Fashions come and go. I don't think many of us expected records to be revived (and rebranded as "vinyl"!) and become more trendy than CDs, but there you go. It may yet also be that forums where people can actually chat using words rather than gifs, emojis, videoclips and abbreviations may come back into fashion at some point. I wouldn't rule it out.
Actually, I do find the fact the software doesn't support links to images a bit of a pain; it can be very useful. I'm hoping the new software will have this feature. It would particularly benefit AS - "I'm in the Lake District - here's the view out of the hostel window:"
Actually, I do find the fact the software doesn't support links to images a bit of a pain; it can be very useful. I'm hoping the new software will have this feature. It would particularly benefit AS - "I'm in the Lake District - here's the view out of the hostel window:"
Actually, I do find the fact the software doesn't support links to images a bit of a pain; it can be very useful. I'm hoping the new software will have this feature. It would particularly benefit AS - "I'm in the Lake District - here's the view out of the hostel window:"
This software allows that, it's been a long standing policy here to not do so and that functionality is disabled. Pictures can sometimes add to the quality of discussion, but in most cases aren't needed (and, can often detract from discussion - we don't want Purgatory filled with stupid memes in cheap imitation of X or Facebook). There have always been calls for allowing photos from meets, but given that we no longer have meets that's not a current issue - there are concerns there about inadvertent outing, and when we have meets with children present there are issues of permission.
This software allows that, it's been a long standing policy here to not do so and that functionality is disabled. Pictures can sometimes add to the quality of discussion, but in most cases aren't needed (and, can often detract from discussion - we don't want Purgatory filled with stupid memes in cheap imitation of X or Facebook). There have always been calls for allowing photos from meets, but given that we no longer have meets that's not a current issue - there are concerns there about inadvertent outing, and when we have meets with children present there are issues of permission.
I mean would could consider it, with some additional rules, no memes, no people other than yourselves unless it’s Creative Commons content (ie a still of the coronation or similar) - it might enhance some Eccles content, or pics in the obit threads etc ?
This software allows that, it's been a long standing policy here to not do so and that functionality is disabled. Pictures can sometimes add to the quality of discussion, but in most cases aren't needed (and, can often detract from discussion - we don't want Purgatory filled with stupid memes in cheap imitation of X or Facebook). There have always been calls for allowing photos from meets, but given that we no longer have meets that's not a current issue - there are concerns there about inadvertent outing, and when we have meets with children present there are issues of permission.
I mean would could consider it, with some additional rules, no memes, no people other than yourselves unless it’s Creative Commons content (ie a still of the coronation or similar) - it might enhance some Eccles content, or pics in the obit threads etc ?
And then there can be copyright problems, and borderline pics, and bandwidth - how many people resize their photos for upload? - and people posting stuff that contravened the rules. It would add an extra layer to hosting.
But up to you. Personally I find the uncluttered text format quite refreshing and would be sorry to see it go.
This software allows that, it's been a long standing policy here to not do so and that functionality is disabled. Pictures can sometimes add to the quality of discussion, but in most cases aren't needed (and, can often detract from discussion - we don't want Purgatory filled with stupid memes in cheap imitation of X or Facebook). There have always been calls for allowing photos from meets, but given that we no longer have meets that's not a current issue - there are concerns there about inadvertent outing, and when we have meets with children present there are issues of permission.
Can the functionality be selectively applied, e.g. to All Saints only, or even to specific threads?
I also like the image-free formatting, but do admit that sometimes a picture is indeed worth a thousand words. Sidestepping the question of the resources to host images, perhaps it might make sense to make the ability to post images based on profile - not possible until after 50 posts, then revokable if abused.
I also like the image-free formatting, but do admit that sometimes a picture is indeed worth a thousand words. Sidestepping the question of the resources to host images, perhaps it might make sense to make the ability to post images based on profile - not possible until after 50 posts, then revokable if abused.
The trouble with that, as I see it, is that it creates a hell of a lot more work for the H&A.
I think the format here, the old-fashioned text-based discussion board, has something that Facebook and X and the rest don't have, which is the ability to have lengthy, logic-and-evidence-based discussions that don't get swamped in a sea of cat pictures and what-I-fixed-for-supper and other such ephemera. Although fine in their place, they destroy the attempt to have an extended, serious, intelligent conversations. Maybe we're all a bunch of dinosaurs because weant that kind of extended conversations, but until I'm petrol, I'll stay places where it's possible.
The way photos are used depends a lot on the culture of the discussion board. Some allow them and they’re used very successfully in ways that do add to the discussion. The straight-forward user guidelines on this ship make expectations clear. I’d expect something like: “images may be used to further the discussion topic” would be sufficient.
But I’ve never been part of admin……I’m sure they’ve seen nearly everything.
