Proposed Changes to the General Discussion Forums (Please read & comment)

[Skinner]

Please read this entire message before you comment. Thanks.

The DU Administrators -- and many DU members -- have become increasingly concerned about the DU General Discussion forum as our website continues to grow. While we understand that members enjoy the wide-open, free exchange of ideas that takes place in the GD forums, we are concerned that the large amount of traffic and the sheer volume of postings limit the usefulness of the forum. And the problem only gets worse the bigger DU becomes.

Over the last few months, the administrators have considered a number of possible approaches for dealing with the issue, and we have repeatedly questioned whether there is in fact a problem. It is obvious that the General Discussion forums are very popular exactly how they are right now (warts and all), so we don't want to make changes if we aren't relatively confident that they will actually make our website better. Nonetheless, after much consideration, we have decided that DU would be much improved by implementing some common-sense changes to the GD forum. We believe it is possible for us to address the problems that many DU members see, without overly restricting the way members use the forum, and without stifling the vibrant, free exchange of ideas.

Currently, we have two General Discussion forums, known as "General Discussion" and "General Discussion: Politics." The General Discussion: Politics forum is basically a relic from the time of the 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary. We proposed shutting it down in early 2005 when the elections were over, but we ended up keeping it because a number of members wanted it to remain. Many months later, the admins still feel that the General Discussion: Politics forum is poorly defined and redundant; basically serving as a pressure valve for GD, and a mildly annoying open invitation for people to double-post things that could be posted in only one GD forum. We believe that it is time for the General Discussion: Politics forum to shut down, at least until the next Democratic Primary season in 2007. We do believe there is value in having two GD forums, but we feel they should be handled differently than we currently do.

PROPOSAL FOR THE NEW GENERAL DISCUSSION SETUP

We believe there should be two General Discussion forums, with the names: General Discussion (GD) and General Discussion: Chat (GDC). These two forums would be mutually exclusive, so that only certain types of posts would be permitted in each forum. The General Discussion forums would still be reserved for topics that have some relevance to politics, public policy, or current events. Non-political stuff would still not be permitted in either GD forum.

The General Discussion forum would be the "premium" GD forum. In this forum, members could start threads to post articles (or blog postings or other written material from other sources) or long-format written pieces that you write on your own (there will likely be a very modest minimum-length requirement to qualify as a "long-format" written piece). Duplicate postings of the same articles in this forum would be combined by the moderators. Polls would be permitted only if they are posted along with an article or a long-format written piece.

The General Discussion: Chat forum would be reserved exclusively for short, chat-style thread topics. If a member wants to post a few sentences on the issue of the day, they would be required to post it in this forum. If a member wished to report something that was on the television right now, it would go here. Likewise, poll un-freeping, or political jokes, or your brilliant two-sentence insight into the criminal mind of George W. Bush would all go in this forum. Short-topic polls would be permitted here. Links to articles from other sources, or long-format written pieces by DU members would not be permitted in here.

The basic idea here is to provide a "premium" General Discussion space where the good stuff would not be drowned out by the chat, while still having a high-level, high-traffic place for the chat. The admins believe that in our current system, there is very little incentive for members to put any time and effort into writing their thread topics, because there is a good chance that your masterpiece will get quickly swept off the page by a dozen versions of "OMG, THIS IS HUGH!!!11"

To more effectively direct members to post their thread topics in the correct GD forum we would program a simple interrupt page that would appear whenever someone clicks "Post" in either GD forum. We tested this system during Fitzmas when we split the forums into "GD" and "GD: CIA Leak Case" and we were very pleased with the results. Most members had no problems getting used to it.

The interrupt page would clearly explain what types of posts are permitted in each GD forum, and prompt members to choose the appropriate forum. As a back-up, moderators could move threads from one GD forum to the other if someone posts something in the wrong place. We believe it is critical that the two forums be mutually exclusive, otherwise everyone will naturally migrate to one forum which would have all the same problems that we have right now.

Additionally, we plan to give members the ability to customize the Latest Threads page so you can experience DU in the way that you want to. You will be able to set your preferences in order to either show or hide threads from the General Discussion: Chat forum.

THINGS TO CONSIDER

While it may sound good here, this change would not be without some difficulty. We will do our best to write clear guidelines regarding what is permitted in each GD forum, but it is unlikely that the guidelines will be clear enough to cover every possible situation. In these situations the member who posts the thread (or, if necessary, the moderators) will have to make a judgment call about where a particular topic belongs. There will certainly be times when a moderator has to simply go with what their gut tells them -- and they will sometimes make decisions that you all don't agree with. But we have lived with a similar system in the Latest Breaking News forum for a long time, and I think most people would agree that the LBN system works well.

We think that there might also be some issues regarding members' expectations. In order for this new system to work we need to set some minimum standards for the "premium" GD forum, but we can't set those standards so high that we kill the forum and make it impossible to post there. It is possible that the GD: Chat forum might actually get a larger number of postings than the GD forum, simply because the barrier for entry in that forum will be lower.

If necessary, we will tweak the standards in order to keep both GD forums fresh and busy. With careful consideration (and a little luck) some generally-accepted standards for both GD forums will develop, with the "premium" GD forum becoming the go-to forum for more serious or topical stuff, and the GD: Chat forum hosting the up-to-the-second stream-of-consciousness chat-style stuff.

While these changes would require some adjustment at first, we believe that this is an important and positive upgrade whose time has come.

Skinner, EarlG, Elad
DU Administrators

[Flying Dream Blues]

1. I am generally averse to change in my familiar, but I like this idea!

[Fenris]

2. It might be difficult at first, but I think this is a good plan.

:thumbsup:

[WilliamPitt]

3. I live in the GD forum

and I really like this idea.

[timber84]

9. But you moonlight in Sports.

[Jane Austin]

4. Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!

The basic idea here is to provide a "premium" General Discussion space where the good stuff would not be drowned out by the chat, while still having a high-level, high-traffic place for the chat. The admins believe that in our current system, there is very little incentive for members to put any time and effort into writing their thread topics, because there is a good chance that your masterpiece will get quickly swept off the page by a dozen versions of "OMG, THIS IS HUGH!!!11"

This plan sounds wonderful and it should solve an increasingly annoying (for me, at least) problem.

Yippee and Thanks!

[montanacowboy]

5. I think its a good idea

of course it will take some tweaking etc. before it catches on, but all in all, it seems a positive change

[canadianbeaver]

6. Good Idea.....this will work I think eom

[seshers]

7. Will the Latest Discussion Thread remain?

[Skinner]

15. Yes.

This does not change the Latest Page. Except that it will allow you to customize the page more than you currently do.

[tx_dem41]

8. Sounds pretty good to me.

Color me positive.

[Coventina]

10. It sounds like a well-thought, reasonable plan. Thumbs up from me.

I think it makes a lot of sense.

