[Laminar]

Time for the monthly thread?

[iMOTOR]

Anyone remember the Macgeek2005 threads? I seem to recall one of them went over ten pages.

Then there was Todd Partridge.

[besson3c]

I think Todd Partridge was just one of Abe's nicks.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR 

Anyone remember the Macgeek2005 threads? I seem to recall one of them went over ten pages.

Then there was Todd Partridge.

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...hreads-thread/

[PER3]

Two tiny points that may have some bearing:

–people like to count things. Perhaps having post counts instead of "clinically insane" and so on might liven things up (although macrumours doesn't seem to have counts.)

–people like to swear. Compared to the ArsTechnica site, which does not censor, MacNN looks like a kindergarten in term of language. Maybe ditching the censorship (or making it an opt-in for members) could help. A gesture against creeping puritanism, as it were. Does macrumours censor?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Timo 

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. For lots of people (more in the past than now, perhaps) the Lounge was 'NN, and I'm guessing a few people didn't even have a mac.

IIRC, the whole thing started going down the shitter when, for lots of people, the *Political* Lounge was 'NN - the first real hit came when Kevin (then Zimphire) brought over a bunch of Nazis from another forum to rile up the Poli Lounge, and then subsequently denied having done so (despite evidence to the contrary). The unadulterated vitriol drove away a bunch of regulars that weren't replaced in substance and character (sheer volume of inanity generates ignore lists, not interest).

The second blow that pretty much sunk this place was the whole IntelliTXT or whatever it was called advertising spectacle. I remember that a bunch of people left in a huff and just never came back, despite the rescinding of that decision a short while later.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by PER3 

–people like to swear. Compared to the ArsTechnica site, which does not censor, MacNN looks like a kindergarten in term of language. Maybe ditching the censorship (or making it an opt-in for members) could help. A gesture against creeping puritanism, as it were. Does macrumours censor?

I've just analyzed our censor list which contained 78 entries. The majority were not even for words.

• 2 image names blocked - appear to be goat-related.
• 2 torrent sites blocked - not sure why, since there are tons of others. One has since closed. I removed both from the censor list.
• 35 words blocked. Mostly racist or fornication-related. Actual word count is about 16 after allowing for letter substitutions and close variations.
• 41 39 domains blocked. Divided between free iPod/Mac stuff, porn sites, teen porn sites, gambling, goat sites, get-rich-fast, other stuff I didn't recognize.

Moderators manually go after attacks on other members, which would cover some swearing. Are we really a censorship hotbed?

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Are we really a censorship hotbed?

****, piss, ****, ****, **********, mother****er, tits.

Only 2 out of 7 get through.



As an aside, I apparently don't type **** very often, or I would have noticed before that the OSX dictionary claims it's misspelled. I am amused by this.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

****, piss, ****, ****, **********, mother****er, tits.

Only 2 out of 7 get through.



As an aside, I apparently don't type **** very often, or I would have noticed before that the OSX dictionary claims it's misspelled. I am amused by this.

****. Heh. That is funny. Since **** isn't misspelled.

However, in comparison with the Apple forums, this place is downright liberal (don't let the knuckleheads hear it!).

Hell, damn, and goddamn are all fine here.

[besson3c]

For some reason I can't talk about ponys and rainbows though

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

For some reason I can't talk about ponys and rainbows though

Because you tend to talk about the things ponies leave in the pasture, and how they make rainbows, also while in the pasture. Your fascination with elimination is not shared by many people in the world (at least that will admit it), and thus when you post about them you come across as either gross or juvenile or both.

On the other hand, hinting at something and then turning that hint on its head can be extremely funny. I give you the Shaving Cream Song.

[turtle777]

**** ** ***** *** ****** *** ****** ** ** ***** **** ****** ** * *** ****** *** **** * *** ***.

Dadgummit. 'NN censors all my sh!t.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

and thus when you post about them you come across as either gross or juvenile or both.

Exactly! That's what is so awesome about me, don't you see?

[besson3c]

So, when somebody creates an ASCII version of the American flag how are we supposed to know if he/she is displaying actual American stars rather than just swearing at us?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Exactly! That's what is awesome about me, don't you see?

We all see it.



-t

[besson3c]

What are those happy faces doing to that dog?

[reader50]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

For some reason I can't talk about ponys and rainbows though

This is an outrage! Having the mods make your waste fetish marginally harder to express. We should do something about this.

ps - I fixed the ponies spelling awhile back. And added a few more replacements just now.

[besson3c]

poop

[AKcrab]

matshita

edit: huh. thought that used to be blocked.

[residentEvil]

japscat

interesting; not blocked!

