Forum restructuring

[BroDeal]

What I am saying is that when I see a thread titled "The XXXXX Discussion thread" with 4000 posts I have zero desire to click on that thread. If there was a thread like "XXXXXX Will Not Ride the Tour" then I might click on it.

 

[Netserk]

Big threads > Many threads.

 

[RedheadDane]

I'd say that no matter how you go about restructuring these forums the most important matter is that stuff related to professional cycling goes to the top!
Have to admit that I've never quite understood why the top sub-forum on a cycling forum is the one for non-cycling related talk.

 

[pedaling squares]

Big threads > Many threads.

I disagree. I prefer specific topics to a free for all where conversations overlap and the first response to a post might be three pages downstream. Many threads on the same topic are better off in one larger thread, but different topics deserve different threads.

 

[RedheadDane]

Yeah. Sometimes it seems like it would be a good idea with several threads for one race/stage.

 

[Ferminal]

Yeh, good to see this being discussed. I flagged it in the other thread. Personally I have never been a fan of such restrictions, but there is definitely a wider impact too. As BroDeal said, there is definitely a culture of anti-thread creation. I count about one legitimate thread created in the past month. What kind of relevant "forum" is that? How can it claim to have robust discussions on leading topics when there is no one generating new points of discussion? Or do I have to go looking in one of the generic threads to try and find something worth discussing? Where, the chances are I will only two new posts and none of them of any wider significance, or there might be, but you have to try and find out where it starts and what posts are relevant. With that sort of strike rate you might check it every few days, or only when you have found from another source that there has been an interesting development.

 

[Netserk]

I disagree. I prefer specific topics to a free for all where conversations overlap and the first response to a post might be three pages downstream. Many threads on the same topic are better off in one larger thread, but different topics deserve different threads.

This I totally agree with.

I just don't see the big problem in threads >2,000 posts.

***

When I look at the PRR forum, there's only two threads that might be merged, which is the 'WC Ponferrada 2014. Altimetry' and 'WC Ponferrada 2014 climbs profiles (in situ measurement)', as they fall under the same topic imho.

On the other hand it's really only (atm) in the general news thread that there are topics that deserve their own threads. In the other threads (page 1), I can't really see the need to have one of the discussions moved to it's own thread. (perhaps some of the S.A. races could have their own race thread though)

Do you(generic) think there is a problem regarding this in the PRR forum?

But then again the big problem with number of threads/too big threads, is primarily a problem in the clinic, methinks :/

 

[Master50]

The point of restructuring the forum is to reduce the number of sections in order to increase the activity on parts of the forum.

With that in mind, creating another section on a subject that only has a handful of threads that aren't even active on daily basis just doesn't make sense.

Brodeal you have a point with the lack of activity on the Track/MTB/cyclo-cross section, even after a merge. But i think that would make the General cycling section a bit too big and it would feel weird to completely give up on all modalities of cycling except road racing.

I guess we will need more feedback on that.

I can't say anything about the Feedback section as i don't know if Dan would want to merge those 2 sub sections. After all the forum and the website are 2 completely different things and activity doesn't really matter on those.

I personally prefer more categories. lack of posts on a thread just indicate marginal interests but why is that a problem? Putting more subjects into larger categories will likely reduce the little contributions because these threads will be harder to find. So what that track cycling generates 4 new threads a year. At least you can find them. Put them into a big general grouping and see even less conversation on the subject.
About the only thing I think that needs more attention is the clinic. Way too much crazy speculation and accusations without much evidence. I get that occasionally the clinicians guess one right but hey any rider racing 10 years ago was under suspicion..

I like the large number of relevant categories rather than general ones that lust become a big bowl.

 

[Netserk]

I personally prefer more categories. lack of posts on a thread just indicate marginal interests but why is that a problem? Putting more subjects into larger categories will likely reduce the little contributions because these threads will be harder to find. So what that track cycling generates 4 new threads a year. At least you can find them. Put them into a big general grouping and see even less conversation on the subject.
About the only thing I think that needs more attention is the clinic. Way too much crazy speculation and accusations without much evidence. I get that occasionally the clinicians guess one right but hey any rider racing 10 years ago was under suspicion..

I like the large number of relevant categories rather than general ones that lust become a big bowl.

So ****ing what?

Are you afraid that riders will stop riding because of the accusations and speculation in the clinic?

I'd like you to articulate the actual problem in 'crazy speculation and accusations without much evidence'.

 

[dsut4392]

I personally prefer more categories. lack of posts on a thread just indicate marginal interests but why is that a problem? Putting more subjects into larger categories will likely reduce the little contributions because these threads will be harder to find. So what that track cycling generates 4 new threads a year. At least you can find them. Put them into a big general grouping and see even less conversation on the subject.<snip>

I like the large number of relevant categories rather than general ones that lust become a big bowl.

Completely agree. I'm a roadie and a mountain biker, but have only a passing interest in CX and track. The way the forums are now, I can quickly see that there are no new posts in MTB in the last week. Merge MTB with CX and Track, and I might get 'tricked' once or twice into visiting the forum because there is a new post titled "race thread", but in the end I'll stop bothering entirely.

About the only thing I think that needs more attention is the clinic. Way too much crazy speculation and accusations without much evidence. I get that occasionally the clinicians guess one right but hey any rider racing 10 years ago was under suspicion..

