[Tesseract]

I appreciate the efforts of the moderators to stop the problem of identical threads by using the official threads for new MWSF products. I've noticed, though, that even threads that are about a specific aspect of a new product are being closed as well. I don't think this aids discussion - I think it increases confusion by forcing discussions that are only marginally related (by virtue of pertaining to the same product) into the same thread. It's harder to read a thread when there are different logical discussions going on. Normally this problem is solved by creating new threads, but in the current climate of immediate lockination this is impossible. I suggest that the mods be a little more judicious in locking non-official threads about the MWSF products.

[Dr.Michael]

Originally Posted by Tesseract

I appreciate the efforts of the moderators to stop the problem of identical threads by using the official threads for new MWSF products. I've noticed, though, that even threads that are about a specific aspect of a new product are being closed as well. I don't think this aids discussion - I think it increases confusion by forcing discussions that are only marginally related (by virtue of pertaining to the same product) into the same thread. It's harder to read a thread when there are different logical discussions going on. Normally this problem is solved by creating new threads, but in the current climate of immediate lockination this is impossible. I suggest that the mods be a little more judicious in locking non-official threads about the MWSF products.

Yes, indeed, I support this opinion.

After the announcement of new products there is always a hype here at macnn. It is smarter to spread this over a couple of threads than to accumulate all posts in a gigantic, monolythic thread.

I propose to reopen the closed threads.

[Maflynn]

Reading through one huge thread can be problematic.

Its a difficult balancing problem, on one hand your decreasing discussion by using a monolithic thread on the other hand your increasing confusion and duplication by allowing more threads to exist. The duplication of threads would increase dramatically, people tend to create new ones even though an existing thread on that same subject exists.

The problem is selecting what threads to keep open and what to close. If the mods started selectivly doing that, then some people will get their noses out of joint when their thread is closed and someone elses is left open. Finally is the work needed to figure out which threads live and which ones don't. Its too much work for little benefit.

All of this will die down as MWSF comes to a close and the initial excitement of the new equipment wanes

[starman]

I agree. I found at least three threads about different aspects of the new iMac that I wanted to read, and were locked. Are we supposed to read through one giant thread?

EDIT:

Keep these unlocked:

Benchmarks
Guts
Booting Windows

[Gamoe]

I must concur with the original poster and the opinions expressed in this thread so far. I think the locking has gone a little overboard and I think it's time to stop locking and maybe even unlock a few threads.

[Stecchino]

I was wondering why there were so many locked threads about interesting and harmless topics that were only "marginally related" to the official thread. Yes, please unlock some of them.

[Grrr]

Yeah, i agree with you guys. I understand that we dont want lots of threads about the same thing, But still, its a pain in the ass to try and find out something specific about a product in 1 huge thread.
I know Tooki means well, but seriously, this has got way out of hand now. Its ridiculous.

And on a side note, a little more politeness when it comes to locking threads would not go amiss either. Good manners don't cost anything.

[tooki]

You guys have to understand our point of view.

Here's the problem: if we make a hard-and-fast rule, as we've done, people complain that we're too harsh. But this kind of rule is simple and absolutely uniform to enforce.

If we pick and choose which threads to leave open, in theory it's better, but then people will whine that we singled out their thread, calling us unfair and favoritist.

Anyway, it's not as if this is permanent. It's just to give a few days for the dust to settle. Otherwise people explode their brains and post literally dozens upon dozens of redundant threads.

Besides, why do we have to explain this process to everyone every darned keynote? This is how we've done things here for years.

tooki

[tooki]

P.S. When the forums are running as slow as they are -- and I am not being paid for my time -- I have no time to write an individual note for every thread closed. Batch closing is how it gets done, sorry. The rules are very clear.

[slugslugslug]

Well, now that iLife is an actual shipped product that members here have installed on their Macs, can we start new threads related to it? It's no longer just another MWSF06 announcement.

Having to ask my question about a specific feature of iPhoto in a thread that's about six different apps and their sociohistorical context is a bit frustrating..