Sometimes I'm in the mood for hearing about people's fights with their freeper in-laws, and sometimes I'm not.

So, it does make sense to have one forum for Will Pitt's & Plaid Adder's pieces, and another forum for, "I just saw my neighbor scraping his Bush/Cheney sticker off the car so I went & talked to him" posts.

I think it will work.

[eleny]

11. How will the Editorials & Other Articles Forum differ from the new GD?

Do you see major overlapping?

[Skinner]

17. They already overlap quite a bit.

The main differences are 1) GD will permit long-format posts by members, and 2) GD will have more people.

[eleny]

30. Thanks or the clarification! I have one more thought

You said that GD Political will return for the Dem 2007 effort. I believe we need to pay major attention to making gains in this upcoming election,IMO. As we approach this election season please give it some thought to open that forum again. With the Dems having a 50 state strategy, this interim is going to have the country on fire.

[Brundle_Fly]

12. containing the discourse and communication

into two individual threads would be a good move. I am noting that several members less than a year old are into the tens of thousands of posts. Directing them to post into a less structured forum would allow the more serious debate to provide a more adequate content driven conversation, more about the issues they are posting about originally.

I think this is a great idea, and would add rationalization to the debates we all cherish here in The Democratic Underground.

[Brundle_Fly]

14. also

"OMG, THIS IS HUGH!!!11"

[fed-up]

13. Sounds Great-especially the customize the "Latest Threads" feature

Sometimes it can take me an hour or more to catch up on reading the board (subject titles only) and this will make it much easier when I don't have that much time to spare.

Of course all the duplicate posts don't help matters much...

[stop the bleeding]

16. when will it happen???- sounds good so far and is long over due

for this forum

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. I REALLY like EVERYTHING in one place.

GD is the ONLY forum I visit on a regular basis. I will occasionally read LBN, Greatest page or GD politics, but I LIVE in GD. I like it the way it is. Just my useless 2 cents, worth nothing.

[shanti]

113. me too

but the point is to reduce the "me too" and "LOL" responses. that said, i think GD will be come too "dry" for me. and we don't need another lounge.

we'll see :shrug:

[Auntie Bush]

291. "we don't need another lounge." I agree.

I used to read the news articles and voting news...now I never get there. I also likes all the groups in one. I'd see something interesting and open it...now I never see those groups. People don't have to read it if they don't want to but now we won't see many posts if we're on another group. Please don't change it...to many damn rules. Relax and enjoy the site as is. That's my 3 cents.

Oh and another thing...People will get long winded in order to place their post in the GD. KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)

[jayctravis]

180. What if there were a seperate forum for the new longer posts

but after say 10 replies the discussion is locked with a link to continue chat forum?

Another option would be simply to continue GD the way it is, but if an intial post exceeds a specific amount than it is crossposted to a "Major Discussion" forum, where the threads wouldn't bump down so quickly (since nobody can start a thread there or get one in that isn't the minimum length.) The Major Discussion thread could simply link to all the reply traffic in GD, but people who want to see the "important" threads could first seek them out on Major Discussion and then link to the ensuing rabble in GD.

[phylny]

321. I agree with you.

I really only browse LBN, and live in GD. Sometimes I read only the OP, but if I'm interested in the topic, I'll read the entire thread. I think this will be as confusing to some (maybe to me!) as when DU split off into GD:Politics. There was overlap, and I think it became difficult for some to figure out where to post.

I feel this change is inevitable, but I liked things the way they are now.

[EstimatedProphet]

19. I am concerned about one thing:

I think there may be a tendency for the GD:Chat forum to overlap the Lounge, in which case it will be doing the same thing that is going on now with GD and GD: P.
Otherwise, I think this will be useful.

[quinnox]

20. Seems to me the current setup works well

Both forums get a lot of traffic but at the same time there is a definite division in what kinds of topics they get. The politics forum is more about candidates for 08 nowadays and the general discussion is a nice free for all of variety.

The one potential problem I see with the proposal is the General Discussion premium forum might become a ghost town, and the General Discussion: Chat forum will become super busy.

This is just my speculation though.

But if most people think this sounds like a good idea then do it. If the experiment fails it can always be changed back.

Edited for spelling and additional comment

[Warpy]

21. It's true, too many good topics sink like stones in GD

because of all the chatty postings of "OMG, turn on CNN now!" and other earth shattering comments.

Unfortunately, the same people who seem incapable of putting, say, an economics topic into Forums: Economy would probably also be incapable of choosing between the GD forums, so it may be an uphill battle.

I welcome any change that would help the GD forum from being so overwhelmed.

[Stephanie]

22. I'm against it

I don't think it's broke so why fix it? It will ruin the spirit of GD and trivialize important stuff that doesn't require a full-on essay. I love GD just the way it is. This will confuse and annoy.

[Stephanie]

37. I think GD Chat sounds just like the Lounge

I don't see the point. Why not have a mix of formats?

[Jane Austin]

47. I think Skinner's post said the GD Chat forum will have to relate

to politics, public policy, or current events.

So posts about favorite songs and drinks wouldn't belong there.




(Edited for accuracy.)

[Stephanie]

48. I don't like it at all

I'll be taking a vacation from DU for a while when this happens.

[Pirate Smile]

86. Right. The 10 threads about what Tweety just said would be in the GD:Chat

instead of GD. Some people hate those threads. Now they can avoid them.

"Kerry is up on C-span 2" would go in GD: Chat, but an article about him blasting the swift-boating of Murtha on the floor of the Senate would go in GD.

I don't get the confusion.

[EarlG]

94. Exactly right

That's a good example of the way the forums would be used.

I think the word "Chat" is the real problem here, it's giving the impression that the forum wouldn't be serious. We're thinking of some other alternatives for the name at the moment.

[greendog]

111. Call it GD: Express!

n/t

[newyawker99]

121. How about GD: Plus or GD: Extra?

[MADem]

234. The chat word is the only problem I have--it could well confuse people

The idea is good, and the interrupt page is even better. I am assuming the page will pop up if you are responding to a post, and not just if you start a new thread (otherwise, it just will not work--people responding to an assertion in the forum may post a link as back-up to what they say).

FWIW, you should consider also putting one of those in the I/P forum, so unsuspecting folks going in there via the latest page don't miss the rules that are pinned at the top, re: the ban on photos!

[wickerwoman]

261. I like the idea.

How about GD: Thinktank for the slower moving forum showing it's the place for longer, more considered discussions?

I like GD: Express for the other one.

[Catchawave]

268. How about GD - Current Events (instead of "chat") ?

That would be the first place I'd go to see what tv shows the DUers are live blogging :) I enjoy the head's up announcements, which are now all over the forums.

It would also be an attention grabber for LBN type news that doesn't quite fit in the LBN format. Like "breaking news" on tv that doesn't have a link yet, or tidbits like Ron Reagan and Monica Crowley's show "Connected" just canceled.

