Please lock threads after 1 year of no replies.
The Pacific Northwest board has been plagued recently with inattentive users and spammers resurrecting years-old threads. This could mostly be avoided, and much confusion averted, if threads locked after a certain period of inactivity. A year feels right to me, but even 2 would be better than seeing stale threads about restaurants that no longer exist float up from 2001.
I can't think of a good reason to allow posting on threads that have been dormant for more than a year or two.
By terrier
on Mar 7, 2009 08:14 PM
View »
Video
This is a great idea! Old threads are very confusing in LA too; sometimes they crop up after nearly a decade dormancy. Please leave the old threads archived and searchable but disallow new additions.
Permalink | Reply
I totally disagree. While I would be for a large banner or different color calling attention to threads older than a certain age (to keep inattentive posters from assuming the thread is new), I've seen some very interesting and relevant conversations spring from old threads and I think having an across-the-board policy of locking all of them is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Mr Taster
Permalink | Reply
I agree completely.
Permalink | Reply
Agreed, and I've suggested it before: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/578371
Permalink | Reply
As you might imagine, this is an idea that has been kicked around more than a few times previously. Here are just two of the more recent discussions.
http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/545741
http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/495425
Permalink | Reply
As you might imagine, I thought better of resurrecting one of those threads from last year on my post suggesting a method for suppressing accidental ressurection of old threads.
Thanks for your concern. In hindsight, maybe I should have for maximum irony.
Permalink | Reply
Another vote to please lock threads after a year or two. I've been wondering about this for some time now and just wanted to chime in here. Thanks!
Permalink | Reply
I'm kinda on the fence about this. I could see where a discussion on a deceased restaurant would cause confussion but if it's a chain or say, the home cooking board, it may still be relevant.
What I would like to see is a date started on the menu board so you'd know before opening if it's worth reading.
DT
Permalink | Reply
"What I would like to see is a date started on the menu board so you'd know before opening if it's worth reading."
Like that old saying "You can't judge a book by its cover" I don't think that the worth of a post, even to a years old thread, can be known until you read it. There have been times that a "newbie" poster has googled in on a very old thread with a great update or new recommendation. And you just never know what buried treasure awaits you, unless you're prepared to take out the virtual shovel and do a little cyber digging.
Permalink | Reply
No, you can judge a book by it cover.
DT
Permalink | Reply
By definition if an old thread gets "bumped" up to the top then there's new information that's been posted. Scrolling down isn't that hard. You can even use the "End" key - almost always the new posts come at the end of the thread.
Permalink | Reply
Often what gets posted to a resurrected old thread are questions about places that no longer exist. That's not new information, just new confusion.
Permalink | Reply
And sometimes the information is something to the effect of "I went last week - this place is great." It cuts both ways.
It's not that hard to look at the dates. I'll bet you do that routinely now.
Permalink | Reply
I'm one of the ones who makes noise about this issue and I still get caught sometimes. Just yesterday I had written a reply in a thread and was about to hit "Post" when I noticed that what I was replying to was two years old and no longer relevant.
Permalink | Reply
Lots of smaller cities only have one or two threads dedicated to restaurants in the area. Often times people will ask for recommendations only to be referred to the old thread. If the thread is locked, then there is no way of knowing whether a certain restaurant has closed or has undergone significant changes recently. At least if the person can post, he or she can ask for updates as to whether there is anything new of note and which of the current restaurants listed have closed. In my city, non-chains really don't last very long and if you're going by a year old post, you aren't going to find anything useful.
Permalink | Reply
The solution if you want to add/update info is to start a new thread and link the old post. Or to use the "link to a place" function, which can both be updated to include current information and which includes links to relevant threads.
There was a thread that floated up on the SF board today responding to someone looking for something nine years ago!
Permalink | Reply
90% of the time, someone will post the link to the old thread, tell the person to look there, and then the new thread dies within a day. For some topics, this isn't bad, but if you're looking for restaurant advice in a smaller city where places don't always last more than a year, or about a specific restaurant, I think it is makes sense to leave the thread open. There's really no need for 3 topics on the same restaurant, is there?