[Michael T. Doyle]

Two points:

First, a very easy way to keep multiple threads from starting after a product announcement is simply to place a temporary sticky atop each relevant forum telling people to post in the one official thread. Simple titling a thread the "official" thread as is done now is obviously not communicating this, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate about closed multiple threads in the first place.

Second, I agree with the first several posters. One giant thread on a disparate number of topics that ends up being 6 pages long in 12 hours is about as useless as it gets. When I see that happen here on MacNN or anywhere else for that matter, I simply surf away. Prohibiting more than one thread after a product announcement might be the easiest method for the Mods, but it's totally unhelpful for members. When a product is first announced, I want to see that product dissected in categorized detail. Not in some elephantine uni-thread that would take me half-an-hour to wade through.

And frankly, to casual readers folders full of locked yet seemingly harmless threads makes the mods look extraordinarily reactionary. And that's not a good way to make MacNN look like the welcoming place we all know it to be.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Michael T. Doyle

First, a very easy way to keep multiple threads from starting after a product announcement is simply to place a temporary sticky atop each relevant forum telling people to post in the one official thread.

You have just demonstrated the problem with such an approach.

[Michael T. Doyle]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

You have just demonstrated the problem with such an approach.

Not really. What am I supposed to make of "MacWorld Expo 2006 Keynote Coverage"? I've seen that all week and never clicked on it. Why would I? That sounds like an announcement of a feed or transcript of the keynote. It certainly does not sound like a posting containing a fourm rule about specific product threads.

If an announcement is about a thread limitation, it should specifically say so in its title. Otherwise, why would anyone know to click through and read it? For example, when creating an "official" discussion, how hard is it to also create an announcement that specifically says in its title, "All posts on new iMac (or Mac Book, or whatever) go in official folder ONLY"? Speaking as a forum user, that doesn't strike me as an onerous expectation.

It seems to me longtime members and perhaps also mods have gotten used to communicating in this very non-specific shorthand, and then get annoyed when casual readers have no clue what the heck you guys are talking about. Some of us don't live on here 24/7, you know. Specificity goes a long way in thread titles.

[tooki]

The new products are, obviously, direct results of a Macworld keynote announcement. It didn't seem farfetched to me to think that people would read it.

tooki

[subego]

Originally Posted by tooki

The new products are, obviously, direct results of a Macworld keynote announcement. It didn't seem farfetched to me to think that people would read it.

tooki

Too bad we can't change thread titles....

Joke. Joke. That was a joke.

More seriously though, MTD makes a good point. I had no idea that was that thread was about, I clicked on it out of curiosity rather than duty to the forums.

[tooki]

FYI, you can edit the titles on threads you created for 5 minutes after posting.

The Macworld announcement isn't a thread: it's an announcement. It's in a separate section on the page, it's prefixed with "Announcement", it doesn't allow discussion, etc. It seems quite clear to me that it's something special, like, uh, an announcement. It seems reasonable to expect people to read our announcements.

tooki

[Gamoe]

If I were to choose between one huge, very general thread or multiple specific threads, even if some were to be redundant, I would choose the latter. And not allowing related threads in the Lounge?-- Please. The lounge has always been a place to chat about off topic Mac stuff when it doesn't fit elsewhere. I don't agree with the mods justifications here.

[Mastrap]

I'm with the general consensus that one huge thread is worse than useless. Tooki, you say you don't have the time to deal with several threads, well I don't have the time to read ten pages just to find out whether or not a specific query has been dealt with.

Also Tooki, and no disrespect intended, if you don't have the time to be an unpaid moderator here then maybe it's time to move on?

[tooki]

How would me leaving increase the available pool of moderation time?!?

tooki

[Dork.]

Just a quick comment: I spend most of my time here using the "New Posts" search to find threads, and I almost never peek into the actual forums themselves. The problem with that is that announcements are never at the top of "New Posts" searches, so I never see them. It's not that big a deal at all for me, I know where they are, but I'm sure there are other people whose main interface with the 'NN is the "New Posts" search, and never see those announcements.