Also, current news polls would be easier to find too, since those change daily in the MSM. As do the DU polls.

Thanks admins for all you "DU" for the DU, I think this is a great idea. :hi:

[Cronus Protagonist]

190. Yuo, GD: Chat would be just another forum to avoid

Like the lounge.

[Pirate Smile]

193. Well, if you don't like those kinds of threads, the change should work

for you.

[Cronus Protagonist]

194. Yup, true.

It makes no difference to me what forum something is in, since I only read "Greatest" and "Newest", both of which list posts in all forums, and "LBN", which is the best forum on DU. OK, sometimes I also read GD:Politics :)

When I click on a thread, I don't even know what forum it's in half the time - there are WAY too many forums, IMHO.

[jayctravis]

166. I think it will help by putting a minumum length on initial posts.

Because it's new posts that knock a thread down the page. If someone has to come up with a goodly page of prose to post something new, it will prevent topics from getting caught in the gravitational pull.

And I would assume good threads in GDC could get moved to GD by the moderators. It would probably also cut down on multiple threads about one subject.

[man4allcats]

235. Agreed, but according to the rules

posts about nonpolitical things such as people's favorite songs or drinks etc don't belong in GD anyway. They belong in the Lounge. Specifically:

"The General Discussion forum is for discussion of a wide range of topics that are relevant to politics, public policy, and current events. Topics with little or no political relevance are not permitted in the General Discussion forum. (my emphasis)

Posts that are unrelated to politics or public policy (such as pop culture, entertainment, sports, or celebrity news) belong in the DU Lounge, in the relevant Topic Forums, or in the appropriate DU Groups."

I'm sure most people already know this. I only point it out because given that technically no nonpolitical posts belong anywhere in GD, I expect there will be considerable confusion as to what constitutes a Lounge post and what constitutes a GD Chat post. Still, I do think the idea of programming an interrupt page would help to clarify any confusion.

So what is my vote? I think it will be a little bumpy at first, but I favor at least giving the idea of a "premium" GD forum a try along with a GD Chat forum where I could post comments like this:

"OMG, THIS IS HU(GE)!!!"

In short, this seems to me like an idea we can all hang our teeth on. ;-)

edited for syntax

[tyedyeto]

243. Isn't that what the Lounge is for?

Posts are moved to the lounge all the time right now when necessary.

[DemReadingDU]

50. I have similar concerns

The proposed Chat forum sounds like another Lounge.


While we're discussing the forums - What exactly is the purpose of Lastest Breaking News? So many of the topics in LBN ususally get moved to the General Discussion forum anyway. Couldn't you combine the LBN with the General Discussion forum?

[Stephanie]

54. Maybe it would be better to call them "Lounge: Politics" & "LBN: Essays"

and just eliminate GD altogether, destroying the best part of DU.

[OrwellwasRight]

286. Can I still say LOL on this thread?

or is that forbidden?

Anyway, LOL!

And I for one would miss being able to give a "good on ya." Sometimes we lurkers can read posts but are not really in a position to post lengthy replies and it is nice to be able to give another post-er a "thumbs up," especially when the conversation is not really a conversation but 100 responses to the original post.

That way, s/he knows his/her post was actually read and appreciated.

I think not allowing LOLs and Good Points will discourage people from posting to really busy threads.

[OrwellwasRight]

287. Dupe.

[NMDemDist2]

208. usually the only threads that get moved to GD are over 12 hours old

(the article/report that is) or something that is really only of local interest

LBN is strictly for LATEST BREAKING news, not for a great article from Sunday that's already been posted 12 times.

Did that clear it up?

[catmandu57]

65. Sometimes i'm confused about posting in the lounge or in gd

I may have something that is too serious for the lounge, but not really gd material, this change would eliminate that.

[Catchawave]

269. The Lounge is my "happy place" :)

and a fun way to decompress from all the political and hard news discussions with like minds too :) I like to clear my head over there and chew on some mental bubblegum. Who can forget the MOVIE THREAD....which was Hugh!!!111 :rofl:

Glad the Lounge isn't being tweaked !

[H2O Man]

23. That sounds fine.

There are times that I suspect you could go through GD and put a dozen posts into the lounge; another dozen into either the religion or atheist forums; and on and on. But that probably gets about as old for you as my having to pick up the dirty cups and glasses that get "posted" around every room of the house I inhabit.

I think the idea of having a section of more fully developed essays and threads on important topics such as the Plame case and the upcoming resignation of VP Spiro Cheney is good. As we move into the 2006 campaign phase, those issues and the anti-war movement should take on special significance.

[DemReadingDU]

63. There is definitely overlap in all the forums

I like having a forum for longer essays on important topics and a different forum for shorter topics or a forum with links to other websites. Even then there will be overlap.

A thread in LBN, today, could wind up in General Discussion with essays on an important topic.

[H2O Man]

108. Yes, that also

happens.

[Catchawave]

270. Gave me an idea....

Lose the "Editorials and other Articles" and combine with GD ? Some really wonderful topics don't get the attention they deserve in the E/OA forum, and I'm guilty of dragging my favorites into the GD forum anyhow, where they seem to take on a life of their own.

So we could have:

General Discussion : Editorials and Other Articles
General Discussion : Current Events

[MuseRider]

24. Oooh I really like this!

So often when I have to be gone I have to bookmark the longer threads I am interested in because I know they will be gone by the time I get back unless they are controversial. This would probably stop the need for that.

As someone who rarely starts threads but spends her time reading everything I love the idea. Both groups are very important and this will allow us to look at what our minds feel like dealing with at that particular moment!

Yes! I think this will be a wonderful improvement.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. This sounds interesting

I especially like the interrupt feature so that after someone has posted they can check and make sure they are in the right place. I also hope that by saying posts with links have to go in the premium GD forum, people will be encouraged to post more than "this is great-here's the link".

[DemExpat]

26. Go for it ......a positive change IMO.

The pros outweigh possible cons.
As long as GD doesn't suffer, this sounds very good to me.

:kick:

DemEx

[progressoid]

27. OK, as long as there are clear rules about when to use

"OMG, THIS IS HUGH!!!11" :)

If you keep making improvements like this, I'll feel pressured to dip into my kids orthodontics fund to make another donation.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

28. I really like it the way it is.... The really good stuff gets to the top

on its own merit.

Some of the short comments begin discussions of merit while the ones that don't usually go away naturally.

[foreigncorrespondent]

221. Exactly!!!

The really good stuff gets to the top on its own merit.

If someone posts something they think is good, that actually is good, it will end up a popular thread.

I like the way it is currently set up. The new set up would be confusing to a lot of people.

[I Have A Dream]

233. I respectfully disagree. I make it a point to go down through old...

posts on pages 3+ more than I think most people do. Quite often, I find posts to which nobody has responded, and I'll respond to them. They then get many more responses. I think that timing's really as important as the fact that the post's good. If lots of things are being posted, really good stuff gets off the first or second pages really quickly -- often before anyone has a chance to respond to them. This change may help with this problem.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

254. No problem! I use the greatest page to find the gems I might have missed

otherwise.