I have seen a few threads popping up that have been inactive for 5+ years, which I agree is completely unnecessary. I just know on the boards I use (Florida and Midwest), people are prone to saying that a certain question has been asked a million times before---why not use the search function instead of bothering everyone again?
Permalink | Reply
<<There's really no need for 3 topics on the same restaurant, is there?>>
My sentiments exactly. No clue why people who are aware of an existing thread on a particular restaurant would be compelled to start their own new one, but it just happened on the local board where I post. Not for anything, but isn't it more helpful for all recent comments to "live" in the same spot? Oh, well!
Permalink | Reply
It's the Look At Me! syndrome. People think that their excellent post will somehow be lost in the shuffle if it's mixed in with all the posts on the main thread. It's a sure sign of neediness. Whenever I see one of those I ignore it.
Permalink | Reply
Thank you for that--your explanation makes sense. And now I don't feel so, well, katty. ;)
I actually just went back to the place in question yesterday and tried some new things and have photos to post. BTW, it wasn't even my original post, anyway--I found it through CH and now it's a favorite of ours! Guess where I will be posting my new comments and pics. ;)
Permalink | Reply
People are also sensitive about posting a new thread and then being told time and time again that the topic has been discussed *here* and *here* and *here.* I think it discourages some potential posters.
So what's the answer - research, exhaustively, all posts and then maybe tenuously ask a question, or bash on regardless, thinking that all older posts are gone anyhow and my question on cooking X is fascinating? I don't have the answer to that. Other than, of course, "there is no such thing as a stupid question."
It's about sharing. If my 8 year old niece shares with me it's no more important than my 81 year old Dad sharing with me. And no less, btw. New and old posts have a place.
2 cents.
Cay
Permalink | Reply
Hi, Cay:
Just to be clear, Bob was replying directly to my comment:
<<No clue why people who are aware of an existing thread on a particular restaurant would be compelled to start their own new one, but it just happened on the local board where I post. Not for anything, but isn't it more helpful for all recent comments to "live" in the same spot?>>
I'm all for sharing--that's why we're all here (I think!). ;) But I also think Bob nailed it with his "Look at me!" assessment. The person who started the new thread actually posted to the *existing/current* thread (the topic was originally posted late last year) that she was looking forward to going to the restaurant, based on the comments she read on CH...then went to the restaurant and started her own thread. I actually think it's kind of silly/counterproductive, as it is easier for readers to see all comments for one place linked together rather than in separate places for no reason. And further, it's not as though the original batch of comments were negative and hers differed. Everyone who went loved the place and was eager to see it do well. In fact, I've changed my top 5 restaurants on my profile to reflect this as one of my favorites--that's how wonderful I think it is.
We're up to 4 cents now. :) I'm going to start my day soon and get going on a special cheesecake I'm baking for dinner with friends tomorrow (back to focus on good chow). I certainly don't think people should be shy or sensitive about posting. I do think it's nicer when as a community we're building blocks of information together, though--that's all.
Permalink | Reply
"actually think it's kind of silly/counterproductive, as it is easier for readers to see all comments for one place linked together rather than in separate places for no reason."
EXACTLY.
Having 50 different threads about restaurant "X" scatters the information around and makes it harder for new posters to find.
I'm a New Yorker and we have 4 boards covering the city and it's suburbs - Manhattan, Outer Boroughs, Midatlantic, and Tristate. (Yes, the organization is confusing but it's been set in stone for years.)
The Manhattan board gets the most traffic by far and is the biggest offender for multiple threads on the same restaurant. On the other boards the posters show a nice discipline and often there are single threads on individual restaurants. My guess is that the Manhattan board gets lots of tourists and a greater percentage of new posters.
It would really be nice if the moderators merged new threads with the existing ones. I've been a moderator on another food board and that's what we did. It took about 30 seconds to do the merge.
Now the objection to this would be that the mods are way too busy to identify these duplicate threads. My answer is that regular posters would be more than willing to report them in the same way they report shills and spam.
Permalink | Reply
Unfortunately, our software does not allow us to merge threads.
Permalink | Reply
Sorry, I didn't realize that.
I know you don't have an unlimited amount of development money and staff but it would be an important feature to add to the list. I'd say that a good 30% of the posters on the Manhattan board are regulars who would be glad to flag duplicate threads for the moderators.
