Question:

[Pure]

How can this forum better accumulate knowledge, insight, and experiences in particular areas?

'threads' is an old idea on the internet, and while they do help a little to keep related discussion together, they have many drawbacks, not the least of which is vast stretches of chatter that any later reader is going to have to skim or skip past.

a thread really is NOT like a library book, and cataloguing threads is great as far as it goes, but helps only a few diligent souls with lots of time and patience.

can threads be better linked up, from their inception?

For instance:

Should new threads contain, at the beginning, urls for old ones.

Should old threads be resurrected for further discussion of a topic?

Is there a problem if there's every few weeks a new thread on a topic?

How would that tendency to multiply be addressed?

Should threads starts be monitored or even authorized and/or assigned a subject label?

Should a librarian ever consolidate threads and even--holy shit--winnow out the chaff so the remaining parts are readable?

It is a huge puzzle, and i'm just offering some thoughts and questions. None of this is to question the fine job of librarians and moderators in the face of a daunting task.

 

[Netzach]

seems to me like the lit side of literotica could be more integrated into this kind of a pursuit, on the non-fic side?

 

[Chicklet]

Well, i think the library could stand to be updated - we must have added some content since february '05. that'd be a good first step.

 

[chris9]

I'm not going to answer all of the questions you asked, just posting some first thoughts.

'threads' is an old idea on the internet, and while they do help a little to keep related discussion together, they have many drawbacks, not the least of which is vast stretches of chatter that any later reader is going to have to skim or skip past.

This is a discussion forum, and the threads on a any topic are discussions of something, often among friends, and thus distracted by non-related stuff. Still, if I'm looking to educate myself by reading, I'm looking for essays and stuff like that, or buy a book. I believe the chatter I've read in old threads has helped me some to get a small degree of understanding of some of the regular posters, thus allowing me to judge how far I can trust what they say. I just would not take advice from anyone I know nothing about. Yes, I know that I still don't really know anyone here, and I just wouldn't do anything in a specific way without checking it out somewhere else first, just because someone here said so.

And while I did find some interesting threads in the library, the most I learned was from getting impulses for further thinking from recent threads.

can threads be better linked up, from their inception?

For instance:

Should new threads contain, at the beginning, urls for old ones.

Should old threads be resurrected for further discussion of a topic?

Is there a problem if there's every few weeks a new thread on a topic?

How would that tendency to multiply be addressed?

I feel just linking old threads to new ones might stifle any new discussion right from the beginning. And since there are often new posters who might offer some other perspective, something different, or just be more interesting to read than those posters from long ago, that's not such a good idea. Resurrecting threads can work, but usually doesn't. Especially if the threads are very long, new posters might not want to read all of it and old posters might think all's been said.

Now, please don't get me wrong. I think it's good questions you asked, and worthy to discuss. I just wanted to add some things I believe should be taken into account.

 

[catalina_francisco]

It's late and we have been busy giving a tour of the Red Light District to a friend , and indulging out taste buds on find Spanish cuisine , so I will no doubt return to this later, but one thing I would like to see is apart from less hijacking on serious topics, that if those threads are placed in the library, the chitchat which is just that and has no relevance, be in some way removed to allow people to follow the discussion and thoughts presented, or often attempted to be presented but side tracked by hijacks.

Catalina

 

[Kajira Callista]

hijack?!? *gasps* do people really do that around here?


*looks innocent*

 

[evesdream]

A redundant looking thread every 2nd week is irritating, but there's always room for a new direction or tone for a discussion. I think new threads on a topic are as valuable as old ones. There's a great search function on this board for people who want historical answers to their queries. Maybe people can be told as much from the get go, or at the top of the forum.

I wouldn't trust anyone to winnow out "chaff" from old discussions. Chaff makes the whole, even if it is annoying sometimes.

 

[Pure]

i agree, catalina

the fluff content of any thread is a problem. there are episodes within the course of the thread, and many threads end in various banter.

how about this. one a thread dies (is inactive) for 3-6 mos., it's 'capped.' by the mod. then the librarian prunes it before putting it in the library. the library then contains condensed threads or thread highlights.

i also think that after the fact, if not before it, a thread should recieve a category label. there should be, say 20-30 topic categories, plus miscellaneous.

another useful thing might be to designate some categories as 'fact or information.' i.e., how long can a breast be tied off? how much alcohol can be taken in an enema, etc. (of course, experiences are facts, if stated honestly, but I mean more like 'scientific' facts').

The librarian would try to make sure that the contributers are either health (or whatever) pros, or are *referencing* their claims. In such a thread, as at Wikipedia, a questionable posting would receive a label-- factuality disputed.

 

[Pure]

eve,

hiya,

if an 'old' thread is pulled up and added to, how does that prevent new stuff?

i think profusion of threads, so that easy topics go round and round, ARE a big problem. every few months someone says, 'why not stick the garden hose up my ass?" or 'why not pour a bottle of wine in my sub's butt,' and we go round and round.


in trying to use 'search,' one sometimes gets hundreds of hits.

perhaps the librarian, in choosing a thread, could somehow let the 'search' function know which are the best threads (so those hits are starred) OR make it possible to limit the 'search' to the designated library threads.

---
PS, how about this, eve. the library contains condensed threads, BUT the whole thread is [also] retained [and available] for those with time to sift through the chitchat, or inclination to study gossip.

 

[Kajira Callista]

Do you really think it is a good idea to have someone delete posts?
Hmmmm suppose they didnt like what you said and decided to delete it. Would someone stifling your opinion or words please you?

