my least successful threads are more serious in nature.

― jel -- (jel), Friday, 14 February 2003 19:57 (twenty-three years ago)

and Aaron is OTM too!

― jel -- (jel), Friday, 14 February 2003 19:59 (twenty-three years ago)

i think there's something in ILX's nature that makes the puerile transcedent and the self-serious cheap, you need to be v v crafty if you actually have an "agenda" for how you want the convo to go. even then it seldom really works, as none of us has perfected the 10 Guaranteed Seduction Techniques

i say we all invade ILM for a day

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 14 February 2003 20:03 (twenty-three years ago)

I always find my least successful threads are more serious in nature.

This is not science nor is it true that I've started many serious threads.

― jel -- (jel), Friday, 14 February 2003 20:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh, that's true Tracer, I start alot of threads with a feeling of I don't mind how this thread goes at all (just as long as it does get off the ground)

― jel -- (jel), Friday, 14 February 2003 20:05 (twenty-three years ago)

I say we all invade I Hate Everything for a day.

― felicity (felicity), Friday, 14 February 2003 20:05 (twenty-three years ago)

and I love conkers! The Top 100 conkers list is majorly unloved :(

― jel -- (jel), Friday, 14 February 2003 20:07 (twenty-three years ago)

There is only one thing I want. The ability to turn images into links to the URLs on the image threads because my dial-up modem doesn't appreciate image threads, so I end up avoiding them.

― Melissa W (Melissa W), Friday, 14 February 2003 22:05 (twenty-three years ago)

You could set your browser not to load images on page load.

― Ed (dali), Friday, 14 February 2003 22:06 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, but I like images in other places. Just not here where there tends to be hundreds of them in one thread.

― Melissa W (Melissa W), Friday, 14 February 2003 22:13 (twenty-three years ago)

Much as I would hate having to click in and out of picture threads like that, another advantage to Mel's plan is that it could help prevent people from getting centaur-booty pictures on their work computers and unwittingly scrolling down across them right as their bosses walk by.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 14 February 2003 22:24 (twenty-three years ago)

Hahahaha oh NO!

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 14 February 2003 22:29 (twenty-three years ago)

(It has happened.)

― Amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 14 February 2003 22:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Here we go. One free Question per day, unlimited Answers. If you need to post a second Question per day you must pay a fee of 2 Euros which will assist in covering hosting costs. Simple! Everybody's doing it!

― Millar (Millar), Friday, 14 February 2003 23:23 (twenty-three years ago)

argh now it sounds like LiveJournal *retch*.

May I, as a relative newbie, add my 2 cents (rounded down to nothing with the exchange rate). I have to agree with Aaron (way back up thw thread)... I am used to Usenet, where threading and keeping to established threads is a lot easier because the threading is real, and allows for easier navigation. Here, because its one message after another, if you come into a thread late (and "late" can sometimes only be a few hours!) replying to some comment you really liked is useless, because it is so far above where your post ends up landing.

Also for people like me who have dialup at home, very large older threads take a looonnng time to load. I am probably in the minority being in that predicament, but still.

I've only started 2 threads, but both were on purpose in the hope they'd be seen easily, I think. Maybe my logic is flawed and I'm not getting the fundamentals of how ILX works, but still.

Having said all that, I do agree there is a rash of silly new threads... but much of the time it is pretty clear thats what they are and I ignore 'em anyway.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 14 February 2003 23:37 (twenty-three years ago)

I think there have been a lot of worthless threads recently (the parodic questions, Conner's), and I'd like something different to highlight picture threads (I see no hollow bullets on my IE here) or even telling me how many pics there are. I genuinely love cute pictures of kittens (no irony at all), by the way. I'd rather see a guideline on the 'Ask A Question' page that suggested seeking a thread to revive, and maybe said something like "Are you sure this is worth starting a new thread for?" I don't post many questions, personally (lack of imagination, I think).

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 14 February 2003 23:42 (twenty-three years ago)

it could help prevent people from getting centaur-booty pictures on their work computers and unwittingly scrolling down across them right as their bosses walk by.

or their noisy little brothers!

― Maria (Maria), Saturday, 15 February 2003 00:13 (twenty-three years ago)

There is only one thing I want. The ability to turn images into links to the URLs on the image threads because my dial-up modem doesn't appreciate image threads, so I end up avoiding them.

Happy Valentine's Mel.