It's not just a cosmetic issue. Even if new posters are good citizens and do a search (with the much improved search engine, thank you very much) it's somewhat daunting if the results produce hits on 30 or more threads dedicated to the same topic.
I understand that posts are threaded and replies are linked to posts that came before them. I suggest that the new thread be inserted directly under the original post on the first thread.
Like all suggestions there may well be unforeseen problems with this one. Perhaps it could be piloted on a mid sized board first?
Thanks for listening.
Permalink | Reply
I completely disagree! When a restaurant gets discussed a lot, then a single thread would quickly get long and unwieldy. People won't read the whole thread, so they'll only read the first post (lots of people only read the first post no matter how long or short the thread is), which will be the oldest and therefore the least relevant post. The best/most current information will be buried deep down the thread -- it may not even be the last post, since someone may have replied to a post somewhere in the middle of the thread (as I often see when someone brings up and old thread: the new post is in the middle, sometimes two or three levels (not just posts) of reply from the top).
The best solution would be if people would use the link to a place function -- that considates all the threads where the restaurant is discussed on a single page (no need to search), and then people can read the discussions that have the more current posts or that seem to be most closely related to their needs. There are some regulars on the SF board who regularly add places links to ongoing discussions that they aren't otherwise participating in, for just that purpose.
Permalink | Reply
"I completely disagree! When a restaurant gets discussed a lot, then a single thread would quickly get long and unwieldy."
They manage to do it on other food boards. Actually, they do it on almost all of them. And it works just fine.
Permalink | Reply
So, you're saying you want Chowhound to be like all other food boards? Why bother? Actually, one reason I don't patronize a lot of other message boards is that I find the discussion threads unwieldy and not conducive to enlightening discourse.
Permalink | Reply
"So, you're saying you want Chowhound to be like all other food boards? Why bother?"
Because this particular "feature" of Chowhound is stupid. When Leff and Okamura started Chowhound they were making it up as they went along. There wasn't any "book" they could follow in setting up the rules. They wrote the "book" in effect. They deserve a world of credit for that effort but somewhere along the line some of those policies became ossified.
"Why do we have 8,000 different threads on Babbo?"
"Because that's the way we've *always* done it."
That's not an answer, it's a prescription for chaos.
Do a search on Babbo -
http://search.chow.com/search?query=B...
You get *189* pages of hits. At 15 threads per page that's 2,835 different threads. And this is good???
The relevant information about every major restaurant is scattered over dozens of threads. When repetitive questions are asked veteran posters like me sit on our hands because we're tired of answering the same thing over and over again. As a result the people who have only been on the site for a couple of weeks are the ones who pipe up with the "answers" because they're not burnt out yet.
God bless them for their energy but frequently the information isn't complete or it lacks depth because the eager beaver poster who's responding started going to restaurants 15 minutes ago.
Lets assume that newbie sticks around and gets to be really knowledgeable. You know what will happen after a year? They'll get tired of answering those same old questions and join me and the other vets sitting on the sideline.
I've said it before. Chowhound is the "Groundhog Day" of food sites. Each day starts off as if everything that happened yesterday didn't exist. The site as a whole "forgets" what happened yesterday. No wonder it drove Bill Murray nuts.
Permalink | Reply
At the risk of repeating myself, that's what the link to a place feature is for -- it organizes all the discussions in one place, in addition to providing basic information (hours, link to website, comments, etc.).
Let's put it another way: you can't keep people from starting new threads. But you can stop them from perpetuating out-of-date ones. In addition, this thread only requested that threads be locked if there are no replies for a year. If a topic gets a lot of traffic, the policy won't apply anyway. What it will do is keep seven and eight year old threads on topics long forgotten from getting resurrected by someone who hasn't even noticed that they're replying to someone who hasn't read Chowhound for years.
Permalink | Reply
"At the risk of repeating myself, that's what the link to a place feature is for -- it organizes all the discussions in one place, in addition to providing basic information (hours, link to website, comments, etc.)."
Oh I hear you fine - I just disagree that the solution to the problem of having 2,835 Babbo threads is the Places feature. But we're not going to agree on this so I'll move on.