I think linking to pictures is still a better option - it makes you think about whether it's really worth it. There's a lot of casual images in posts elsewhere which if people had to make the effort, they probably wouldn't include. And they often don't result in much engagement - people just give likes and move on to the next.
I'm really glad there are no gifs or sigs here. I've got very fed up with that woman in the aqua dress spluttering into her coffee and that bloke munching popcorn in the cinema.
I'm really glad there are no gifs or sigs here. I've got very fed up with that woman in the aqua dress spluttering into her coffee and that bloke munching popcorn in the cinema.
I don’t know. I’m with you on gifs, but I miss the sigs from the Old Ship. I felt like they helped me get to know other shipmates better, or at least in a different way. Having them at the bottom of a post along with the name and avatar at the top also helped me keep track of who I was reading.
I split this off because I think it is it’s own discussion - also we know we are using legacy software and will need to change. Please use this thread to talk about what functionality you would want or not want in the future - and give any suggestions for suitable platforms.
Quite a lot of software platforms allow users to block or ignore other users. How do you (the users of the Ship of Fools forums) feel about being able to do that?
Quite a lot of software platforms allow users to block or ignore other users. How do you (the users of the Ship of Fools forums) feel about being able to do that?
I'd say no. It makes discussions go awry if not everyone sees every comment.
I think it would be useful if people could block pms from certain users (but not moderators) - as it is very difficult to manage allegations of inappropriate pms and is simpler if users can simply block.
Quite a lot of software platforms allow users to block or ignore other users. How do you (the users of the Ship of Fools forums) feel about being able to do that?
Presumably, though, if the blocked user is quoted by another user, you’d still see what was quoted. (I don’t know whether if I was just a shipmate I’d want to block other users or not.)
Blocking the public posts of a user is a very blunt tool. There are some Shipmates I don't give a lot of attention to on politics because I find the way they express their views coming across as uninformed and uniformative and generally not worth my time - if I was to block all their posts I'd miss out on some interesting stuff on other topics.
Presumably, though, if the blocked user is quoted by another user, you’d still see what was quoted. (I don’t know whether if I was just a shipmate I’d want to block other users or not.)
The way quoting works on this platform isn't integral to the software - it's an add-on. On other platforms, a quoted post might appear as a separate reference adjacent to a post. (Or not appear, if that user had been blocked).
Obviously, it would still possible to quote someone else manually. But if it can only be done manually, it's going to be done less.
The issue is more about having some direct control and certainty about never having to see a particular user's posts at first hand.
More generally, it is quite likely that there will be significant changes in the way any future software works. This will, in turn, influence and affect the ways in which users interact (such as by reducing the amount of quoted posts appearing in people's posts). In relation to various recent threads here, I wonder if that might not be a bad thing.
Quite a lot of software platforms allow users to block or ignore other users. How do you (the users of the Ship of Fools forums) feel about being able to do that?
I'd say no. It makes discussions go awry if not everyone sees every comment.
I’m inclined to agree, especially given that a fairly large proportion of discussions on the Ship have a relatively small number of active participants. It gets weird if I can see Shipmate A’s post who seems to be discussing what Shipmate B said about my post but I can’t see Shipmate B’s post. Or rather what would happen is that I’d want to go back and unblock Shipmate B, which defeats the purpose. And generally speaking, if someone has accused me of having said something stupid or evil in a post it’s probably not a good thing if I’m the only one who doesn’t know about it.
I think it gets awkward if it becomes obvious that particular shipmates are blocking other shipmates’ posts.
I think this is something that might work better in a context of a board with a very large number of participants, and not necessarily a lot of interaction, where you’re trying to filter signal to noise.
Quite a lot of software platforms allow users to block or ignore other users. How do you (the users of the Ship of Fools forums) feel about being able to do that?
I don't see myself using it frequently but there have certainly been times in the past when I'd have welcomed that. Yes, I'd like this as an option. It would be one way of avoiding Hell calls and letting things simmer down.
However, I'm not sure how it would work if you muted X's posts and then Y quoted them in their response. Would you see X's quote?
As I've seen it implemented elsewhere (xenoforo software, I think) it effectively does something similar to our current hidden text feature. Basically it gives you a breathing space to decide whether this is the sort of thread where you are going to want that poster's opinion, which may have a different answer in a political thread vs one about cricket.
I once used the “ignore” function for one poster on another board. What others have said about it ultimately making threads harder to follow was exactly what I experienced. I ended up taking that one poster off “ignore.”
Quite a lot of software platforms allow users to block or ignore other users. How do you (the users of the Ship of Fools forums) feel about being able to do that?
I don't see myself using it frequently but there have certainly been times in the past when I'd have welcomed that. Yes, I'd like this as an option. It would be one way of avoiding Hell calls and letting things simmer down.
However, I'm not sure how it would work if you muted X's posts and then Y quoted them in their response. Would you see X's quote?