― Graham (graham), Saturday, 15 February 2003 01:10 (twenty-three years ago)

Graham, yer a star.

Tom, I agree. One of the main reasons I've been posting less of late is the sheer number of threads in New Answers.

― RickyT (RickyT), Saturday, 15 February 2003 01:27 (twenty-three years ago)

Surrounding threads that were just threads is back-in-the-day recommended to Tim and Ronan (even has some renunciation in it) and four autobiographical pieces.

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Saturday, 15 February 2003 01:33 (twenty-three years ago)

I can't decipher what that sentence means, excuse my ignorance.

― Ronan (Ronan), Saturday, 15 February 2003 01:37 (twenty-three years ago)

FK, that is unquestionably the worst line of grammar I have ever read. :-))))))))))))))))))

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Saturday, 15 February 2003 01:47 (twenty-three years ago)

Dan to thread.

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Saturday, 15 February 2003 01:48 (twenty-three years ago)

Ronan, it means that you are the real Missy Elliott.

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Saturday, 15 February 2003 01:49 (twenty-three years ago)

"back-in-the-day recommended" = anal sex?

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Saturday, 15 February 2003 01:51 (twenty-three years ago)

i am feeling dumb like eeeeeyeah duh

― Ronan (Ronan), Saturday, 15 February 2003 02:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, what I was saying was that it's just so old-fashioned to surround threads with mere threads and therefore Tim and Ronan should... er, reading this again I guess it's not clear what Tim and Ronan are expected to do. Now I'm all confused. Oh wait, now I remember! Back-in-the-day is an adverb, not an adjective, and I'm saying that in the old days I would have recommended that Tim and Ronan surround threads with threads but, um... no, I don't see where the autobiography fits in. Damn, I really don't know. I must have been thinking of something! What do you think I'm saying?

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Saturday, 15 February 2003 02:16 (twenty-three years ago)

Even more unintelligible. um ;-)

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Saturday, 15 February 2003 02:20 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh what a noble mind is here o'erthrown.

― N. (nickdastoor), Saturday, 15 February 2003 02:22 (twenty-three years ago)

FK, that is unquestionably the worst line of grammar I have ever read. :-))))))))))))))))))

OMG, naked, that is classic!! That settles the whole damn thread!

Frank, nice one.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Saturday, 15 February 2003 05:36 (twenty-three years ago)

(Sorry that link doesn't start you at the top of the thread, just my placemarker because I gave up...)

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Saturday, 15 February 2003 05:38 (twenty-three years ago)

It also points up something that was said earlier: if there were fewer threads, we'd be more likely to understand each other's cross-references.

(And to be fair to Christgau, in context his sentence has symantic clues that would somewhat help to unravel the syntax. But my guess is that he and Chuck simply missed the fact that "back-in-the-day" was likely to be read as an adjective or an adverb - in the lead-up to Pazz & Jop they were probably working 12 to 14 hour days, maybe not so attentive to details. Xgau's sentence might well have been shortened from a longer one where the grammar was clearer, and they judt didn't realize that deleting a couple of words would play havoc.)

I like the speculation about anal sex.

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Saturday, 15 February 2003 06:23 (twenty-three years ago)

Judt?

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Saturday, 15 February 2003 06:24 (twenty-three years ago)

And it's too bad that you gave up, because if you'd kept going you'd have gotten to the place where I summarized the second thread that was supposed to summarize the original thread.

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Saturday, 15 February 2003 06:28 (twenty-three years ago)

i couldnt be bothered to read this thread after the first 30 or so posts but here's another idea:

force people to select a category for their post before allowing it to be posted? and then try to encourage posters to browse threads by category more...perhaps even integrating an option whereby we can view the main page split into columns of popular categories, or ideally categories the user can select - this suggest making ILX more customisable and i figure a lot of people think that would complicate things too much...but it could just be an option. i'm interested in ways of being able to filter ILX even more

― stevem (blueski), Sunday, 16 February 2003 19:28 (twenty-three years ago)

I'd certainly not want that: I like the generalness of this board, its variety, and breaking it up into little compartments would, I think, discourage the fringe subjects and break up the feeling of community. I try to categorise my questions, when I can, but I've never made use of the categories.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 16 February 2003 20:14 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah now Graham has made the search function so great I don't much use the categories either - I do more on ILM actually.

