"Come on, Dave, give me a break."
(A line from the Van Halen song, "Unchained") That is really a stretch. There are plenty of topics just like aiming system threads that generate a lot of controversy. To say that only aiming system threads generate traffic (or that the boards are "same old, same old") is disingenuous, to say the least. And to top it off with the "pitch" about more clicks, more ad revenue, etc. is just oh-so-geno, as to initiate dry heaves.
This is just an extension (variation, mutation) of the aiming system sales pitches that are turning a TON of folks off. This kind of controversy is NOT a good thing. To have rip-roaring fights on an open board, and to use the "see no evil, hear no evil" excuse that this kind of attention is good for the boards borders on irresponsibility, to say the least.
Dave, I respectfully disagree with you here. Moving aiming system threads into their own subforum will NOT cause them to "die in seclusion." If anything, it will keep these threads from being washed under the avalanche of new threads washing ashore every day on the Main board. If anything has served as proof, just look at what San Jose Dick did just the other day when he "resuscitated" a CTE thread that even CTE advocates themselves (*you* and JB included) had marked as "old and dead" -- even though the topic being discussed is just as fresh as the new CTE threads popping up like mushrooms after a morning rain.
Do you mean to tell me that unless "new" CTE threads pop-up, each asking about a topic that had long been covered in earlier threads, is the only way you'd be satisfied that CTE is being discussed adequately? So let me get this straight:
- no central knowledge base
- no easily-accessed/indexed archive
- no dedicated forum
...just a "Main" forum that folks interested in CTE either have to:
A.) forage around for CTE information, using an
arcane Search feature that requires knowledge of how to use (which, btw, defaults to Boolean "OR" functionality when you type multiple keywords into it, thereby generating a TON of useless results, unless you know how -- and remember -- to prefix each word with a "+" sign to transform it into a Boolean "AND" search);
-or worse-
B.) generate a new thread amongst the avalanche of stuff in the Main forum, asking the "same old, same old" (as you put it) questions about something that probably has been long covered in much more detail in an earlier thread.
This is supposed to be good? And you're an I.T. guy!
Are you serious?? Have you looked at AZB's forums list lately?
http://forums.azbilliards.com/index.php
Do you mean to tell all this --
all of those forums -- should be folded into just two, "Pool" and "Non-Pool"?? Dave, forgive me, but I'm really scratching my head on this one. I'm doing my best, my earnest effort, to try and understand you here. Gosh, I'm really trying, but I'm lost for words on this one. You mean to tell me you can't imagine the INCREDIBLE MESS this place would be? No, it wouldn't be, because this place would lose at LEAST HALF of its subscribers -- paid and otherwise -- including me. I wouldn't even want to have to wade through all that. One of the biggest sellers for me when I signed up for AZB, was the great interest group categorization that AZB's done. If I wanted 14.1 straight pool -- bam! There it is. Carom? Bam! -- there it is. Ask the Instructor? Bam! -- there it is. And ad infinitum -- all that focused content is right there for you to click on and immediately read *on topic* stuff. Not to have to wade through it, page by page by page.
Dave, that's a very simplistic, altruistic, but COMPLETELY UNWORKABLE answer in the face of what you're suggesting. So let me get this straight -- let's say I really like what a person has to say about Topic "X" (let's say CTE), but I don't like what he/she has to say about Topic "Y" (let's say, oh, Texas Express rules). Placing that person on my "Ignore" list completely black-lists that person on everything he/she says, and I end up missing out. (And, btw, I *am capable* of compartmentalizing my thoughts on what individual people say about certain topics, without writing-off the entire person. It goes back to what I've been saying all along -- MODERATION, to take things in moderation. If it's one thing I hate, it's extremism.)
To put the load on the users to have to filter and moderate, or even worse, to label any efforts on the site itself for users to create individual special interest/focus groups as "campaigning" and "parading around" is, well, I'll use the word again -- disingenuous.
No disrespect, but I don't think you understand the magnitude of what you're suggesting here.
Respectfully,
-Sean