Yes, with this software. As far as the system is concerned, it all becomes Y's text - it doesn't understand that X originally wrote it, or have any way of distinguishing it from text in Y's post that Y typed themselves.
Here, the "quote" button is just a convenient way of copying and pasting the text from someone else's post into your own.
Quite a lot of software platforms allow users to block or ignore other users. How do you (the users of the Ship of Fools forums) feel about being able to do that?
I don't see myself using it frequently but there have certainly been times in the past when I'd have welcomed that. Yes, I'd like this as an option. It would be one way of avoiding Hell calls and letting things simmer down.
However, I'm not sure how it would work if you muted X's posts and then Y quoted them in their response. Would you see X's quote?
Yes, with this software. As far as the system is concerned, it all becomes Y's text - it doesn't understand that X originally wrote it, or have any way of distinguishing it from text in Y's post that Y typed themselves.
Here, the "quote" button is just a convenient way of copying and pasting the text from someone else's post into your own.
Awkward. You could potentially end up having a go at Y for X's comments, without necessarily realizing it was a quote, and thereby compoounding trouble.
Or you might find yourself agreeing with something you thought Y had said when it was actually X, which, depending on personal bias, could be annoying.
Yes, with this software. As far as the system is concerned, it all becomes Y's text - it doesn't understand that X originally wrote it, or have any way of distinguishing it from text in Y's post that Y typed themselves.
Awkward. You could potentially end up having a go at Y for X's comments, without necessarily realizing it was a quote, and thereby compoounding trouble.
Or you might find yourself agreeing with something you thought Y had said when it was actually X, which, depending on personal bias, could be annoying.
There wouldn't be any change to how quoted text appears - the text would continue to be shown as a quote from someone else.
It's the software system that is unable to distinguish between X's quote and Y's text in Y's post. Human beings would continue to be able to distinguish between them as they do now.
Quite a lot of software platforms allow users to block or ignore other users. How do you (the users of the Ship of Fools forums) feel about being able to do that?
I'd say no. It makes discussions go awry if not everyone sees every comment.
I was successfully using killfiles before the dawn of time to avoid having to see particular idiots, but that's less necessary in a closely-moderated forum.
There have been a few shipmates over the years who could be relied upon to bang on about the same topic over and over again, but not quite to the level that it becomes "crusading". Have I wished I could mute them? Sure - but I think it breaks more than it helps.
If the forums were properly threaded (and yes, people love or hate threads), then "ignore subthread" might be useful. But I suspect there are more haters of proper threading than there are fans of it out there.
If the forums were properly threaded (and yes, people love or hate threads), then "ignore subthread" might be useful. But I suspect there are more haters of proper threading than there are fans of it out there.
Recollection of previous discussions of forum software ... threading makes the rants about the priest wearing the wrong shade of blue seem like a polite chat over a cup of tea.
Personally, the concept of threading makes a lot of sense. But, the practice is different. Proper threading isn't a function of software, it requires all users to use the software properly so that topics thread. Where I've used threaded software I've never known one that threads properly, there are always people who post something outwith the appropriate thread, or repeat what's been said on a thread they had missed, or you read something you want to respond to later and then can't find it within a load of threads when you have time, or a thread develops in a completely different direction than would be expected from the start and people miss out on interesting discussion because they weren't interested in the first couple of posts of a thread. We can control the software we get ... controlling users so that they use that functionality appropriately so that discussions thread properly is beyond our control, even if everyone is onboard agreeing that threading is good.
What we've tried (not always succeeding, and not always applied consistently) here is to encourage people to start new discussions for tangents, or for the hosts to split those tangents out into new discussions, and discourage large all-encompassing discussions.
The different time zones in which the Ship is read would limit utility.
I mean, sure, but at the same time it was fun to schedule a realtime chat every now and then because of our geographical divides, and not have to wait 10-18 hours for every retort.
I'm not sure what you mean by "fun". It's now 8.30 pm here and even later for Huia. The Ship's system somehow works all this out to time posts. Knowing absolutely nothing about programming I am amazed that your post was automatically timed at 12.55 am.
I'm not sure what you mean by "fun". It's now 8.30 pm here and even later for Huia. The Ship's system somehow works all this out to time posts. Knowing absolutely nothing about programming I am amazed that your post was automatically timed at 12.55 am.
I mean it as one would mean any time one gathers with friends for enjoyable or meaningful conversation.
I'm sure everyone's ISP/server has something to do with posts' timestamps.
I've noticed for some time now that when I'm on the Ship, my connection seems to freeze up after awhile. I'm unable to browse to other sites and have to reset my PC to regain connectivity. This does not appear to be happening with other sites. Have others experienced this or is it just me (or my PC)?
Comments
You can share links to photos.