― Tom (Groke), Sunday, 16 February 2003 23:24 (twenty-three years ago)

What I would like is a category listing at the top of each page, or an option for such at least, and also the ability for administrators to change categories directly from each thread, or even to say "change the category of this thread ID".

On ILM I sometimes feel this really matters.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 17 February 2003 03:10 (twenty-three years ago)

At least for the more "conceptual" threads which word-search functions won't always be good at tracking down.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 17 February 2003 03:10 (twenty-three years ago)

I was going to make so that anyone could categorise uncategorised threads from the thread page. I'll add the admin option though.

This graph scares me:
http://ilx.wh3rd.net/images/postsgraph.gif

The number of posts per day is now triple what it was for most of last year, and I feel it in completely not being able to keep up no matter how long I spend online, and feeling left out as a result.

― Graham (graham), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:39 (twenty-three years ago)

What on earth caused it though?

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:01 (twenty-three years ago)

putin

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:04 (twenty-three years ago)

Lots of list threads, probably.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:04 (twenty-three years ago)

I feel like going back to olde worlde update every 8-15 minutes Greenspun style New Answers page and seeing what happens.

― Graham (graham), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:05 (twenty-three years ago)

I think that would be a really good idea Graham. As much as I like the new New Answers, there was a sort of olde-worlde charm and less likelyhood of just grappling with the newest and most popular threads.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:29 (twenty-three years ago)

It really really annoyed me, and just meant I kept refreshing the threads I wanted again and again.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:32 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't know what you're on about. My New Answers is always reverting to its former state and needing re-refreshing. Surely this is a standard experience?

― the pinefox, Monday, 17 February 2003 14:36 (twenty-three years ago)

PF: mine is too. But if it only updated every quarter of an hour (as the Greenspun board did) that would eb worse, surely?

― Tim (Tim), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:38 (twenty-three years ago)

As long as we keep the red writing, no problem.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:40 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with Tom.

― Melissa W (Melissa W), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:41 (twenty-three years ago)

(I mean with refreshing new answers every 15 minutes: the 1 thread per day is still dud).

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:45 (twenty-three years ago)

What is the objection to the level of posting? I really don't understand this at all. A refresh every 15 minutes will rather kill conversation, won't it? Why would we want to do that?

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 17 February 2003 18:39 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm surprised how the statistics on that graph seem to have jumped up since Christmas. I wouldn't say ILX *feels* any busier now than it did in November or December.

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 17 February 2003 18:55 (twenty-three years ago)

I am posting three times as much. Sorry.

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 February 2003 19:01 (twenty-three years ago)

It's impossible to keep up Martin. Maybe it was impossible anyway with a full time job, but when you could read 90% of messages it was a whole different experience.

― Graham (graham), Monday, 17 February 2003 19:15 (twenty-three years ago)

We shdl all be limited to one POST a day.

I'm surprised that some people are apparently starting up loads of 'rubbish' threads that only get abt 4 responses. Whenever I start a rubbish thread that only gets abt 4 responses I always find it a curiously humbling/ego-crushing experience, and refrain from starting another one for weeks after.

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Monday, 17 February 2003 19:17 (twenty-three years ago)

I am still able to read (skimming some, I confess) 90% of ILE in the evenings. I don't think that slowing the new answers down is a good idea at all. Why do we want to cut posting? If we have to get choosier as to what we read, I don't see that as being so terrible.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 17 February 2003 20:57 (twenty-three years ago)

and all of this becuz ronan finally couldn't get a hold of himself (he tried but he really couldn't).

''I'm surprised that some people are apparently starting up loads of 'rubbish' threads that only get abt 4 responses. Whenever I start a rubbish thread that only gets abt 4 responses I always find it a curiously humbling/ego-crushing experience, and refrain from starting another one for weeks after.''

like the one abt how you couldn't 'get' monk andrew? that got a few more than four, as I recall.

A lot of my threads get 4 ans. Its not that the threads are rub but just that ppl are idiots for not listening to Karou Abe sax solo Cds on PSF.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 17 February 2003 21:43 (twenty-three years ago)

and all of this becuz ronan finally couldn't get a hold of himself (he tried but he really couldn't).

I hope you all appreciate the superhuman restraint I'm showing here!

