Which board?

[Paul Doherty]

Moved from elsewhere.

Geoff said:

I think this thread and a number of others in the general discussion area ought to have been raised in the Quick Language Questions area. I find the language discussions interesting and informative, but too often they are being sidetracked and then they ramble on off-topic. There seems to be a reluctance to use the other board (or it is overlooked), probably because we all tend to gravitate here, and all (well, nearly all) questions are raised here and the thread subject matter becomes hard to follow.

Does anyone else feel the same?

[Paul Doherty]

And Amanda said:

I do apologise if I'm in the wrong place, but I took quick questions to be along the lines of "where do I put the apostrophe in..." and the like. Although my first post was a question, I thought it might generate some interesting discussion, which indeed it has; (I hadn't thought of smiths and wrights!) And I considered the main board to be for language discussion + tangents, rather than a general chat board.

Just to put my omelette's-worth in: both here and on the APS, many a good debate sprang from a simple query; I do get the feeling that we are missing some valuable opportunities for an interesting thread because the quick threads are curtailed.

I know that subjects can be transferred to the main board but it all gets a bit fragmented, and I for one don't read the quick question board as a matter of course.

[Paul Doherty]

My view is that Amanda's question was appropriate here, given that she hoped for discussion rather than an answer.

But Geoff has a point. It would be helpful if threads, even here, stayed (even remotely) connected to their title.

Major departures (such as this one!) should be raised as a new thread.

[Geoff]

Jun 22, 2008 11:36:37 GMT Paul Doherty said:

My view is that Amanda's question was appropriate here, given that she hoped for discussion rather than an answer.

An interesting view of the two boards, Paul. It's certainly not what I expected when you established the second board. If I'm out of order ...

Sure, the APS had some interesting off-topic discussions, but the threads were limited to thirty messages which meant they didn't continue for too long before a new thread was started, usually under a new title, if the discussion warranted it. Thread tiles here have very little relevance to the content once the length of the thread gets longer than a page or two. Much of the discussion is on language, I suppose, but the thread titles are rather meaningless for anyone other the regulars looking in. Right now, it all seems a little chaotic to me. Perhaps I just like order in my life; but the more I think about it, the more difficult it would appear to be to decide what goes on which board if they are meant to be as Paul has suggested above. If I were to raise a subject on the other board, I would like to have it discussed if necessary. So, what constitutes a 'Quick Language Question', and who decides?

[Sue M-V]

I haven't bothered much with the Quick Questions section. I take a peek from time to time. I also expect it to be the place where one can post a question that ought to be easily answerable by someone who knows, rather than a matter that could be debated (endlessly). I might visit oftener if I could see the topics and realise that I might know the answer, but (perhaps selfishly) I'm more likely to go there when I have a question.

The main board I take to be for discussions based on areas of language (as opposed to sport or motor cars, let's say), but where anything deemed relevant by posters is allowed. This works well because we've all been trained on the APS! I'm not sure what might happen if we were invaded by masses of newcomers!

Sue

[Paul Doherty]

You're certainly not out of order, Geoff.

I'm not sure one can define these things too precisely -- over-eager moderation can kill a board stone-dead. Many more boards die than survive. It's a delicate ecology, as I said before.

The two boards will need to evolve and develop their own character. For me, the key part of the other board is in its description: "... quick questions about English ...". That seems to imply questions rather than remarks or observations; and although "quick" is hard to predict, it probably implies nothing too difficult or controversial. And I hoped that people would refrain from the musings or "that reminds me"s which are welcome here but not there -- and they largely have.

We did refine it after it had been there for a few days (and had been ignored), didn't we, so that may well not be how it started.

But that's my own view. In the end, though, I can't dictate anything -- a board is what its users make it, so if everyone else has a different view, that other view will prevail. What do you think it's for, Geoff?

As for this board, I don't think it matters much if the threads meander a bit. It's not like a reference library where things need to be organised and categorised -- rather it's a number of simultaneous conversations. It's true, as you say, that "the thread titles are rather meaningless for anyone other the regulars looking in", but does it matter? I doubt anyone other than the regulars care. Newcomers are never going look through all existing titles before they they join in, and anyone looking for something specific can use the search function (or will be directed by Google).

[Pete]

I tend to check the QLQ board as I log on, to see if there is anything of interest. And I use it for specific questions, as some of you will have seen.

I am very happy for the main board to ramble a bit or even a lot. We seem to be attracting a regular flow of new members and I don't think people are put off by anything on either board. So I am tempted to suggest that we change very little, if anything.

But Geoff made a good point about the length of threads on the old APS board and how a 30-post cut-off meant that the meanderings were effectively limited. We could try that here - except for the monthly rambling post - on the basis that people who want to keep a thread going can just start a new one when the old one closes. That happened often enough on the APS, too.

[Geoff]

The main board I take to be for discussions based on areas of language (as opposed to sport or motor cars, let's say), but where anything deemed relevant by posters is allowed. This works well because we've all been trained on the APS! I'm not sure what might happen if we were invaded by masses of newcomers!

That's my point we've all been trained on the APS and most of us met on the APS. I feel it's the fact we met on the APS (there are a couple of newcomers, I know) that keeps us coming here. We know each other and enjoy the banter and crossfire; but I worry that there is nothing to attract newcomers in the rambling nature of the threads. I doubt that we're going to be invaded by masses of newcomers!