Then again, to start a new thread I believe you need to be at the forum page, so at some point you'll see those announcements....

[Bobby]

How do I go about filtering a thread so I see ONLY posts that talk about dual booting???

Otherwise I have to read 500 articles about other iMac topics I don't care to read about...



Anybody notice the thread created for dual booting that was linked direclty FROM the MacNN news page was locked??? I actually thought that was kind of funny... heh...

[subego]

Originally Posted by tooki

FYI, you can edit the titles on threads you created for 5 minutes after posting.

Had no idea. Could have sworn I've tried this before and it didn't work. I'll remember for next time.

Originally Posted by tooki

The Macworld announcement isn't a thread: it's an announcement. It's in a separate section on the page, it's prefixed with "Announcement", it doesn't allow discussion, etc. It seems quite clear to me that it's something special, like, uh, an announcement. It seems reasonable to expect people to read our announcements.

If people are just going to read the announcements, why bother giving them a name at all?

Is it unreasonable to ask that the name of the announcement be more indicative of its contents?

"Macworld Expo 2006 Keynote Coverage"

Imagine my surprise when I realized the the keynote was "covered" by me. I did not know I was "covering" the expo, nor did I need any more coverage by anyone actually covering it. How on Earth was I supposed to know that announcement had any relevance to me?

Well, as you said, its "expected" of me to read the announcements, so I guess I'll just do that even if it makes no sense at all.

[Chuckit]

I guess you don't have to read them, but if you haven't read them, you shouldn't go complaining that tooki didn't announce anything.

By the way, I agree that allowing multiple threads that cover significantly different areas of the same general topic should be allowed. Of course, tooki is right that people will then whine about being singled out, but that's why God gave us that ASCII art image of the bird saying "crai more!"

[toddtmw]

Locking threads is annoying. So you made a hard and fast rule? Why? It's stupid, there's no reason for it. Threads should only be locked when the discussion in the thread starts to get too confrontational. When I started seeing Tooki's heavy-handed locking of threads, I was thinking that he apparently has too much time on his hands, and I seriously considered just abandoning this web site altogether.

How is having a hard fast rule you stick to any better than censorship? It's just more censorship.

It's so much more work reading through three pages of posts with a thousand topics because the Barney Fife moderators locked us all in the same cell. Let's just have one big topic that says iMac, eMac and Mini, post everything here...all other threads will be locked.

It's stupid and it really ticks me off the more that I think about it!!!

-Todd

Moderation in all things, including moderation!

[Ω]

To be dissenting voice amongst the masses, I would like to thank tooki. I am sure he does not take delight in locking threads, he does it because he feels it is for the betterment of the forum. Do I agree with the lockings? Sometimes, but then again I am not a moderator/admin.

I for a long time have felt that this place does not have enough "staff" on hand, making certain people targets as they are the only people who are responsible for moderating (and no I do not want to be a moderator).

2c

[tooki]

Again, if I didn't make a clear-cut rule, people WOULD (100% without a doubt) then complain that I have singled them out for persecution. I learned this the hard way. So hard-ass rules it is, because even if they may be on the harsh side, they are fair and consistent.

As for the front page linked threads: whoever wrote the code that automatically chooses what threads to highlight on the front page never talked to us forum admins when designing it, and wrote very naïve code that originally wasn't even smart enough to not grab threads from invisible private forums. So, sorry about that, but I have no control over the stupid program that picks threads to showcase.

tooki

[slugslugslug]

Tooki, I'm still unclear about what the statute of limitations is, so to speak, on this rule. It has to end sometime, doesn't it? I can imagine the chaos if all talk about the 12" and 17" PowerBooks, which were introduced at MWSF after all, had been limited to a single thread this whole time.

I do think it's good to have official threads for the first day or so, just so there aren't a dozen members each trying to have the first thread about the Intel iMac. But once people start having very specific questions, why not let them start a new, appropriately-titled thread. You could still have a hard-and-fast rule about threads being locked, it would just apply to a narrower set of 'em.