I don't visit past the first page often.

[Catchawave]

271. I only go past the first page before I post a new

topic. I try not to be annoying :) I use the Search option before I post to LBN, because my headline should be intact and easy to find that way.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

282. That sounds pretty much the way that I use the forums.

[pat_k]

29. Approve. Volume problem does need to be addressed.

Approve. Volume problem does need to be addressed. And this seems to be a reasonable approach.

[johnaries]

31. Makes a lot of sense. and since we're a Progressive forum, change is

good!

I thought the GD: CIA Leak Case forum worked quite well. May I suggest that in cases like Fitzmas when we know there will be a lot of interest and posting on a single issue that we have a temporary forum just for that issue?

Not only was it nice not having Fitzmas posts knocking every other post off, it was also very nice to have one place to go to find out the latest about Fitzmas.

[MADem]

236. I agree with you there--that consolidated the info beautifully, I thought

Special forums for special events! So long as it wouldn't be a moderator burden, that is....

[Pirate Smile]

32. It sounds good to me. I like the "Heads-up - so and so is on" threads

and think the GD: Chat idea sounds useful.

I enjoy the play-by-play threads for whatever is happening in real time.

[Luminous Animal]

33. I think this would be a good move

and the sooner the better.

[PDittie]

34. Please proceed.

There's a reason why I keep the Lounge on ignore. I'll likely do the same with a 'chat' forum (though I would check in occasionally, as I do with the lounge).

This would be a great help in separating the wheat from the chaff.

[Ioo]

35. I am not for it... I like getting the big pic in one view, tripe falls to

the bottom...

I think that some of the greatest things said here are in 3 shory sentences...

I really like it the way it is, I get all the dirt and goings on in one view

[Stephanie]

39. I completely agree

Please don't ruin GD!

[in_cog_ni_to]

83. I agree too. I like it the way it is.

I really don't like having to jump from forum to forum to forum. You miss SO MUCH.

[cry baby]

115. I agree and wrote as much downthread. nt

[DemReadingDU]

36. If you are creating 2 new forums

are you proposing new forum numbers?

Currently...
General Discussion - forum=104
General Discussion Politics - forum=132


If the new forums are totally new, will we still be able to pull up old topics from the archives for the old forums?

Or are you just renaming these two current forums?

I like the idea of the forums to be mutually exclusive.

[Skinner]

49. General Discussion will remain as 104.

We are not sure if GDC would be 132 or something else.

[DemReadingDU]

53. As long as we can still pull up

old topics from the archives, I guess it doesn't matter. Thanks!

[Dora]

38. An idea whose time has come. Put it into action, please!

[Demit]

40. It'll help me--I start out on the Latest Discussion page, skimming thread

titles. No doubt I am missing good discussions if the threads don't have attention-grabbing titles. I also end up clicking on threads that have great titles but, um, are light on substance or just have multiple me too! responses. This way you are refining the sorting out a little more.

Where would the the great <PIC> threads go? GD Chat? I've often wished there could be a special forum for when people post revealing (unshopped) photos of Bush & Co. I collect them and hate the thought that I've missed some if I'm away too long.

[MissB]

41. Excellent solution.

:applause:

[RedEarth]

42. OMG, THIS REALLY IS HUGH!!!11

and I like it.

[ComerPerro]

281. Well said

I agree

[Bethany Rockafella]

43. The change looks okay to me.

I am assuming all the "caption this" or Fitz pics will go in GD chat.

[Patsy Stone]

44. Sounds like a good plan

I have often wondered what GD:P is for other than a less crowded GD forum. I do agree with the post above that we need to have a place for the 2006 election cycle -- way before we get to the primaries.

This seems a workable and positive change. It is, to use the vernacular, HUGH!!1!

[jmowreader]

45. I've an idea that may not be possible...

Install two counters on the GD forums.

The first counter looks for spaces and carriage returns, and if it sees more than...oh, 500 spaces and carriage returns in the initial post on a thread, it automatically ensures that the thread is stored in the GD: Premium forum; shorter messages will go in the GD: Chat forum.

The second counter looks for replies. If it sees more than, say, fifty replies to a thread, it will move the thread to a GD: Hot Topics forum.

I think this would save the mods some work.

On edit: even if the counters aren't doable, the two-GD idea sounds really great.

[leftstreet]

46. As long as users can edit preferences, it should be fine

With the option to show both GD and GD Chat on the latest page, things won't seem much different. I rarely base my decision to look at a 'latest' thread on where it was originally posted.

[afdip]

51. sounds fine to me

[gulfcoastliberal]

52. This is a good idea!

I can't stand all the "OMG, tweety just said this!", even if I ocasionally post something similar. GD Politics does seem redundant and I keep seeing things from Latest news posted in both GD forums. I say do it.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

55. GD/GDC sounds like a good way to split things to me.

[johnnie]

56. Personally...

I would like GD to only contain things that *I'm* interested in, but I guess that is asking a bit much. :)

Seriously, I think it is a good idea to break it up. I agree with some that the "chat" idea might come across as more of a lounge, but maybe once it gets going people will know which forum would be the appropriate to post in.

[Skinner]

59. The GD: Chat forum would not be another Lounge.

There is already a pretty clear line between the Lounge and GD with regard to what content is permitted. Under the proposed set-up, that difference would remain:

"The General Discussion forums would still be reserved for topics that have some relevance to politics, public policy, or current events. Non-political stuff would still not be permitted in either GD forum."

[newyawker99]

57. ...

I say go for it!

:thumbsup:

[garthranzz]

58. YES! n/t

[crispini]

60. May I suggest other titles for the two forums?

While I like the basic concept, I think that different titles will help to convey your message. Specifically I think "Chat" may sound too Lounge-like, and encourage people to post on non-political topics.

Perhaps:
GD : Premium and GD:Conversations
or
GD:Heavy and GD:Lite

or something like that?

Anyway, great idea.

[Skinner]

68. Not a bad idea.

I thought that it was pretty clear what we were getting at with the two names, but apparently some people are taking the word "Chat" to mean "Lounge II" which is not at all what we had in mind.

I'm not sure what names would be exactly right. If anyone has any ideas, please feel free to share them.

[Stephanie]

71. How about "GD: Trivial" and "GD: Really Important Stuff"

Seriously I think you are going to destroy GD with this change. I'm very sad to hear about it.

[Mr_Spock]

318. "GD: Shallow Red Neck Stuff" and "GD: Intellectual Prose Only"

:rofl:

Just taking it to the next level... :D

[crispini]

84. How about: GD: Dialogue and GD: Conversation ?

They both MEAN exactly the same thing, but I think "Dialogue" conveys a weightier, more substantial discourse, and "Conversation" conveys a more spur of the moment, stream of consciousness kind of thing.