Permalink | Reply
I don't think there is a solution to 2,835 Babbo threads. People will always start new threads. You can't stop them. Heck, we can't get people to read the titles of the active threads visible on their screen when they pull up the board (or there wouldn't be so many repetitive questions).
Permalink | Reply
Bob, I prefer short threads and it is unusual that I would glom on to something else.
Maybe it is just the way I process info, but my eyes start to glaze over after about 30 posts. Too much info to process. I want info about a restaurant, not the Chowhound version of "War and Peace"
Speaking of which, a lot of long threads get into off-topic talk when I want to read about food.
Also, I have a slow computer. The way that Chowhound works as it is, it takes forever to open any post ... or way longer than is reasonable. Topics that are over 100 posts I rarely open because it brings my computer to its knees.
One time I will REALLY start a new thread is the 'xxx is opening'; type of topic. So there are about a gazillion post speculating about when and what the new restaurant will be about. Then someone around post 20 acually EATS at the restaurant. I think it is better to start a new thread than subject people to all that speculation first.
Then there is the title issue. Someone has a real low key title but there's some really terrific stuff that might interest folks if it was not buried in the thread. Not everyone reads every post and there are some buzz words that would get more people to check the place out and result in more feedback.
And sometimes I flat out strongly disagree with a post and want to start a positive (or negative) post. I don't want everyone reading about some great/horrid restaurant getting their perception colored.
Yeah, that last one might be ego, but on those I really think about it. I only did it once on the general topics board and I kind of tortured myself about starting a new thread. It was about Haagen Daz Five ice cream which I think is teriffic (well, at least the ginger and mint that i've tried). However, there was an endless post going on about how horrid the stuff was. When I did post a positive comment, the first line was a link to the negative review.
Finally .. .search just flat out sucks these days. Even searching on domain name on goggle has been screwed up ... thank you very much. So, screw it. Just start a new topic rather than trying to find and add to an existing thread.
I'm actually going to agree with locking topics after a year, something I never thougth I would do.
The reason for this is that in the future, after 3 months, posts will no longer be marked as 'new'. The thought of re-reading long posts from months or years back and not realizing it ... too much of a PITA.
Permalink | Reply
Bob Martinez wrote:
-----------------
Because this particular "feature" of Chowhound is stupid. When Leff and Okamura started Chowhound they were making it up as they went along. There wasn't any "book" they could follow in setting up the rules. They wrote the "book" in effect. They deserve a world of credit for that effort but somewhere along the line some of those policies became ossified.
"Why do we have 8,000 different threads on Babbo?"
"Because that's the way we've *always* done it."
That's not an answer, it's a prescription for chaos.
-----------------
As the Chowhound Team and I have been stating since 1997 or so, each time an issue is re-discussed, it:
1. draws in the opinions of new users, who may contribute fresh data and contrary opinions
2. allows all chowhounds to submit updated data, so that the dining scene, which is ever-dynamic, is tracked tightly in real time to ensure an incredibly up-to-date resource
3. bores the pants out of the vanishingly small portion of our usership that treats Chowhound as a daily read to follow along rather than as an information dump to draw from for dining advice.
The beauty of online forums is that data needn't freeze and immediately grow stale. It can be ever-repleneshing. A dining site absolutely needs to take advantage of this, and that's why we've allowed and even encouraged endless re-asking of the same questions. 'Cuz Chowhound is, above and beyond all, a data trove. We're not trying to be a fresh daily read, we're trying to be an incredibly current resource. And the best way to foster that is by constantly readdressing topics, ala Groundhog Day.
Finally, one might disagree with the policies by which this site's been run (and at least a few opinionated chowhounds have, inevitably, disagreed with even our most minor and patently reasonable rules), but none of it has been unthinking or ignorant. And, in fact, it turned out just like we'd hoped.
Permalink | Reply
Well, welcome back Jim. I've been following your account of the site's sale in your Slog and it's been really interesting. I knew that you were going through hell during that time but it seems that things were even tougher on you than I'd imagined. I hope the way things have turned out have made those sacrifices worthwhile. You have good reason to feel proud. Thanks for hanging in there.
But (and you knew it was coming) my criticism still stands. Chowhound is the "Groundhog Day" of food sites. Each day starts off as if everything that occurred yesterday never happened.