Disagree here. I don't think there is anything that can be done structurally to improve the quality of posting in the clinic. Cast me out as a heretic, but most mods are just regular guys with too much time on their hands, and no particular expertise about what constitutes 'evidence'. I'm happy enough with my own 'sanity filter' that I'd rather live in a forum full of trolls and crackpots than one that is over moderated.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I personally prefer more categories. lack of posts on a thread just indicate marginal interests but why is that a problem? Putting more subjects into larger categories will likely reduce the little contributions because these threads will be harder to find. So what that track cycling generates 4 new threads a year. At least you can find them. Put them into a big general grouping and see even less conversation on the subject.
About the only thing I think that needs more attention is the clinic. Way too much crazy speculation and accusations without much evidence. I get that occasionally the clinicians guess one right but hey any rider racing 10 years ago was under suspicion..

I like the large number of relevant categories rather than general ones that lust become a big bowl.

You are aware that The Clinic was created as a place to speculate about doping so that content would not burden threads on racing, right? Somebody's sore about accusations made about a rider he likes I think...

 

[RedheadDane]

Personally I also thinks it's a bit silly to "suspect" someone of doping as soon as they win something.
But the point, as has already been mentioned, is to keep all such speculation in one place. Nobody forces us to go there!

 

[the sceptic]

Maybe there should be a "we need more evidence" subforum

 

[Master50]

So ****ing what?

Are you afraid that riders will stop riding because of the accusations and speculation in the clinic?

I'd like you to articulate the actual problem in 'crazy speculation and accusations without much evidence'.

I don't like the clinic but did you bother to read my perspective on simplification? or is all you care about is a place to accuse riders of doping? I see you like the clinic. Maybe a flatter structure is perfect for your simple perspective. Clinic/ other stuff. How is that for you? This thread is not about the problems with certain categories of discussion but whether a flatter organization is necessary. I don't think it is a good idea and to that even the clinic might benefit from a broader selection of subject areas within the clinic.

 

[Master50]

You are aware that The Clinic was created as a place to speculate about doping so that content would not burden threads on racing, right? Somebody's sore about accusations made about a rider he likes I think...

Yes I know that and here is a quote from the forum rules You should read it. I only supports my particular point of view on clinic subjects. Discussion on AICAR, a positive test result, official investigation, are fair subjects.


"Proof of point, opinions, and common knowledge: you can't just say "we know Bobby the Bod is doping". You have to provide some proof using linked sources or verifiable material. Or, you can just state "in my opinion". If, on the other hand, it is in the realm of "common knowledge", then it is acceptable to make an unverified statement. Be careful - common knowledge would apply, for instance, at the time of this posting, to Lance Armstrong. But allegations of current doping, and current riders, would not be "common knowledge" at this point. To be common knowledge, the "fact" has to have been published, widely read, and widely agreed with. This point is particularly applicable in The Clinic."

 

[Netserk]

Yes I know that and here is a quote from the forum rules You should read it. I only supports my particular point of view on clinic subjects. Discussion on AICAR, a positive test result, official investigation, are fair subjects.


"Proof of point, opinions, and common knowledge: you can't just say "we know Bobby the Bod is doping". You have to provide some proof using linked sources or verifiable material. Or, you can just state "in my opinion". If, on the other hand, it is in the realm of "common knowledge", then it is acceptable to make an unverified statement. Be careful - common knowledge would apply, for instance, at the time of this posting, to Lance Armstrong. But allegations of current doping, and current riders, would not be "common knowledge" at this point. To be common knowledge, the "fact" has to have been published, widely read, and widely agreed with. This point is particularly applicable in The Clinic."

Was that part of: The Big Rules, The Other Rules or Guidelines for Posting?

 

[BroDeal]

You are aware that The Clinic was created as a place to speculate about doping so that content would not burden threads on racing, right? Somebody's sore about accusations made about a rider he likes I think...

You got his number. Not that long ago he was berating all of us for doubting Hesjedal, pulling rank with his old "I've been in follow cars behind professional pelotons for a hundred years" routine. You would think that Hesjedal's confession would put a damper on his moral outrage but it appears to have stoked the fires even higher.

 

[RedheadDane]

Personally I can think of something that would be a lot worse than all the (crazy) speculations:
Namely the we don't talk about doping at all stance. Dunno about you guys, but that smells a bit like Omerta to me.

Eeehm... mods... are we... breaking this thread?

 

[Eshnar]

Don't derail the thread people. You are free to create another topic about that.

 

[Cyivel]

Can we have a sub forum dedicated to Hulk Hogan?

 

[kielbasa]

* Cafe
* Cycling
--- racing
--- fitness
--- clinic
* Support & Moderation
* Babes on bikes

 

[Master50]

Was that part of: The Big Rules, The Other Rules or Guidelines for Posting?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/announcement.php?f=11

Lets see it is on the heading that this subject comes under. It covers my objection and clearly says that doping discussions should meet these criteria. I agree.

This thread is being derailed because I mention I don't like the clinic as it is but I offered plenty of on topic thoughts on whether a flatter forum is better or a broader one.

So while BD is all smug now that he thinks he got one on me can we put this thread back on the rails? I like more subgroups it can keep some of the discussion on track. Big subject pools only bury the threads even deeper which I fear might generate even more repeat subjects.

 

[RedheadDane]

* Cafe
* Cycling
--- racing
--- fitness
--- clinic
* Support & Moderation
* Babes on bikes

Bet a lot of people would like that!

 

[Boeing]

I think the crank arm length thread and the pedal technique thread both need their own individual sections alone. unless of course you create a section titled redundancy and hyperbole where both will fit perfectly.