It's a fine shade of meaning but I think you're trying to get at a fine shade of meaning here.

[Skinner]

87. I'm not really sure about "Dialogue" or "Conversation."

I would hope that both GD forums have dialogue and conversation.

Whatever title we choose needs to clarify the nature of the thread topics that can be posted there, not the nature of the discussion that follows.

[Pirate Smile]

90. I like your GD and GD: Chat. I think that would work fine.

Just my opinion.:)

[Skinner]

96. I'm kinda thinking something along the lines of

General Discussion and General Discussion: Concise

I think that would indicate the nature of the topics which could be posted in the GDC forum, without passing any sort of value judgment on those topics.

Unfortunately, it's not a particularly compelling title.

[crispini]

99. You could always go for "GD: Pithy" -- LOL.

Sorry, that was a HS English teacher's favorite word and it's stuck with me ever since. :evilgrin:

[omega minimo]

229. Howzabout "GD:Pithy" and "GD:Don't Be So Pithy"?

:rofl:

[Why Syzygy]

154. How about

GDLH - GD Lunch Hour
GDCB - GD Coffee Break

Stop/Yield

Simmer/Microwave

Back Porch/Front Porch (I like both . so there's no value there for me)

Hallway/Doorway

My thought, for some reason, is that if you're going to change the GD structure, they both need new names. Just a hunch.

[Wordie]

191. What about this:

Why not just keep the original GD without any changes in the name for the shorter comments (with the new rules), and add GD: Premium for the longer, linked discussions? That way, GD would not seem to change as much and you achieve the same thing. It would not make the shorter-topic GD seem like a "lesser" forum, but only that you were adding a new, heavy-weight GD.

Having two different forums is a great idea, btw. Thanks!

[NMDemDist2]

210. great idea! leave GD "GD" and re-name GDP "GD-Essays" n/t

[Wordie]

238. Well it's not exactly "essays." I'm thinking simply GD and GD:In-depth

Or is it essays? Perhaps we need a clarification.My understanding is that the newer forum is for longer posts, with links. A post of two paragraphs in length that included links, for instance, would be appropriate for the new forum, if I understand the intent properly. This is longer, but not exactly an essay, which would seem to me to be very long. Of course, I may have misunderstood it.

Maybe "GD:In-depth" instead of "GD:Premium," with the GD forum still just remaining "GD" would be better. It seems maybe that the terms "Premium" and "Chat" might indicate to some that one forum will be considered better than the other, and I doubt that was anyone's intent. This renaming suggestion might eliminate that problem, while the new rules would still achieve the desired result.

Any names are OK with me, I'm only suggesting this based on some of the responses I've read here. Again, I think this change is a good idea. Thanks Skinner, et. al.!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

201. Make it Fun! Create a sticky poll with multiple name choices and have the

community vote on it :)

[TahitiNut]

206. "General Discussion: Seminars" and "General Discussion: Cocktail Party"??

:evilgrin:

[LittleClarkie]

239. I get what you're trying to convey, but yeah, it doesn't "sing" does it.

Maybe instead of short and long, it's a subject matter issue. GD: Politics vs. GD: Issues

Hmm.

Everything else I come up with is kinda frivolous, like:

GD: Novel vs GD: Short Story
GD: Longhaul vs GD: Driveby

Hey, at least they "sing"

I'll keep trying to come up with something practical and not silly.

But I still suspect it will work better as a subject separation and not a short vs long separation.

[crispini]

97. Boy, it's hard to find a synonym for "chat"

that doesn't sound ridiculous. Short and Long?

Maybe "chat" is best; I think your divider page will teach people who are online now, but not sure how new members will sniff out the distinction if the divider page goes away at some point....

Entry Word: chat
Function: noun
Text: friendly, informal conversation or an instance of this <short chats between parents and teachers during the school's open house>
Synonyms chatter, chitchat, gabfest, gossip, palaver, rap, small talk, table talk, talk, tête-à-tête
Related Words colloquy, conference, discourse, parley, powwow, symposium; debate, dialogue (or dialog), exchange, give-and-take

[serryjw]

164. Another thought of the 2 different forums

Keep GD (exchange)Politics

ADD Topic of the week.........That way ALL postings of the ISSUE of the week is in one thread.

Expand Lounge..I personally thing too many topics in GD BELONG in lounge

Bottom line we are a political forum...People don't ORIGINALLY join us to talk about silly stuff. They are trying to get poitical info....MHO!

[jayctravis]

170. Brainstorm or Think Tank maybe?

For the GD volatile quick 'chatty' discussions.

Or how about General Discussion: Lecturn for long posts and General Discussion: Floor for quick posts?

Or GD:Formal and GD:Informal

[Pirate Smile]

189. How about "General Discussion: Political Chat" - so there is

no confusion with the Lounge?

[Imperialism Inc.]

188. How about

GD: Articles and GD:Commentary

Perhaps not without problems (some might not get that the Articles can be original member articles), but it should become clear once folks start seeing Pitt's stuff there. Commentary has the advantage of not trivializing the second forum which some seem concerned about.

[Individualist]

74. Agree, chat sounds too frivolous

It sounds like an invitation for posts such as - Hey everybody, ASL!!

[HamdenRice]

195. What's in a name?

Apparently, a lot.

This sounds like a very good idea, but it seems a number of people are disturbed by the suggestion, in the proposed names, that GD:Chat is somehow trivialized.

Although it doesn't really matter which one is spun off from which, it also seems to bother people that the short form GD is being spun off rather than the long form GD.

So maybe the answer is to leave GD or rename it with s serious sounding synonym for brevity, and spin off the long form forum.

BTW, maybe there would be some way of incorporating DU Articles in the GD: long form forum -- like Articles being posted both as articles and as posts in the long form forum -- sort of to set the tone.

I often forget to read the articles myself.

[Skinner]

198. We are going to integrate the articles with the forums.

Probably in the proposed GD forum. But we're not sure.

[Terran]

61. Regarding the standards for GD Premium:

Skinner, I like this idea. I would just add that I think the premium GD forum should be open to threads that ask for serious discussion of issues, even if they're not current topics and might not really need a long initial presentation by the OP because of the relative familiarity folks have with the issue. I'm thinking of posts advocating controversial social engineering issues like slavery reparations, national ID cards, etc. In the past we've had some very interesting threads on these topics but I'm not sure they qualify as "chat".

This is just a thought regarding the set-up of posting standards. I vote a supportive "Yes" on the overall concept.

[Skinner]

72. The "premium" GD would likely include that type of thing.

We don't expect the minimum-length standard to be particularly long.

[dpbrown]

62. Get rid of GD: Politics, but don't spin off a new GD: Chat forum

The politics one should go until the next election cycle, but the "chat" description is too much like the lounge, where people can already chat about nothing.