Your decision to allow multiple threads on the same restaurants has consequences, both good and bad. On the positive side it's provides a welcoming atmosphere for new posters. They don't have to color between the lines. They don't need to worry that there are 5,000 Babbo threads - they can happily launch another.
On the negative side, it tends to drive out experienced posters who might otherwise stick around and continue to contribute. The other thing the multiple thread policy does is to hide information from the people who have just arrived at the site.
You said "'Cuz Chowhound is, above and beyond all, a data trove." It's only a data trove if people can find the information. Scattering it over dozens, sometimes hundreds of threads, makes it so hard to find that rather than using the information that's there people give up and start from scratch.
Yes, I get the part about the value of constantly refreshing information. But having a single thread on a restaurant doesn't prevent people from posting new or revised information. What it does do is allow people to tap into that trove of information. Then they can ask more informed questions. If their own experience differs from the "received wisdom" they can post that too. We both know that people around are not shy about expressing their disagreement so I'd expect that a single thread policy wouldn't change that.
All of this hit home to me a few years ago on a business trip to Chicago. Unexpectedly, I had a free evening so I figured I'd check the Chicago board for some interesting ideas. I only had an hour to work with and within 20 minutes I knew it was useless. In order to tap into that trove of information I would have had to read the board for 4 or 5 weeks to get to know the landscape.
I'd also need to learn who the knowledgeable posters were so I could focus on their tips. I know it's nice to say "everybody is equal" but there's a reason I'm not playing centerfield for the Mets. I wish I had dollar for every piece of enthusiastic but inaccurate information I've spotted on the New York boards over the years. I would expect the same in any big city.
In the end, I gave up and used another site. Undoubtedly the information wasn't as good as I could have gotten from Chowhound but at least I could find it.
As good as Chowhound has been in the past I'm encouraged by some of the changes I see. The "Places" feature makes it easier to provide information on location and previous threads. The "Lists" feature, now in Beta, looks like it has the possibility of providing answers to frequently asked questions. I haven't looked at that one closely but I hope it also provides a way for multiple people to update them - something like the way Wikipedia works.
You will have noticed that my last post on this thread was 10 days ago. I was done with the topic but I figured if you were going to do me the honor of commenting then you deserved a response.
Good luck with everything you're doing. I hope you can occasionally drop by and tell us what you had for dinner.
Permalink | Reply
Bob,
I am a regular, daily reader and poster to Chowhound and have feelings that are quite opposite to yours.
If we had one giant post on "Babbo", for example, the only info that becomes relevant is the tail end. The real content, the discussion and mass of stuff in the middle, becomes irrelevant due to it's lack of accessibility-- that is, unless you have the patience of Methuselah. The thought of clicking through hundreds of pages worth of posts dating years back sounds like a nightmare to me. I *much* prefer the idea as it is currently implemented, which is to type "Babbo" into the search engine, sorted by relevance (not "newest first", for god's sake, which is a useless and redundant critera when you already have a way to sort by how many years old a post is) and scan the page for topics that catch your eye.
The point is, Bob, there's no reason that anyone would need to have all the voluminous info about Babbo all in one place and in chronological order, as if it were some kind of Great American Novel. Most of us are just here to get some tips on what dishes to order in a particular place.
Let the discussion on Batali's inspiration for the place be found separately from the discussion about what are the best entrees. I see no problem with keeping those two very different topics apart.
Mr Taster
Permalink | Reply
The strength of Chowhound is in the dynamic flow of information presented here that keeps almost "real time" with what's going on out there in the world of restaurants and food. This site is not trying to be Wikipedia or a Dictionary of Dining Delights. Those types of resources have their place.
But you can see from guides like Zagat (never mind the other issues with it) that information goes out of date so rapidly that you need the kind of "creative chaos" that Chowhound brings. Yes, there are some weaknesses inherent in that model.
But you get so much more here that is useful on a "daily dining basis" that I don't think the problems you outline above are ones that have much (if any) negative impact on me as far as my use or enjoyment of the site.