[tooki]

We've had experience with this before. Redundant threads occur at an alarming rate the first day, and it takes about a week to settle down.

The announcement will automatically disappear (and soon, I might add) and then normal posting will resume.

tooki

[Drakino]

I would hope that next major announcement, things aren't so locked down. The problem is that the rule of one thread kills the usefulness of search, and any coherent discussion on a specific feature. This would work better if these boards allowed discussions themselves to be threaded and search results could show an exact message ala UBBThreads, but that doesn't happen with this software.

A good example of the problem. I want to search for the new MagSafe power connector on the MacBook Pro. The search results simply return the now 13 page thread (assuming I have max messages per page set). Clicking the result dumps me at page one. Somewhere, someone talked about it, but I have no idea where, and as a user could potentially just add another post to the mess asking an already answered question.

What is more important? Holding to a rule with no flex, or keeping these forums useful as a potential knowledge base as well? In the future, I'd suggest allowing multiple threads as long as they are different discussions, and locking duplicates. So allow the first post about the MagSafe connector, then lock any newer posts created after the first. For the announcement thread, encourage people to search first, and as an added step, make the search page have predefined parameters to limit the search back only a few days to reduce load and ensure people find the topics only created from MacWorld. Something else that might help, create a subforum for Macworld specific discussion under the PowerBook area to assist in ensuring discussion occurs where it should. People are still going to ask normal non MW related questions after the event, and that should help their posts not get lost in the noise if multiple threads are allowed. A week or two after MacWorld, remove the subform and move the posts back to the parent area for the archive. (If the board software doesn't allow this easily, I am willing to look into making a mod to do this. All it would be is a few SQL queries.)

I appreciate the usefulness of these boards quite a bit and hope this feedback helps. The single thread issue really just wastes so much time on the part of the readers trying to keep up with areas of the new announcements they are interested in. the single iLife thread for example is completely worthless to me if I only want to know something specific about iPhoto 6.

And thanks for the hard work. If you want a temporary moderator for the next big announcement, I'd be willing to help. I believe feedback should be accompanied by a possible solution when possible.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by tooki

We've had experience with this before. Redundant threads occur at an alarming rate the first day, and it takes about a week to settle down.

Right. Well, I still thinks it makes sense to only disallow/lock the actually redundant threads, but in the long run, it's a few days out of my life..

The announcement will automatically disappear (and soon, I might add) and then normal posting will resume.

tooki

It is reassuring to hear that the announcement will disappear and I can "soon" start a thread to ask a specific question about iPhoto (well, I'm gonna go try asking it in that thread about updgrade pricing and product history and the occasional feature, but I'd be surprised if it got noticed..)

[schalliol]

I too thought the thread was just for news and general info. My closed topic had nothing to do with MW. At any rate, "Official" just doesn't seem clear to many that it means the ONLY thread, I think we're in agreement.

How about posting several official threads per topic at once? Such as the following: general discussion, performance/intel issues, new feature x, new feature y, pricing/availability, etc. Perhaps then the topics would be small enough and on the subject of interest that they would be used.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by tooki

So hard-ass rules it is, because even if they may be on the harsh side, they are fair and consistent.

I think that's what most of us are trying to point out: They are not fair or consistent. It is not fair because users shouldn't have to waste time going through pages and pages of a general thread and users shouldn't be limited in posting specific threads that deal with their area of interest.

It is not consistent, because MacWorld related events are being singled out, when in fact, some questions might concern a broader range of products-- It might have to do with iPhoto, including the new version, but not necessarily limited to the new version. And who's to say MacWorld should be the only event-- What about every other time there's a major product announcement?

Originally Posted by Drakino

In the future, I'd suggest allowing multiple threads as long as they are different discussions, and locking duplicates. So allow the first post about the MagSafe connector, then lock any newer posts created after the first.

Exactly. This is actually consistent with the established rules. It is fair and consistent with the normal rules.