The correct forum for lengthy pieces should be the editorials forum, or whatever it's called now.

Articles that are meant to be taken seriously will get voted on, and then they will appear on the greatest page. That's how the chaff and the wheat get separated.

Adding a new "general discussion" forum for unimportant stuff only detracts from the idea of a central general discussion hub without pointing out that there are already specialty forums for longer pieces on a particular topic already.

Adding another general discussion forum in order to keep people from learning how to find stuff on the forums already here turns DU into TV. Let people find the remote and learn how to use it themselves.

[Terran]

73. Disagree strongly on one point here:

Articles that are meant to be taken seriously will get voted on, and then they will appear on the greatest page. That's how the chaff and the wheat get separated.

The Greatest page only has a tiny percentage of what is posted in seriousness at DU. Anyone relying on that feature will certainly see some important information, but will be missing 99% of the rest of the important information that gets posted here. It's a good feature but it's no substitute for reading the forums.

[dpbrown]

241. But building another "potpourri" forum won't force people to notice

I think the point is that posters have to learn to apply some logic to where they post. General is general. We don't need "important" general and "unimportant" general, along with all the required software management and popup reminders and all sorts of other stuff that is going to bog down the website so that we're always running on "signature lines being turned off" or some other emergency shutdown of features.

If people have an "important" post on a certain topic, then find the forum to which that post belongs and post it there. It's also incumbent on the members to peruse the topics and forums of interest to them to find those important posts.

Building multiple potpourri forums appeals to the laziness in people, which is a good thing if you want to encourage people to be lazy.

I don't think it's worth the effort in time, software development, and rules formulation to do so.

[Stephanie]

75. what you said!

:toast:

[eridani]

260. What about changing the GD: Politics to--

--2006 Elections, and strictly limit it to races being run in 2006? All other chat about who you like could go in the GD:Chat forum. And why not GD:Long and GD:Short?

[dpbrown]

295. I dislike the idea of further dumbing down GD by making it "chatty"

The concept that there is a forum into which people can post if they have something general to say about politics isn't very hard to grasp. For everything else, people can find a topical place to post, or post in the lounge, which is already the de facto "chat" place.

[ProfessorGAC]

64. Seems Unnecessary To Me

Change for change sake, or to ameliorate the hurt feelings of a few who think they write posts more worthy of attention.

But, it's your ball, Skinner. You make the rules.
The Professor

[meow2u3]

66. How about calling it "Political Chat Forum?"

This wording would kill the redundancy of "General Discussion" without taking from the essence of the chat forum.

[Skinner]

77. Our sense is that the words "General Discussion" are the magic words.

Whatever names we settle on will have to have those two magic words in them, or else people will be less likely to post there.

It's funny, I know. But it seems to be the case.

[Pirate Smile]

95. Maybe GD: Political Chat if people think Chat alone may be seen as

an invitation for Lounge-type discussions.

[DemExpat]

123. I like GD: Political Chat

distinguishes it from regular GD as well as from the Lounge IMO.

DemEx

:thumbsup:

[ginnyinWI]

158. how about

GD/In-Depth and GD/Bulletins?

[ms liberty]

67. works ok for me...

I like the idea of splitting the longer form pieces from the short quips.
It'll work out alright, IMHO...in fact it might just be...


REALLY HUGH!!!11

[KoKo]

69. Sounds okay...but what about postings for 2006 Mid-Term Elections?

Without a "Politics Forum" won't posts about that swamp a GD Forum?

[Skinner]

78. They're already getting posted in the GD forum.

So I think the main difference is that they are less likely to be double-posted in the two GD forums.

[mod mom]

70. I too support this decision. Good idea.

[terrya]

76. Good plan

No criticisms at all.

:thumbsup:

[SoCalDem]

79. Sounds wonderful.. One teensy question, though

One of my big gripes is when I see 17 locked threads on page one. those "bump other posts" off into never-land too.. Is it possible to tweak things so that when a thread gets locked, IT travels to the end of the queue? Or maybe a "Lock-vault" for all locked threads:)

[Skinner]

81. I don't think there are actually that many locked threads in GD.

At least not anymore. We've been making an effort not to lock as many threads.

I don't really think we can put locked threads in a different place, because if we do people will assume that the thread has been deleted and lash out at the moderators.

[electropop]

80. How about "GD:Essay" and "GD:Quip"?

Gives a better clue about the length-based selection criteria.

Maybe you could even automate the sorting.

[crispini]

89. Oo. I like "quip."

Not sure about Essay though.... Kind of intimidating!

[understandinglife]

82. Good plan. When?

Peace.

[Why Syzygy]

85. When you say "customize"

Additionally, we plan to give members the ability to customize the Latest Threads page so you can experience DU in the way that you want to. You will be able to set your preferences in order to either show or hide threads from the General Discussion: Chat forum.

Is the hide GDC option the only additional custom option?
Just curious.

:thumbsup: Think it's a great idea. I don't even go into the GD proper. If it doesn't make the Latest Page, I probably miss it.

If GDP is needed now for the election season, would you consider adding the election forum now? Or is there another more appropriate forum?

[in_cog_ni_to]

88. If you don't go into GD proper, why do you think it's a great idea?

:shrug:

[Why Syzygy]

105. The reason I don't go in

is because I have no clue what I might be clicking on.
Posted on the Latest Page, at least I know it was recently posted and which forum it was posted in (real topic). I like the idea of having the option to hide (or reveal) shorter 'quips' (to be named later).

There is a lot of great writing talent at DU. This just gives those who care to take the time and thought to compose a spotlight (sort of).

In actuality, the "GD" forum will probably not change that much. It seems to me that the "Premium" GD is the "new" forum. GD will still be the big kid on the block. Don't you think?

[dubyaD40web]

91. How about "General Discussion: Stepchild"?

Just jokin. I like the idea. The GD: CIA Leak worked very well that week!

[underpants]

92. (suggestion) How about a time frame

GD:Topic
GD:Today (Maybe This Week or Three days)

Consider using a time frame instead of the very subjective weight of the topic and thread.

[Behind the Aegis]

93. GD: Politics needs to stay.

Perhaps the threads about this candidate running and that one running and the upcoming 2006 elections, I think removing GD: Politics will just clog GD. The mods should start moving 'candidate' threads over to "Politics."

[Wordie]

240. Good point. Maybe GD:Politics could be retained, but renamed GD:Elections.

There are still important threads there about what's going on with the potential candidates, that might be good to show on the latest page, if someone wished to view them. Maybe it could just be made an option, like DU is planning for the new GD:Chat page (using the Skinner's name for it at this point, until DU selects a better name), so it could be turned on or off. It seems like the next new election becomes a concern from just about the time that the previous one is held.

Of course, maybe that would just make too much work for Skinner, and the mods, trying to sort out all the different posts into the proper forums. What DU is proposing is just fine with me; I'm just throwing out a few ideas in response to the things I see are concerns for other people, such as yourself.