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 17 February 2003 22:05 (twenty-three years ago)

I do. What's going on?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 February 2003 22:18 (twenty-three years ago)

Martin: I think Graham is just talking about updating New Answers every 15 minutes. If you're interested in a thread, you could reload it and see new answers.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 17 February 2003 22:27 (twenty-three years ago)

This seems to be introducing a disadvantage in order to discourage posting. I still don't understand how this is a good thing.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 17 February 2003 22:28 (twenty-three years ago)

The way to improve the board is this: you hire someone to once every other day conduct a search for "Frank Kogan," and this person revives every thread I've ever posted on with an apropos comment such as "I am reviving this thread because it is utterly brilliant, especially Frank's comment above" or "I am reviving this thread so that we can all laugh at its peurility (though I must also express my admiration for Frank's thoughtful posts)."

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Monday, 17 February 2003 22:56 (twenty-three years ago)

What's that supposed to mean Julio? You must be right though, clearly the 600 or so posts about the state of ILX show that eh? Jesus......

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 17 February 2003 22:58 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with Martin. And Frank, of course, but that goes without saying.

― Tim (Tim), Monday, 17 February 2003 23:01 (twenty-three years ago)

So why d'you say it then? Tsk.

― Lara (Lara), Monday, 17 February 2003 23:21 (twenty-three years ago)

Is it bad to try and make Frank happy?

― Tim (Tim), Monday, 17 February 2003 23:25 (twenty-three years ago)

No. But couldn't I for just one moment have your attention godammit??

*storms off*

― Lara (Lara), Monday, 17 February 2003 23:27 (twenty-three years ago)

In a minute. The football's on.

― Tim (Tim), Monday, 17 February 2003 23:33 (twenty-three years ago)

Hi, Lara.

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 23:20 (twenty-three years ago)

Hellurl.

― Lara (Lara), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 09:31 (twenty-three years ago)

''You must be right though, clearly the 600 or so posts about the state of ILX show that eh? Jesus......''

thread on ILX gets 600 posts on ILX! It must mean somefink!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 09:53 (twenty-three years ago)

sorry, what was that julio, i'm too busy gazing at my navel...

surely the best way to do this is before you post a new question, think of cliff richard...

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 10:32 (twenty-three years ago)

Think of Cliff Richard NAKED!

(I have no idea what Cliff Richard looks like, so if he is a buff Adonis that everyone is dying to see naked please disregard joke.)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:14 (twenty-three years ago)

The fact that you have no idea what Cliff looks like is a blessing indeed, consider yourself k lucky.

― smee (smee), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:15 (twenty-three years ago)

DP = clucky

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:15 (twenty-three years ago)

http://www.amphlett44.freeserve.co.uk/Cliff_sexy.jpg

― Graham (graham), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:15 (twenty-three years ago)

― alix (alix), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:16 (twenty-three years ago)

at least you can't see his colostomy bag poking through his sweater.

― chris (chris), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:17 (twenty-three years ago)

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2002-06-02/cliff.JPG

He's about 400 years old you know.

― smee (smee), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:18 (twenty-three years ago)

Okay, what's worse: the idea of seeing his ur-skeletal naked frame or THAT BLAZER AND TIE??????

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:26 (twenty-three years ago)

I rather see him oiled up, in a gimp suit with an orange in his mand and a greedy look in his eyes than NAKED.

― Lara (Lara), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:29 (twenty-three years ago)

(The real crime is that the blazer would be really fucking cool without that tie. Or that head, actually.)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:30 (twenty-three years ago)

uh... who is that guy?

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:30 (twenty-three years ago)

(and can Sarah eat him?)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:31 (twenty-three years ago)

(The real crime is that the blazer would be really fucking cool without that tie. Or that head, actually.)

Are you Sting?

― Lara (Lara), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:32 (twenty-three years ago)

FITE!!!!!!!

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:36 (twenty-three years ago)

*Lara looks on puzzled as Dan takes the tantric fighting position*

― Lara (Lara), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:37 (twenty-three years ago)

Alright, I took the time to read a couple of posts up to find out that it is Cliff Richard. So, who is he?

― Sarah mclusky (coco), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:38 (twenty-three years ago)

He was meant to be the british elvis but is infact a repressed gay god botherer who sings.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:40 (twenty-three years ago)

Cliff Richard is the Peter Pan of Pop!