Tookie, nobody's trying to gang up on you (at least I'm not), however there seems a clear consensus that most people are not happy about the locked "MacWorld related" threads. I wouldn't leave the forums solely because of this issue. But I think it's frustrating, a bit unfair and makes the forums much less useful for a time.

[subego]

Just to throw in an idea, maybe fairness and consistency can become a self-defeating goal.

Isn't fairness and consistency being maintained, at least in this context, to appease a bunch of whiners who can't cope with getting their thread locked?

Couldn't the policy be: post in the official threads, if there's something specific you want to bring up in a new thread, do so, but be aware it risks lockination. Or, if you catch it in time, deletination.

This would obviously mean more work on your end, but I have an idea for that too. Pull in some temporary mods during Macworld. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are qualified and willing to do this, but would not offer up their services as a full time moderator due to the long-term investment in time required.

Edit: Oh yeah, it would be the temp mods who would be the whine magnet, whom you could summarily dispose of after a week, never to be seen again. Leaving you to smell like the proverbial rose.

[synthfiend]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Also Tooki, and no disrespect intended, if you don't have the time to be an unpaid moderator here then maybe it's time to move on?

Definitely seconded.

You've been here a long time, and I still find you excessively bossy, needlessly arbitrary and generally annoying.

Sorry, it's nothing personal, but you just don't seem to be a good fit.

And um. I think the new MacTells are super cool!

[schalliol]

Hmm, 25 posts joined only a abit more than a year ago and saying such things. Perhaps have you been posting under another name?

[synthfiend]

Originally Posted by schalliol

Hmm, 25 posts joined only a abit more than a year ago and saying such things. Perhaps have you been posting under another name?

Yes.

That's right.

[Dr.Michael]

Originally Posted by synthfiend

Definitely seconded.

You've been here a long time, and I still find you excessively bossy, needlessly arbitrary and generally annoying.

Sorry, it's nothing personal, but you just don't seem to be a good fit.

Very rough but not completely untrue.

What was your old name and why did you change it?

[toddtmw]

Originally Posted by schalliol

I too thought the thread was just for news and general info. My closed topic had nothing to do with MW. At any rate, "Official" just doesn't seem clear to many that it means the ONLY thread, I think we're in agreement.

How about posting several official threads per topic at once? Such as the following: general discussion, performance/intel issues, new feature x, new feature y, pricing/availability, etc. Perhaps then the topics would be small enough and on the subject of interest that they would be used.

This would be a great solution to the problem. Could these topics be pinned for a week or two, so people see them first when they come to the board?

-Todd

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales

I think that's what most of us are trying to point out: They are not fair or consistent. It is not fair because users shouldn't have to waste time going through pages and pages of a general thread and users shouldn't be limited in posting specific threads that deal with their area of interest.

It is not consistent, because MacWorld related events are being singled out, when in fact, some questions might concern a broader range of products-- It might have to do with iPhoto, including the new version, but not necessarily limited to the new version. And who's to say MacWorld should be the only event-- What about every other time there's a major product announcement?



Exactly. This is actually consistent with the established rules. It is fair and consistent with the normal rules.

Tookie, nobody's trying to gang up on you (at least I'm not), however there seems a clear consensus that most people are not happy about the locked "MacWorld related" threads. I wouldn't leave the forums solely because of this issue. But I think it's frustrating, a bit unfair and makes the forums much less useful for a time.

Macworld wasn't singled out: this has been the practice for the past several announcement. (And there were some where this is what we wanted to do, but were unable to.)

Here's the deal: this isn't gonna change. Especially right after announcements, when the forum performance is low, it's simply not feasible to screen every new thread in every forum where there was a new product. Plain and simply, hundreds of people can post faster than a handful of moderators can screen them. Having ONE thread per product is a simple yes/no way of preventing duplicates: if it's not in the official thread, close it. Note that we now have batch-closing, which is why it looks like I had tons of time to close threads. I didn't.