[VaYallaDawg]

98. Looks good to me. I just hope it isn't more work for you guys.

[realisticphish]

100. Sounds good to me

to people who are saying that this will destroy DU, and God will rain plagues upon us:

everyone said that EXACT SAME THING about DU groups when they got set up. "Oh no, traffic will slow down, people will get into cliques" etc. That clearly did not happen.

The fact of the matter is the IMPORTANT POSTS DO NOT ALWAYS STAY AT THE TOP. Saying that the good stuff will stay, and bad go away is totally ridiculous.

This sounds like a good opportunity to make DU a better place to locate information. Want sources for a letter to the editor you're writing? Look in the GD. Want to say how much republicans suck? Go into GD:Whatever

[in_cog_ni_to]

112. Who says what's good or not good? THE PEOPLE WHO READ

THOSE PARTICULAR THREADS, right? If someone likes a thread so much, all they have to do is post on it and it gets kicked back to the top of page 1. I'm not getting this, "All the GOOD threads drop out of sight"...if they're so good, that wouldn't happen. I've seen posts hang around here for WEEKS. I think one person's "GOOD" thread, is another's BORING thread? Just a guess. If YOU like a thread, KICK IT. If not, let it die.:shrug:

[incapsulated]

227. Yeah

I don't know if this is too much social engineering. Is it that "good threads" fall to the bottom or is that their darwinian destiny? One person's "good" is another's boring, redundant or dare I say, long-winded or self-indulgent. I don't start many threads but I've had had them sink and I've had them be popular and I can honestly never tell why. I certainly am not going to tell DU'ers that they aren't paying enough attention to my "worthwhile" thread, although I see that sort of whining all the time.

[Laurab]

247. I think it's a good idea, too

I miss a lot by somehow getting caught up in threads that I really don't want to get caught up in, but somehow they make it to the "greatest" page, and have a lot of responses, so I always check them out. That takes time, and I think you are quite right - in fact a LOT of important or good posts get lost, because there is just so much information being posted on here, it's next to impossible to keep up with it all.

I like this idea - anything that makes it easier to find content-rich, intelligent posts, instead of yet another 2 line "insert name here bad dem of the day" bashing posts, and things like that is a good idea to me.

[OrwellwasRight]

289. But this new approach won't guarantee that

good posts stay at the top either. Perhaps just long posts will stay at the top.

And one of the beauties of GD now (as I see it) is that you can go off on a tangent and have a one on one conversation with another DUer that perhaps consists of short, quippy replies to each other. But you learn a lot and get one on one interaction.

My concern is that the new organization will create a less interactive DU where people only respond to the main post because all they are concerned about is whether their reply is long and important enough not to get bumped.

Too much pressure.

What is wrong with giving your fellow DUers a few props along the lines of LOL and OMG, this is HUGH!! if you appreciate what they have posted??

[Why Syzygy]

296. As pointed out

in above thread, the ensuing posts have no minimum.
If you read closely you will find that even in the "Premium" forum, the OP has the only minimum requirement.
DUers can post all the OMGs they want as replies.

I don't mind the "Premium" label, though I don't believe that title is "Primo".
"Chat" does tend to throw one off. Lounge is for "chat". Mundane that it is. :evilgrin:

I might be quite happy at DU without the "Tweety eats Rummie's lunch" genre threads. I don't watch tv. But, I do like to periodically keep up with MSM via DU. Rather get it from the eyes of DUers than any other source. In fact, those threads serve a real purpose. DU wouldn't be DU without them.

When someone posts "**** on NOW!" .. I'm sure that is meaningful to many. If that's the totality, it goes in "Expresso". If the poster cares to elaborate and give some details to the Event (tweety does; o'billy rises again; my sister in law said) (IOW. flesh it out), that would go in "Latte".

>>> I keep thinking that the Editorials forum is the one that needs to be expanded (axed). Not Politics.
As suggested, GDP might best be renamed "Elections" or "Dems Rule".

It is admirable that DU Admins recognize that we are not all the same. We have different perspectives, though bent in the same general direction.

What is Progressive if not Diverse and Inclusive? What a feat.
And I love it. :patriot:

[OrwellwasRight]

301. These are good points,

but I tend to agree with the posts that conclude this new idea is "overprogramming."

It is nice to be in the middle of a debate on some arcane Supreme Court decision and click back and find that I should turn on the tv because I am missing a great Bill Maher rant, and then go back to trashing Rummy's latest poetry.

I can be my own filter. But I do like the idea of highlighting the longer, well thought out posts. I myself have had this happen to me: I spend 3 hours crafting a brief essay (500-750 words). It gets three replies and I try to start a dialogue, but it is killed by some other (and seemingly less thoughtful) posts. So highlighting these attempts at policy analysis is a good idea, but I don't like the segregation and rules that would accompany it.

[RazzleDazzle]

101. I think you already have what you're aiming for

All you have to do is change the names of the current forums and instigate some requirements. General Discussion has become a slightly higher class of Lounge, equivalent to your Chat. I think of General Discussion: Politics as your premium channel.

In any case, I would encourage re-consideration of the term "chat" so that if you follow through on the plans as you've outlined them you don't encourage the further deterioration of GD into superficiality.

[LynneSin]

102. Why not make GD Premium a members-only forum

You know as an incentive to pony up what really could be a mere $5 a year just to have that star for a whole year in order to post in the premium forum.

You could make GD Premium available for anyone to read but if someone is that interested in joining the discussion let them be a paying member.

DU has been around for 5 years now and we are a force to be reckoned with for the one-stop shop all haven for progressive discussion. Give a little extra to member benefits like a discussion forum that is just for those of us willing to support DU. And for those who can't afford DU we could always do an adoption matchup. I donate several times a year and if one of the admins said there was someone who needed a membership but was on a fixed income I'd be happy to donate. (or just give them the free service - doesn't matter to me)

[Ignacio Upton]

134. Making people pay money for more forums won't attract as many members

Keeping DU Groups donation-only is fine, but spreading that to major forums will not help DU.
Anyway.....I think that GD: P should stay the way it is, but with more clearly defined rules. It should be the only place where big information on the 2008 candidates and the 2006 Congressional Races can be posted. THe other forums can have the trivial threads and stuff.

[carolinalady]

231. I think having a members only forum is a great idea. A lot of web

sites do it, why shouldn't DU? It also would help eliminate freep posters disrupting really good threads.

:thumbsup:

[OregonBlue]

103. Might work. Since I'm self-employed and have lots of time on the days

that I do get to read DU, I don't have a problem with the current GD. I just keep reading until I can't take any more (depression sets in after about 30 articles about the administration). I can however see how, if you're just dropping in for a few minutes at work or between running errands and taking the kids to soccer, et., it would be easy to miss a lot of topics (bumped by OMG posts)

Try it, if it doesn't work, go back. I seriously doubt too many people will just stop using DU because of the change.