[spacefreak]

Over-moderation has killed the entertainment value. Users who came here to vent and/or attack each other were no longer allowed to. And then there was all this tattle-tailing that would get major personalities banned.

I thought the whole reason the PWL was established was to keep the rabid political arguments in their own little world. Sure, there would be some personal attacks, but that was part of the fun. If people couldn't handle the intensity, nobody was forcing them to read it.

The strength here used to be the plethora of users with strong personalities and strong views. Mud was being flung everywhere, and it was great. Now it's semi-lame. Disagreements are fewer, and the content of those disagreements is watered-down so as to not run afoul of a moderator.

Another reason might be the time-out that occurs when posting a lengthy topic or reply. Just as I got finished writing this, my attempt to publish rerouted to a login screen. I can't tell you how many times this happens. Often, my entire post will be wiped out, and many times, I do not feel like retyping my post. So I bail. I bet others bail when this occurs as well.

[Simon]

I'm sorry, but I disagree almost entirely with that.

I believe showing personality does not require abusive behavior. I have noticed several 'personalities' on this board that do very well without resorting to insults and attacks. Note also that lack of moderation and the resulting hostile environment drives people away too. I know at least two people who left this board and went elsewhere precisely because of that.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Another reason might be the time-out that occurs when posting a lengthy topic or reply. Just as I got finished writing this, my attempt to publish rerouted to a login screen. I can't tell you how many times this happens. Often, my entire post will be wiped out, and many times, I do not feel like retyping my post. So I bail.

spacefreak, this sounds like a cookie problem in your browser. Once logged in, the board should maintain your login. If you are inactive for 15 minutes, it will assume you've just arrived and adjust the unread-posts flags accordingly.

But you are perpetually logged in and a new post will go through regardless. I've replied late plenty of times, and the post is accepted.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Over-moderation has killed the entertainment value. Users who came here to vent and/or attack each other were no longer allowed to. And then there was all this tattle-tailing that would get major personalities banned.

The complete opposite is true.

Specifically, the UNDER-moderation of Kevin and a bunch of vitriolic imports in the Political Lounge drove away a bunch of users who gave the board real content and character - and who specifically DIDN'T come here to vent and/or attack each other.

Those who came here to do just that (and the creation of the Political Lounge encouraged that) actually killed the forum by driving away the more "moderate" users.

[ghporter]

The funny thing was we thought long and hard about how hard to be on Kevin; we didn't want to come across as heavy-handed or arbitrary and thus (interestingly enough) drive people away. We spent a LOT of time with Kevin, PMing and discussing with him what his problems were and why he had to be so dramatic and explosive, and pretty much negotiating with him for good behavior. Maybe we should write this up and send it to Secretary Clinton to help her deal with Kim Jong Il...as an example of what didn't work.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Maybe we should write this up and send it to Secretary Clinton to help her deal with Kim Jong Il...as an example of what didn't work.

Ouch

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Over-moderation has killed the entertainment value. Users who came here to vent and/or attack each other were no longer allowed to. And then there was all this tattle-tailing that would get major personalities banned.

I thought the whole reason the PWL was established was to keep the rabid political arguments in their own little world. Sure, there would be some personal attacks, but that was part of the fun. If people couldn't handle the intensity, nobody was forcing them to read it.

The strength here used to be the plethora of users with strong personalities and strong views. Mud was being flung everywhere, and it was great. Now it's semi-lame. Disagreements are fewer, and the content of those disagreements is watered-down so as to not run afoul of a moderator.

Another reason might be the time-out that occurs when posting a lengthy topic or reply. Just as I got finished writing this, my attempt to publish rerouted to a login screen. I can't tell you how many times this happens. Often, my entire post will be wiped out, and many times, I do not feel like retyping my post. So I bail. I bet others bail when this occurs as well.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The complete opposite is true.

Specifically, the UNDER-moderation of Kevin and a bunch of vitriolic imports in the Political Lounge drove away a bunch of users who gave the board real content and character - and who specifically DIDN'T come here to vent and/or attack each other.

Those who came here to do just that (and the creation of the Political Lounge encouraged that) actually killed the forum by driving away the more "moderate" users.

Opinion #3: Familiarity breeds contempt. A member can only disagree with someone else so many times before their dislike of the person begins to grow. After a few years, lots of people knew the dance by heart, hated it, and began to bypass the tired debates altogether. There's no salvaging that situation. If someone fundamentally disagrees with someone else, it will eventually boil over. With someone (such as Kevin) who felt inclined to post his opinion on everything everywhere (and was unyielding on the subjective nature of many of his opinions) of course its going to cause a huge amount of conflict.

I've been guilty of the same thing to a much smaller degree. But now, there are a few people on here I don't bother arguing with unless I feel their point is so deluded its absurd.