Here are my dogs in the mist this morning - https://photos.app.goo.gl/DXrT1nxsatJRB5zC8
(It had to be dogs wink 😉 🐾)
I know, but it's not the same, and you have to upload the photos to somewhere first.
Most forum software these days lets you upload photos into your posts.
I mean would could consider it, with some additional rules, no memes, no people other than yourselves unless it’s Creative Commons content (ie a still of the coronation or similar) - it might enhance some Eccles content, or pics in the obit threads etc ?
Quite.
But up to you. Personally I find the uncluttered text format quite refreshing and would be sorry to see it go.
Can the functionality be selectively applied, e.g. to All Saints only, or even to specific threads?
The trouble with that, as I see it, is that it creates a hell of a lot more work for the H&A.
The way photos are used depends a lot on the culture of the discussion board. Some allow them and they’re used very successfully in ways that do add to the discussion. The straight-forward user guidelines on this ship make expectations clear. I’d expect something like: “images may be used to further the discussion topic” would be sufficient.
But I’ve never been part of admin……I’m sure they’ve seen nearly everything.
I'm really glad there are no gifs or sigs here. I've got very fed up with that woman in the aqua dress spluttering into her coffee and that bloke munching popcorn in the cinema.
Doublethink, Styx Hosting
I'd say no. It makes discussions go awry if not everyone sees every comment.
Obviously, it would still possible to quote someone else manually. But if it can only be done manually, it's going to be done less.
The issue is more about having some direct control and certainty about never having to see a particular user's posts at first hand.
More generally, it is quite likely that there will be significant changes in the way any future software works. This will, in turn, influence and affect the ways in which users interact (such as by reducing the amount of quoted posts appearing in people's posts). In relation to various recent threads here, I wonder if that might not be a bad thing.
I’m inclined to agree, especially given that a fairly large proportion of discussions on the Ship have a relatively small number of active participants. It gets weird if I can see Shipmate A’s post who seems to be discussing what Shipmate B said about my post but I can’t see Shipmate B’s post. Or rather what would happen is that I’d want to go back and unblock Shipmate B, which defeats the purpose. And generally speaking, if someone has accused me of having said something stupid or evil in a post it’s probably not a good thing if I’m the only one who doesn’t know about it.
I think it gets awkward if it becomes obvious that particular shipmates are blocking other shipmates’ posts.
I think this is something that might work better in a context of a board with a very large number of participants, and not necessarily a lot of interaction, where you’re trying to filter signal to noise.
I don't see myself using it frequently but there have certainly been times in the past when I'd have welcomed that. Yes, I'd like this as an option. It would be one way of avoiding Hell calls and letting things simmer down.
However, I'm not sure how it would work if you muted X's posts and then Y quoted them in their response. Would you see X's quote?
Here, the "quote" button is just a convenient way of copying and pasting the text from someone else's post into your own.
Awkward. You could potentially end up having a go at Y for X's comments, without necessarily realizing it was a quote, and thereby compoounding trouble.
Or you might find yourself agreeing with something you thought Y had said when it was actually X, which, depending on personal bias, could be annoying.
I was successfully using killfiles before the dawn of time to avoid having to see particular idiots, but that's less necessary in a closely-moderated forum.
There have been a few shipmates over the years who could be relied upon to bang on about the same topic over and over again, but not quite to the level that it becomes "crusading". Have I wished I could mute them? Sure - but I think it breaks more than it helps.
If the forums were properly threaded (and yes, people love or hate threads), then "ignore subthread" might be useful. But I suspect there are more haters of proper threading than there are fans of it out there.
Personally, the concept of threading makes a lot of sense. But, the practice is different. Proper threading isn't a function of software, it requires all users to use the software properly so that topics thread. Where I've used threaded software I've never known one that threads properly, there are always people who post something outwith the appropriate thread, or repeat what's been said on a thread they had missed, or you read something you want to respond to later and then can't find it within a load of threads when you have time, or a thread develops in a completely different direction than would be expected from the start and people miss out on interesting discussion because they weren't interested in the first couple of posts of a thread. We can control the software we get ... controlling users so that they use that functionality appropriately so that discussions thread properly is beyond our control, even if everyone is onboard agreeing that threading is good.
What we've tried (not always succeeding, and not always applied consistently) here is to encourage people to start new discussions for tangents, or for the hosts to split those tangents out into new discussions, and discourage large all-encompassing discussions.
I mean, sure, but at the same time it was fun to schedule a realtime chat every now and then because of our geographical divides, and not have to wait 10-18 hours for every retort.
I mean it as one would mean any time one gathers with friends for enjoyable or meaningful conversation.
I'm sure everyone's ISP/server has something to do with posts' timestamps.
Who on earth would bother?
Probably older than that. Windows 8 came out in 2012 and Windows 10 in 2015. Retail computers are generally sold with the newest OS.