You guys have to understand that this is done because product announcements are special circumstances, under which our normal operating procedures are unpracticable. When dozens of people are posting dozens and dozens of posts per minute, in dozens of threads, it's impossible to keep track of duplicates, because even if we had enough people to verify each post, ONE person has to know the contents of EVERY relevant thread in a forum in order to identify duplicates. Two people who divide up the work, for example, cannot check for duplicates.



As for searches: search results have two links, one to the thread, and one directly to the post. Use it!



I must say, you guys never fail to amaze me. No matter what we do, you always whine whine whine whine. If we leave duplicates and let people post as much as they want, they whine that the forum has become cluttered and the responses too scattered, making it impossible to use. If we prevent it, they whine that it's to restrictive. Sheesh!

So I am sorry if it upsets you all, but I will make no apologies for how we handled this event. We've learned from years of experience (not guesses) what needs to happen (and not happen) around product announcements, and we feel this is the best way to do things given the resources we have available (which are not going to change).

tooki

[schalliol]

What about the multiple official thread idea? That way you can have your official threads yet facilitate discussion around a unified product based topic.

[Tesseract]

Originally Posted by schalliol

What about the multiple official thread idea? That way you can have your official threads yet facilitate discussion around a unified product based topic.

The problem is anticipating them ahead of time. For example, the "iMac guts thread" made sense as a separate thread. But it would have been virtually impossible to predict immediately after the announcement that such a thread would be desired.

Right now, I don't know of a good solution to this problem which addresses my concerns, other members' concerns, and satisfies Tooki's requirements of being easily managed. That doesn't mean it's impossible to arrive at some sort of workable plan for handling product announcements that is better than the current system. Tooki, am I correct in assuming that if someone comes up with a strategy that is acceptable to both you and many of the forum members, it could be implemented?

[tooki]

Of course. We're not unreasonable. I just doubt that there is any solution that pleases everyone AND is practicable.

tooki

[subego]

Originally Posted by tooki

I must say, you guys never fail to amaze me. No matter what we do, you always whine whine whine whine.

Feel better now?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tooki

Of course. We're not unreasonable. I just doubt that there is any solution that pleases everyone AND is practicable.

tooki

How about recruiting more mods, and working towards less strict rules?


You see, there are many smart people that don't like to fall in line and just follow rules they don't agree with. It isn't pleasant to feel like there are rules being imposed against you that don't make sense to you, it can feel oppressive. Many computer geeks have anarchist streaks in them.

The kinds of people that are not as willing to simply fall in line should be welcomed here, not accused as being whiners that inhibit the free-flowing of good conversation. Of course, I'm not referring to childish rebels like Rob, but people who have the capacity to disagree in a respectful and civil way.

Why don't we nominate some more mods?

[tooki]

Originally Posted by besson3c

How about recruiting more mods, and working towards less strict rules?

I've already explained why having multiple mods won't solve the problem, so I'm not gonna type it again.

Strict rules serve a purpose. Other forums I visit online have similar rule structures, and often more restrictive ones than ours. MacNN has also, over the past few years, attracted an unusually childish and whiney, disobedient following. I, for one, have no intention of bowing down to it.

tooki

[Ω]

Originally Posted by besson3c

How about recruiting more mods?

This I agree with. For such a large board this place is lacking in the number of moderators which means altercations, that could have been headed at the pass, turn into full on flame wars.

2c

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tooki

I've already explained why having multiple mods won't solve the problem, so I'm not gonna type it again.

In this thread? Where? I just reread everything again. Doesn't look like you did...

Strict rules serve a purpose. Other forums I visit online have similar rule structures, and often more restrictive ones than ours. MacNN has also, over the past few years, attracted an unusually childish and whiney, disobedient following. I, for one, have no intention of bowing down to it.

Tooki, computer geeks are often naturally anarchists who don't like rules. Whether they are an inconvenience or not doesn't change the fact that we exist, and often take offense at rules that are designed to control in ways we disagree with.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the rules. The whining isn't something that should be unwelcomed, IMHO. Heck, you and I were both whining about the MacNN site redesign.