Permalink | Reply
I’m in complete agreement with you, Bob. I’m heading off for a long weekend of eating in a city known for it’s restaurants, one I’ve never been to before. Luckily, it’s not a large city, because trying to pin down the info on any single restaurant on Chowhound became an exercise in organization and concentration and, finally, futility. First, you have to collect all the threads on the city, then go through each thread one at a time using Ctrl >F to try to find the specific restaurant you’re researching (and hope to hell no one’s using acronyms or nicknames). Repeat for each of the maybe 15 restaurants you’re checking out. I gave up. I went over to one of those other sites where information is consolidated in a single thread. I much (much!) preferred going through pages of information about a single restaurant and getting some sense of how it may have changed. It was significantly less frustrating and took far less time to get the information I was looking for.
(And if anybody ever locked any of the threads on the Home Cooking board after one year without a response, they’d better hire a body guard.)
Permalink | Reply
One of the reasons I haven't read one site for years is the policy of one thread.
Different strokes for different folks. And Bob, you have been here long enough to know that policy is unlikely to change for something that has worked for so long.
JoanN,
As Bob mentioned, Places CAN be a great way to get info. If you are in SF and want quick info for Mexican food you could search SF Mexican Mission and get this list
http://www.chow.com/search?search%5Bquery%5D=SF+mexican+Mission&search%5Bclass_names%5D=Restaurant&search%5Bfrom%5D=10+years+ago&search%5Bto%5D=now&search%5Bsort_mode%5D=relevance&search%5Bboardgroup_id%5D=1&search%5Bboard_id%5D=1&Search.x=26&Search.y=7
I'm using the old search prior to the new improved but not working version because many places have brief descriptions, so the casual visitor can get a feeling if this is something they want to look into further. The new search eliminates that description.
However, Places is only as good as Chowhounds make it. It is posters who add and update that info. I really wish there was more consensus about linking only to reports rather than just linking to display an address.
Also, as Bob said, Lists can be a good starting point to winnow down info. If you look at the main list page you will see all the boards to the right with how many lists are out there for each
http://www.chow.com/lists?tag=bd;my_places_list_promo
Again the unfortunate thing about this is that when you click on the board name (SF in this example) there is only the name of the list and the description is not displayed. Given there are so many empty lists clicking on each link to see if there is info is a drag
http://www.chow.com/lists/region/1?tag=boards;list_col_b
However, there is the potential for people to winnow down the Places search. This is based on the SF Mission Mexican search, only winnowed down to the places I like best.
http://www.chow.com/lists/1180
Heh, looking at the list for the SF Bay Areal I adore the title and content by DiveFan for a lesser explored area out in the burbs
Lamorinda Culinary Triangle Of Death
http://www.chow.com/places_list/show/59
I'm guessing some people on Chowhound don't love this idea, but there's only so many times you can repeat the same info to visitors. Again, lists like Places are only as good as the people who keep them up.
And small h
No. The best tips are not from the regulars. Some of the best tips I've gotten on the board are those people who pop in once and you never hear from them again. The info is often new and fresh. The regulars (iike me) repeat the same stuff over and over and over ... and over. There are only so many places one person can eat.
Good lord, NO, the visitors guide part of Chowhound is the part that drives regulars nuts. My impression is that Chowound is the best source of the best places to eat at any snapshot in time ...where to eat TODAY.
As you said, for repeated "i'm in town for one day" requests, the regulars don't usually look up from their cards unless there is some hook to catch their attention. It is the new people who jump into the fray more often to answer those types of questions. If a regular is following that type of topic at all, they will speak up when in their opinion is lousy ... for SF ... Sears Fine Foods has THE best breakfast in the world. Um, no.
Permalink | Reply
<The best tips are not from the regulars.>
Nowhere in my post do I say this. I agree that people who pop in once and offer tips do a great service. I was referring not to the answerers, but to the askers. And my point (sorry if it got lost among the verbiage) was that it would be ideal if rather than continue to coddle people - new, old or in-between - who are too damn lazy to do anything as dull and unsexy as search for the answers to their questions, we could scrape together all the most commonly requested information on whatever subject (Babbo, say) into a big ugly pile, and let those who care sift through it, from the bottom up. After all, the most recent information is the most valuable, right? it's FRESH! Who cares how accurate it is, right? It's NEW!