The moderation couldn't fix this. At most, it postponed the inevitable. I think the mods did a average job with it. Tighter moderation may have just accelerated bannings, or postponed big blow-ups.

[Spheric Harlot]

Interesting perspective, and probably some truth to it.

[downinflames68]

Personally I think banning someone is retarded. Reminds me of the nazis or any other dicatorship "silencing" people who are critical, or think differently. Time outs? Sure. Bannings? Not unless you post physical threats or porn or something.

[ghporter]

You must understand that, except for spammers, we don't ban regular members without a LOT of attempts to get them to behave civilly. Physical threats were one of the reasons Kevin got banned. Profanity is another reason we'd ban someone, but only after repeated attempts to get them to use less extreme language. It takes a LOT of discussion before we decide to ban a regular, established member, and that's only after we've tried everything we can think of to help them participate acceptably.

[RAILhead]

+100 Doofy.

But, as long as me and Bess are here, MacNN will weather the storm.

[ - snip - ]

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The complete opposite is true.

Specifically, the UNDER-moderation of Kevin and a bunch of vitriolic imports in the Political Lounge drove away a bunch of users who gave the board real content and character - and who specifically DIDN'T come here to vent and/or attack each other.

Those who came here to do just that (and the creation of the Political Lounge encouraged that) actually killed the forum by driving away the more "moderate" users.

The board's character (Political /War Lounge) was the rabid back-and-forths. That's what was popular, that's what was driving traffic. Once steps were taken to make the board more to your liking, traffic plummeted.

I'm just going by what I enjoyed in the glory days, the lameness I see now, and the decline in traffic and activity. As more and more steps were taken to make the board more politically correct and inoffensive, the more the board's traffic declined.

I think your opinion is fine, but the statistics just don't support it.

[Simon]

Which statistics? Let's assume for a moment you're right and I can have either a decent board with fewer respectful members or a nasty board with a lot of idiots. Well I don't know about you but I'll gladly take the former. Any day. What good are hundreds of posts a day if 90% of them are either childish, stupid, malicious, or all of those together? I'd rather read less, but more insightful contributions. IMHO there's more than enough crap on the web already.

[besson3c]

I agree with Simon, but only on the malicious and mean personalities. I appreciate any and all attempts to get me to laugh and smile so long as the attempt is not clearly at the expense of somebody else, even if the style of humor is not my cup of tea. To me a friendly and non-intimidating environment of laid back people with senses of humor is a magnet for good membership and conversation.

To me the main problem now is that there simply aren't enough new technical Apple-related things to talk about that aren't reruns. Give me some examples of some really newsworthy Apple related content within the last month that would really sustain interest? Let's look at the last several Macrumors headlines, just as a for example:

- Apple Tablet stuff -> rerun
- Quad-core iMac benchmarks -> boring, predictable
- Android stuff
- 10.6.2 and Atom Processors -> mildly interesting
- Chrome OS -> already have a good thread going
- AT&T/Verizon "spat" -> pretty boring
- Qualcomm supplying chips for iPhone -> also boring
- Apple already working on 10.7 -> could be interesting, although it's too early to have much to talk about
- app store in China -> meh
- Flash Player 10.1 prerelease -> meh, unless performance issues are addressed


You get the idea... Our interests are varied enough that whatever does interest one person seems to only captivate a few like minds. I believe that in order to captivate more like minds we need more like minds here, and the way to attract more like minds is as I've described in creating a laid-back environment that would be comfortable for them, which is exactly what we've been trying to do.

What we need is a surge.

[besson3c]

Hmmm.. it looks like the Flash release might address some performance problems:

In an early review of Flash Player 10.1, however, Anandtech still found significant improvements in CPU utilization under Mac OS X, dropping from 450% CPU load to 190% in viewing full-screen Hulu content on the Mac Pro used for testing.

Going from roughly 450% down to 190% (or a bit over 10% of total CPU utilization across 16 threads) made full-screen Hulu playable on my machine. In the past I always had to run it in a smaller window, but thanks to Flash 10.1 I don't have to any longer.

With actual GPU-accelerated H.264 decoding I'm guessing those CPU utilization numbers could drop to a remotely reasonable value. But it's up to Apple to expose the appropriate hooks to allow Adobe to (eventually) enable that functionality.

Until then, even OS X users have something to look forward to with the Flash 10.1 upgrade.

There's a thread for somebody to create!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Simon 

What good are hundreds of posts a day if 90% of them are either childish, stupid, malicious, or all of those together?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree with Simon.

Hey mods, someone hijacked Besson's account. Please look into this.