But that's my own view. In the end, though, I can't dictate anything -- a board is what its users make it, so if everyone else has a different view, that other view will prevail. What do you think it's for, Geoff?

As for this board, I don't think it matters much if the threads meander a bit. It's not like a reference library where things need to be organised and categorised -- rather it's a number of simultaneous conversations. It's true, as you say, that "the thread titles are rather meaningless for anyone other the regulars looking in", but does it matter? I doubt anyone other than the regulars care.

I understood the purpose of the second board was to have an area where specific language questions could be asked and the respondents were expected to stay, as far as possible, on topic. In hindsight, I agree that is not really implicit in the board title.

It's possibly true that newcomers are not going to look through all the thread titles, but I believe they might judge the suitability of the board for getting the answer to a language question by what they see in threads they might scan. So, yes, I do think it matters, or is the board just for a small bunch of old friends who just want to chat. (chat room?) The APS benefited from a lot of exposure. I found it after reading about it the daily press. So I think it would be nice if your boards, Paul, could attract those people out there who have a language question and who might otherwise have gone to the APS. Remember, teachers recommended their students look at the APS, but I wonder if the same recommendations will continue to be made with the restriction on APS board content. It would be nice to have all those non-apostrophic questions come here.

Newcomers are never going look through all existing titles before they they join in, and anyone looking for something specific can use the search function (or will be directed by Google).

Gee, I would hate to have to use the search function for something other than a thread title. Any discussion on a particular topic, once a thread goes off-topic, does wander, so finding a compact, comprehensive answer to a subject is unlikely to happen.

Perhaps I just miss the old APS. The bottom line is, as you said, Paul, the board will assume a life of its own and much of what I'm alluding to is in the hands of the board users.

... hops down off soap box.

[Sue M-V]

I doubt that we're going to be invaded by masses of newcomers!

I hope you're right, Geoff! The occasional one or two is fine, but the school class invasions were pretty awful on the APS!

I find that the search function works well. You need only remember a key word and it will find what you're looking for.

Sue

[Paul Doherty]

Jun 22, 2008 23:13:28 GMT Geoff said:

The APS benefited from a lot of exposure. I found it after reading about it the daily press. So I think it would be nice if your boards, Paul, could attract those people out there who have a language question and who might otherwise have gone to the APS.

Never going to happen, Geoff.

The APS benefited from having an excellent name and a tireless promoter (John R), who, being an ex-journalist, knew exactly which buttons to press to get himself widely quoted in the media. As you say, that gave it a lot of exposure.

The outcome is that the APS is mentioned on dozens of other websites, in countless media reports, and even in Lynne Truss's book. Apart from anything else, that gives it an unassailable ranking on Google: search for almost any term containing apostrophe and any of use, rules, or correct and the APS will be the top link. You're never going to change that.

So, as I've always said, the only real way for newcomers to find us is via the APS, which is why I have been -- and continue to be -- very grateful to John H for giving us a mention there.

Worrying about the style or organisation here, while useful it its own right, will do nothing to change any of that.

[Paul Doherty]

Jun 22, 2008 23:13:28 GMT Geoff said:

Gee, I would hate to have to use the search function for something other than a thread title. Any discussion on a particular topic, once a thread goes off-topic, does wander, so finding a compact, comprehensive answer to a subject is unlikely to happen.

And, of course, did not happen on the APS either. As Graham remarked recently, how many times did we answer the CD's question (not to mention the James's, Joneses and five years' experience questions)?

[Alan Palmer]

It should be mentioned that the APS board's 30-post limit is a fairly recent innovation. I recall a few years ago that some threads attracted a lot of posts, on-topic or off-topic, which squeezed out some other potentially interesting threads because of the limitations of the Bravenet board. That problem doesn't exist here.

[Paul Doherty]

Jun 23, 2008 1:38:39 GMT Paul Doherty said:

And, of course, did not happen on the APS either.

So if someone is looking for an existing "compact, comprehensive answer to a subject" they wouldn't/won't find it on the APS board, and they probably won't find it on this board. They might find it on our QLQ, but it's really what our FAQs are for. Anyone can suggest (or write) an FAQ here.

That was also partly why I set up the Wiki, now so ably tended by Dave, and that still exists (and can be added to by anyone), of course.

[Geoff]

I'm happy to stay down from my soap box as I'm the only one who seems to have a problem. It did concern me, and probably will continue to do so, to some extent, but I think I can live with that.

Laissez faire.

[Verbivore]

I patronised the APS board because of the content and the company - despite my being frequently frustrated at the primitive Bravenet setup. The moment a technically superior board was made available (by Paul, in this instance, but it may have happened another time and courtesy another individual) I jumped into it and daily have delighted in it since.

Not only can I enjoy similar content - if broader (and so better) in matters discussed, and with a large part of the same "family" from my APS days, but I can do it without the technological limitations of Bravenet. I don't have to remember - and type - volumes of code to achieve the desired layout, and I don't have to limit my input to apostrophe matters.

The rambling nature (to which I admit being a "naughty" contributor at times) suits me just fine, and to date I've had no problems finding things (when needed) via the search function.

I always enter threads via the "New" button and have no difficulty keeping up with the topics or their offshoots. If discussion wanders from the topic title, it doesn't bother me: it's rather like life in that regard. The rest of my life is so organised (read: anal-retentive list-making Virgo) that I welcome a little chaos.

What suits me probably won't suit all, but my vote is for the current setup.