The reason regulars "repeat the same stuff over and over and over" is that they are ASKED THE SAME QUESTIONS over and over and over. Honestly, I think some of the posters to the Manhattan board just cut and paste what they wrote last week...and the week before...and the week before that. Who can blame them? It must be exhausting to explain for the fiftieth time how much you adore Eleven Madison Park.
Permalink | Reply
Yeah, I used cut and past till I got sick of answering. Now I use lists.
And you'll only get my list if you have a hook ... "In town for one day to scatter the ashes of my dog and faithful companion since we were both pups. Where's the best place to eat to cheer me up?"
Do you really think the same people who ask the reapeated questions are going to be any more likely to search out a single long list? While a handful might, based on years of experience I don't think it would change board dynamics at all.
Permalink | Reply
<Do you really think the same people who ask the reapeated questions are going to be any more likely to search out a single long list?>
No. I just like to vent sometimes. But maybe someone who's been posting repeated queries about pizza or bachelorette parties or "yummy" food in the theater district will accidentally end up on this thread and have a minor revelation. Dare to dream.
Permalink | Reply
Bob, I don't mind that you disagree with our policy of tolerating/encouraging repetition. You're absolutely entitled to your view, though our policy helped foster precisely the up-to-the-minute resource I'd been aiming for....a resource which has enticed you to spend a great deal of time here for many years.
I just wanted to correct your false description of how and why we decided on this policy. Disagree all you'd like with anything; fine with me! All I ask is that you not purport to explain my reasoning...on this or on anything else.
Thanks for the kind words, btw. Also, no need for a "welcome back"; I've been posting all along (check my "My Chow" page). The site's so large that my postings don't get noticed much. Fine by me - I always just wanted to be one of the hounds!
ciao,
JIM
Permalink | Reply
Hmmm. I read Chowhound every day, and judging only by the 5 or 6 boards I frequent, so do an awful lot of other people - I see the same usernames all the time. I would think those would be the people Chowhound would want to cultivate and retain, rather than the "I'm in town for one day - where should I eat?" crowd. Aren't regular users much more valuable to advertisers - and other regular users - than the mono-posters who pop in, ask a question that's been asked a hundred times, and then vanish? Is Chowhound supposed to be primarily a visitor's guide?
But leaving that aside, if Chowhound is, as you say, a "data trove," it's one that these mono-posters don't take full advantage of: otherwise "I'm in town for one day - where should I eat?" would be rarely asked. That question, and others like it, is like an endless line of people charging into an ongoing poker game shouting "does two pair beat three of a kind???" After the 90,000,000th person has done this, the players - the ones who actually know - stop looking up from their cards. And the data trove grows stale and stagnant.
Permalink | Reply
The trick is to ignore what you don't like. You needn't read or respond to stuff that annoys you.
The way to make Chowhound more to your taste (and you DO have that power!) is to prime the pump by 1. starting threads on issues that interest you, and 2. encouraging posters you like (especially promising new arrivals) by engaging with them and responding to their postings. This will slowly but surely make Chowhound more of your kind of resource.
Trying to persuade the sort of posters you DISLIKE to stop doing stuff you DON'T prefer is vastly less effective.
There's room for all.
Permalink | Reply
Good gravy, I think you & I have had this exact conversation before, which both proves my point and illustrates that you are right as well.
1) If I didn't try to improve Chowhound by asking that people listen as well as talk, I would think less of myself.
2) Sometimes? I watch Fox News. I guess I just like to be pissed off once in a while.
Permalink | Reply
Ha!
it comes down to this: neither you nor I nor anyone else can control what people talk about on Chowhound. Nor should we (so long as it's within the rules, of course)!
Yes, I've posted the same sentiment many times. Yet people still create huffy threads talking about how they wish other people posted - which accomplishes nothing! - while those same people decline to engage with like-minded newbies (who, getting no responses, often drift away!). So I'm just suggesting doing what really works!
We are accustomed to being powerless in controlling the programming in our newspapers or radio stations (or, yes, Fox TV!). We get used to responding with idle complaints. On Chowhound, you can alter the programming: by priming the pump and by encouraging the posters you'd like to hear more from. Here you have power! Use it!! :)
Permalink | Reply
Lock the thread. If the subject comes again so be it and discuss it again. After one year is ok...enough time to thread it to death......
Permalink | Reply