-t

[besson3c]

If I may add something else, what's up with all of the "good grief, another besson3c thread" sorts of condescending remarks?

If we are trying to create more content here, what should my efforts be discouraged? I'm not the only who has to deal with this sort of thing either. Why do the existence of perfectly valid threads have to be vetted? It's not like there is a great abundance of any sort of content anyway...

I should be thanked for providing this place a stimulus package! My package is very nice.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I should be thanked for providing this place a stimulus package! My package is very nice.

Oh stop it, we had enough of your stool already

-t

[besson3c]

turtle: maybe the term "package" is slang that is not familiar to you, but just so you know it doesn't typically consist of hashish.

[Simon]

Right on cue. Congrats to both of you.

[besson3c]

Did we do something wrong?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Which statistics? Let's assume for a moment you're right and I can have either a decent board with fewer respectful members or a nasty board with a lot of idiots. Well I don't know about you but I'll gladly take the former. Any day. What good are hundreds of posts a day if 90% of them are either childish, stupid, malicious, or all of those together? I'd rather read less, but more insightful contributions. IMHO there's more than enough crap on the web already.

I remember when the push was made to create a separate Political War Lounge as a sub-forum of the regular Lounge here (I believe it was a user called "willed" who was a key driver of this idea). The reasoning if I recall correctly is that these threads tended to be all-out wars, filled with rabid users going at it. So a separate forum was set up to house those threads that were most likely to develop into flamefests (Politics, Religion, etc.). This battlefield was set up, used to great effect, then subsequently neutered.

I realize that combative style isn't for everyone. But my bigger point was that we once had one of the few highly-trafficked, participatory political war arenas on the web. No holds barred. It was awesome. Now it's weak.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Which statistics?

Much of the thread is referring to the drop in activity over recent years, with folks guesstimating the reasons why.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Let's assume for a moment you're right and I can have either a decent board with fewer respectful members or a nasty board with a lot of idiots. Well I don't know about you but I'll gladly take the former. Any day. What good are hundreds of posts a day if 90% of them are either childish, stupid, malicious, or all of those together? I'd rather read less, but more insightful contributions. IMHO there's more than enough crap on the web already.

That's a fine opinion. But it's about more than you or I. It's about users and participants, and trying to provide a place where they are welcomed and encouraged to visit again and again.

As for what good are all the posts if 90% are useless as per your individual taste? i don't know what the monetization strategies are here in the forums, but I do know that MacNN is a for-profit enterprise, and generally speaking, the more active and engaged users a site has, the better the opportunities are to capture revenues as a result of that high activity.

Think Facebook. Capture, engage, monetize.

[Simon]

Personally, I know at least three people who left this board because they had had enough of hostile posts and ad-hom nonsense. It's not like the anything goes strategy ensures maximum amount of members. So let's talk revenue. Had MacNN reprimanded that abusive behavior, they would be showing ads to at least three more people today.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Personally, I know at least three people who left this board because they had had enough of hostile posts and ad-hom nonsense. It's not like the anything goes strategy ensures maximum amount of members. So let's talk revenue. Had MacNN reprimanded that abusive behavior, they would be showing ads to at least three more people today.

I agree 100000%. I know you're sticking to the numbers that you can personally concretely back up, but the real number of defectors is much higher.

[Spheric Harlot]

It's not *that* noticeable, though, as the Mac growth brings a lot of traffic.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by reader50 

[*]2 torrent sites blocked - not sure why, since there are tons of others. One has since closed. I removed both from the censor list.

I think I can explain why. Invites.

A while back, some members posted threads asking for invitations to the "invitation only" torrent sites. The two which were the biggest offenders were the site with the pig noise as its name and the site whose name means "sort of like a demon."

The problem was that the threads get indexed on Google, and would come up as a hit, often on the first page. This meant that random people would come and register on the forums just to ask for an invite to tehgreatl33ttorrentsite. If the mods locked a thread another would pop up in its place.

I, and a few others, asked for those sites to be censored to stop the people whose only intention was to get an invite from posting. It appears to have worked, because it stopped. But... keep your eyes out for similar things in the future.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It's not *that* noticeable, though, as the Mac growth brings a lot of traffic.

In the technical forums perhaps, but the lounge is very slow these days.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

A while back, some members posted threads asking for invitations to the "invitation only" torrent sites. The two which were the biggest offenders were the site with the pig noise as its name and the site whose name means "sort of like a demon."

Oddly enough, it was neither of those. One was torrentspy, which closed down over a year ago. The other is still around.

I've since sifted the list some more, removing dead domains or ones no longer a problem. We're down from 39 -> 15 domains blocked - free iPod/iPhone/Mac pyramid schemes, porn, etc.