 

[Pure]

i already made a suggestion in that area, KC.

let the BDSM library contain condensed threads, marked that way. the condensations could be subject to public inspection and approval, as at Wikipedia.

all the 'real' and 'full' threads remain in the database and remain searchable.

 

[catalina_francisco]

My idea would be if deletions were to happen to library headed threads, they would be limited to the 'hi, how are you', or chit chat type comments which are not even remotely related to the topic as in catching up with personal gossip, not D/s related discussions or thoughts, even if on a tangent from the original topic.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Well, i think the library could stand to be updated - we must have added some content since february '05. that'd be a good first step.

This has been mentioned before and I agree, there has been a lot of recent material which has been suggested which IMHO would add to the whole library content.

Catalina

 

[Kajira Callista]

i already made a suggestion in that area, KC.

let the BDSM library contain condensed threads, marked that way. the condensations could be subject to public inspection and approval, as at Wikipedia.

all the 'real' and 'full' threads remain in the database and remain searchable.

well, i don't agree and im betting that more then 90% of the BDSM forum frequenters won't either.

 

[Lancecastor]

Personally, I rather like the idea of Pure sticking a garden hose up his/her ass.

But the rest of his/her suggestion is stupid.

This is a Discussion Board and not a library or research facility.

The tool already exists to conduct research...it's called a search engine. Properly used you can find anything you want.

"Winnowing" out the discussion bits of the forum would obviously appeal to the control freak aspects of Pure's personality.

But other than that it's just another retarded idea from the retards on the BDSM forum designed to fuck with your wee little minds.

So fuck off, Pure....stick to the garden hose idea.

 

[catalina_francisco]

well, i don't agree and im betting that more then 90% of the BDSM forum frequenters won't either.

And that is the beauty of freedom of speech...everyone is entitled to an opinion and doesn't deserve behind the scenes censoring for them. Seems that point about FOS is sometimes lost though when someone does not agree with the opinion of another.

Catalina

 

[Kajira Callista]

And that is the beauty of freedom of speech...everyone is entitled to an opinion and doesn't deserve behind the scenes censoring for them. Seems that point about FOS is sometimes lost though when someone does not agree with the opinion of another.

Catalina

anyone can have an opinion catalina. that doesnt mean it has to be acted upon. if this forum was a reference library i would think differently. if you want this forum to be just that, you will lose many. *shrug*

 

[A Desert Rose]

And that is the beauty of freedom of speech...everyone is entitled to an opinion and doesn't deserve behind the scenes censoring for them. Seems that point about FOS is sometimes lost though when someone does not agree with the opinion of another.

Catalina

I'm not agreeing with anything said in this thread. Including your quoted post above.

 

[catalina_francisco]

anyone can have an opinion catalina. that doesnt mean it has to be acted upon. if this forum was a reference library i would think differently. if you want this forum to be just that, you will lose many. *shrug*

I agree, but also do not recall my saying I wanted the forum to become a reference library....or have I missed something here and Pure and I are thought to be the same person? I didn't even see that was what he suggested, but seems from what I have been told privately, I am the devil himself by those advocating free speech. I think it strange people believe in free speech except when it is not to their liking. Thank the universe this forum is not my whole life or I would be severly disillusioned by now.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

I'm not agreeing with anything said in this thread. Including your quoted post above.

And I have no problem with that as you know ADR.

Catalina

 

[shy slave]

Thank the universe this forum is not my whole life or I would be severly disillusioned by now.

Catalina

Its not the whole of your life

I am shocked,

In fact I am speechless,

(What catagory does 'speechless' come under?)

 

[catalina_francisco]

Its not the whole of your life

I am shocked,

In fact I am speechless,

(What catagory does 'speechless' come under?)

LOL, 'damaged beyond repair'?!!

Catalina

 

[A Desert Rose]

I agree, but also do not recall my saying I wanted the forum to become a reference library....or have I missed something here and Pure and I are thought to be the same person? I didn't even see that was what he suggested, but seems from what I have been told privately, I am the devil himself by those advocating free speech. I think it strange people believe in free speech except when it is not to their liking. Thank the universe this forum is not my whole life or I would be severly disillusioned by now.

Catalina

And tell me catalina, who called you the "devil himself" privately? Certainly, you can't be talking about me, can you?

 

[catalina_francisco]

And tell me catalina, who called you the "devil himself" privately? Certainly, you can't be talking about me, can you?

Nope, though the person in question is not known to me (well actually probably is but doesn't want me to know)...problem with those who like to respond off the board using an alt.

Catalina

 

[graceanne]

Once again people are trying to fix what isn't broken. Their are many other forums that are more for research, and know what? They're DEAD, cause after a while people (a) figure out what they wanted to know and leave, and/or (b) get bored. What keeps this forum going strong isn't the information we pass on, it's the friendships we've made, and the support we offer eachother. That's why, even when nothing's happening in the forum, the cafe goes strong. Because even when we've discussed everything bdsm related to death, we still have things going on in our lives to discuss.

If someone wants to go to the trouble of doing like a research thread type thing that cuts out all the fluff, more power to you. But it's not going to make any difference, cause we'll still get people in here who doesn't want to bother with the library. They want to start a new thread on whatever it is, and get new input. I'd say that this research thread is a waste of time, personally. The library is sufficiant.

But I do agree their's a few threads that could stand to be added to the library.