― Lara (Lara), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:42 (twenty-three years ago)

I met Cliff Richard once. He seemed pleasant enough. If only he'd fucking stop making records. You'd think he'd have grasped that if he hasn't made a good one after 45 years or whatever it is he probably isn't going to.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 19:02 (twenty-three years ago)

But he thinks they *are* good! They must be, cos he sells lots of copies of them.

(the fact that he can only get a record in the charts by sending a free copy to every priest in the country and asking them to advertise it in their church services is clearly irrelevant)

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 21:33 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, I know that really. I still wish he would stop it.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 21:48 (twenty-three years ago)

I think this one thread per person per day rule has killed the board.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 21 February 2003 13:12 (twenty-three years ago)

People have been obeying the rules?

― Ed (dali), Friday, 21 February 2003 13:16 (twenty-three years ago)

i have :(

i think it wz the mocking of superhero powers that killed the board

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 21 February 2003 13:17 (twenty-three years ago)

To be fair I have had many thread ideas in the last couple of days, just wait till the war starts.

― Ed (dali), Friday, 21 February 2003 13:19 (twenty-three years ago)

ILE is soooooooo much better now than last week.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 21 February 2003 13:21 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 21 February 2003 13:24 (twenty-three years ago)

It is only better because no one is *fighting* this week!

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 14:10 (twenty-three years ago)

YOU TWATMUNKS.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 21 February 2003 14:50 (twenty-three years ago)

it isn't better. I want to have reasons to verbally abuse other posters. gimme a reason!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 21 February 2003 14:51 (twenty-three years ago)

(Do twatmonks have to take a vow of celibacy? Where's the fun in that?)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 21 February 2003 14:51 (twenty-three years ago)

they're twatmUnks - like chipmunks, only different.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 21 February 2003 14:59 (twenty-three years ago)

So, instead of nesting in chips, they [FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SOMEONE STOP ME]?

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 21 February 2003 15:01 (twenty-three years ago)

this has turned into a bad thread.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 21 February 2003 15:56 (twenty-three years ago)

What thread doesn't, eventually? And that is why we love them so.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 21 February 2003 16:29 (twenty-three years ago)

There is no such thing as a bad thread. WE DECIDED THIS ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT, YOU TWATMUNK.

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 16:29 (twenty-three years ago)

How long before TWATMUNK becomes a fixture on Graham's meta-graph?

TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 21 February 2003 16:33 (twenty-three years ago)

Seven minutes?

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 16:40 (twenty-three years ago)

there is no such thing as a bad thread

*insert comic circus music denoting sarcasm here*

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 21 February 2003 16:50 (twenty-three years ago)

There's circus music that denotes sarcasm??

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 21 February 2003 16:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Ronan is a bad man.

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 16:58 (twenty-three years ago)

Since he couldn't even turn up the FAP that produced this decision, he's banned from the Dublin hivemind. Any of the rest of you guys want him?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:04 (twenty-three years ago)

You are lucky you're getting out of the city this weekend, Farrell!

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:05 (twenty-three years ago)

Hey, Navan is applying for city status!

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:15 (twenty-three years ago)

YOU FOOL! YOU'VE TOLD HIM WHERE YOU'LL BE!!!

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Hey, Navan is applying for city status!

Hang on...

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Mega City Navan

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:42 (twenty-three years ago)

Don't all people living there have to walk upright and on two legs for it to become a city?

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:45 (twenty-three years ago)

But then Cork's a city...

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:45 (twenty-three years ago)

Now Lara! you'll start off the Dublin-Cork ILX war again.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:51 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes Dan you know the Simpsons circus music? From Homer the Clown? It actually works very well in that way.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:51 (twenty-three years ago)

A hidden benefit of the optional, self-imposed one thread per person per day limit is that you get a better sense of what other ILE people like to discuss.

― 34253, Saturday, 1 March 2003 04:57 (twenty-three years ago)

one month passes...

I'm afraid I still think there are 'too many' threads. And there are, of course, many more now than when this thread was started.

― the pinefox, Thursday, 24 April 2003 10:46 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't think one single person took this thread seriously, unfortunately.

― Nicole (Nicole), Thursday, 24 April 2003 12:22 (twenty-three years ago)

And what about reviving dozens of dead ones in a day, eh, The Pinefox? (Actually I really approve of that - Cozen has been in good reviving form too.)

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 24 April 2003 19:24 (twenty-three years ago)

four years pass...

ADFSDSSFDFDSFDSFSDAasdf

― am0n, Monday, 7 April 2008 19:12 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.