I think the movement towards less rules and restrictions is undeniable at this point. The question is "how can we make it happen"? I don't see why the answer is not more helping hands.

I do realize that the rules are yours to enforce, but at the same time, a board can't thrive without cool members.

[schalliol]

I think tooki may have been agreeing with me in his thread when he said "Of course. We're not unreasonable." If this is the case, then perhaps with an example of what might go down when the replacement for iBooks would come out you might see something like these 5 threads:

MacBook: General Information [Official Thread]
MacBook: Ports [Official Thread]
MacBook: Drives [Official Thread]
MacBook: CPU [Official Thread]
MacBook: Display [Official Thread]

I think something like this might really work well to meet everyone's needs in the days immediately following the announcement. Are we in agreement that we can live with that?

[tooki]

Originally Posted by besson3c

1. In this thread? Where? I just reread everything again. Doesn't look like you did...

2. Tooki, computer geeks are often naturally anarchists who don't like rules. Whether they are an inconvenience or not doesn't change the fact that we exist, and often take offense at rules that are designed to control in ways we disagree with.

3. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the rules. The whining isn't something that should be unwelcomed, IMHO. Heck, you and I were both whining about the MacNN site redesign.

4. I think the movement towards less rules and restrictions is undeniable at this point. The question is "how can we make it happen"? I don't see why the answer is not more helping hands.

5. I do realize that the rules are yours to enforce, but at the same time, a board can't thrive without cool members.

1. Towards the bottom of the first page of this thread, I wrote a long post, which contained this paragraph: (emphasis added now)

You guys have to understand that this is done because product announcements are special circumstances, under which our normal operating procedures are unpracticable. When dozens of people are posting dozens and dozens of posts per minute, in dozens of threads, it's impossible to keep track of duplicates, because even if we had enough people to verify each post, ONE person has to know the contents of EVERY relevant thread in a forum in order to identify duplicates. Two people who divide up the work, for example, cannot check for duplicates.

2. Lots of computer forums have stricter rules than we have. And most of the "misbehavior" here is from a) newbie non-computer folks and b) people who are here for reasons other than Macs (we seem to have a lot of them -- these are the folks who spend 99% of their time here in the lounge)

3. We welcome criticism. But if we give a thoughtful response that addresses your concerns (I always take care to do this), you should accept it, not argue back and forth, which is what everyone thinks this forum is for. This is not a debate. We welcome feedback, and take it into consideration, but eventually it has to stop. When I've said that I've made a decision, I've made a decision and you should drop it. I will always give you a response, though it may not be the one you want to hear. But beyond that, let it go, stop wasting both our time.

4. "Undeniable"? A small handful of people whining like a broken record even after all of their concerns have been addressed is not going to sway me.

5. You don't have to be rude, a jackass, or deliberately disobey the rules to be "cool". That's very middle school, and that's not the atmosphere we want to foster here.

tooki

[tooki]

Originally Posted by schalliol

I think tooki may have been agreeing with me in his thread when he said "Of course. We're not unreasonable." If this is the case, then perhaps with an example of what might go down when the replacement for iBooks would come out you might see something like these 5 threads:

MacBook: General Information [Official Thread]
MacBook: Ports [Official Thread]
MacBook: Drives [Official Thread]
MacBook: CPU [Official Thread]
MacBook: Display [Official Thread]

I think something like this might really work well to meet everyone's needs in the days immediately following the announcement. Are we in agreement that we can live with that?

No, we are not.

For one thing, during any keynote, the forums are very slow as people try to access them even when they are turned off. Just the load from turning people away is enough to make it take ages to create threads. I know, because this last time, it took me a long time just to create the few official threads that we did have. I do not know that we could actually create that many threads in a reasonable enough amount of time. (Multiple threads also probably increase the total number of page loads people do, thus slowing things down more.)

Second, it's impossible to know in advance what things people will want to discuss.

tooki