[onenote]

104. would the minimum length requirement only apply to the OP?

Or would it apply to anyone posting in response to the OP? Many times even the longest OP can be responded to succinctly. Of course, if there is no restriction on subsequent posts in the new GD, what will keep it from turning into just another version of GD chat?

onenote

[Skinner]

116. The minimum length requirement would only apply to the OP.

There would be no restrictions on replies in either forum.

[onenote]

149. thanks for the clarification

I guess I'm still wondering how, in the long run, things will be different since a lot of the exchanges that follow an OP don't end up having to do with the OP.

onenote

[DeepModem Mom]

106. I vote "yes" -- thanks, guys!

[dusmcj]

107. make better use of the topic forums

I'm a newbie (hi) but I have one suggestion: make better use of the topic forums. I suppose this is directed both to the mods and to the community. I joined up because I was looking for a specific piece of information about the Iraq/WMD intel commission. I found that there was not even a topic forum about Iraq, and ended up getting my info by tagging along with threads in GD. Highlight the presence of the topic forums, broaden their coverage (make more), and siphon off volume from GD into them. I've seen this work on other BBs, where the topic forums come first, and a GD forum follows and absorbs what wasn't already covered.

Suggestions for new topic forums (pardon if I missed any that already exist):
- Iraq war (5 of the first 18 threads in GD just now were about Iraq - that's almost 33%)
- war on terror (excluding Iraq)
- foreign policy / foreign affairs
- put these ahead of 'national security' and rechristen it 'national security/defence policy'

[Why Syzygy]

144. That's one of the great things

about this plan. Threads will be combined.
How often do you click on thread and someone posts a link(s) to other DU threads on the same topic? That's a lot of windows.

[EFerrari]

109. In Depth & Quick Read sounds like the real distinctions being made? nt

[The Straight Story]

110. It's like big government :) soon I will need a lawyer before posting

since there will be too many rules...

Ok, just kidding!

[cry baby]

114. I enjoy the mayhem of GD the way it is. It's the fast pace that keeps

it exciting. I also love the mix. When I'm finished reading a serious post, I can go back to GD and see that Kerry is on CSPAN and what he's talking about. Then I can go to another serious post or whatever. If these things are in different forums, I probably will miss something I could have seen with GD the way it is now.

I am not an old timer and I know DU has growing pains. You admins know what is best and I will have to adapt to whatever you choose to do. But I think GD the way it is, is probably one of the reasons this website is so popular.

Please know that I appreciate the enormous task that you guys have taken on and I enjoy the site tremendously.

[Skinner]

119. It is true that GD is one of the reasons DU is popular.

We don't take changes like this lightly. The last thing we want to do is ruin the most popular forum on DU. If this change makes DU worse, then we would quickly change it back to the way it was.

Believe me, we've backtracked on many other changes in the past. If it happened here, it wouldn't be the first time.

[EarlG]

130. One idea we had was a sort of "ticker"

So, if we have this new split between the GD forums, and you're in the "premium" GD forum, across the top is a small bar which lists the five most recent threads that have been posted in the other GD forum. It would update every time you refresh the page. So that way you could hang out in the "premium" GD all day and wouldn't miss the "OMG, Kerry on CSPAN now!" alerts :)

[cry baby]

135. That sounds like it could work. Maybe putting a direct link to the

other GD forum would help, too, maybe on the grey bar that has "home", "Discuss", etc.

Again, thank you for doing what you do and your committment to Democratic politics and helping to inform us on how to try to make the world a better place.

XOXOXO,
crybaby

[Pirate Smile]

138. Ooooohhhh, you guys are too good! A DU ticker.

[in_cog_ni_to]

141. You LIKE tickers?

I DETEST them. I don't like having to try to READ something while I'm trying to listen to an important news story. If I read the ticker, I miss the damn report, if I listen to the damn report, I have to wait 15 minutes for the ticker to get back to the point where I want to read it.:crazy: Of course it would be different here on DU because you go at your own pace, but DU, IMCPO, ain't broken and doesn't need to be fixed. It's PERFECT the way it is.

[Pirate Smile]

147. I initially included something in my post about how it would take only

a few minutes before the people that hate the tickers would be going off on it - "I can't read the threads. All I can see is that damn ticker!" LOL

I appreciate how innovative Skinner, EarlG, and Elad are in running DU.

Some people seem to be concerned that they would miss things that would now be posted in the other forum. They are just trying to deal with that.

I don't mind tickers. I think I block them out on the news channels but on DU, I like to see breaking news so if something has just happened, let me know.

If it is too busy, I'm sure they would drop it.

They are just throwing out ideas and brainstorming right now.

[EarlG]

165. The "ticker" wouldn't actually move.

That would be really annoying. It would just be a list of the five most recently-posted threads in the other GD forum. In small text. Unobtrusive, but useful for alerting you to up-to-the-minute stuff like "WTF? Tweety slamming *!" or "OMG! KO on Fitz NOW!"

[in_cog_ni_to]

169. I understand. Thanks.

:)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

197. I think the idea of the OP sounds great and the ticker too. Quick question

My question is about the ticker concept. I like it as stated, but would it be too cluttered to have two tickers side by side? One with the 5 most recent threads and one with the 5 most recent replied to? :)

I really like the idea of the two GD forums and don't think that the pace we love will be slowed much at all. One of the reasons for this solution is that the important things that we don't want to move by quickly do. In the GD Premium, they would be slowed down a bit which is good. But the speed is caused by the 'chat' like posts, which would still be flyin by like mad in the GD Chat forum, and I doubt the absence of the big threads would slow it down enough to no longer make it thrilling. So I give the idea a big :thumbsup:

[EarlG]

232. I don't see why we couldn't do that

Have two columns at the top, one side lists the five newest threads, the other side lists the five most recently replied-to. If we're going to do something like this we'll probably put it in both GD forums actually, so there is a cross-pollinization of sorts. I think it would be a good addition - unless there are some programming issues I'm not aware of which would prevent us from doing it.

It might have to be taken down if the site is busy and we go to Level One or beyond, but hopefully we'll have those problems taken care of fairly soon too.

[MuseRider]

217. I LOVE the ticker idea

since you explained that they do not move I am assuming they simply refresh when we do. That is a great idea. I hate to be involved in a long thread and then when I surface find I have missed something I really would have liked to have seen.

Man you guys are good!

[carolinalady]

237. Now that's a good idea. I was just sitting here thinking if it would

be possible for some kind of TV alert system.
:yourock:

[JerseygirlCT]

117. It makes sense to me. I do think the two are redundant

and the cross-posting just wastes space.

[Uncle Joe]

118. This reads like a good plan to me. n/t

[mtnester]

120. I believe that a GD 2006 would be more in order than waiting until 2007

Midterm 2006 is very important (critical), has issues specific to these midterms, with a vast amount of topics specific to state races, congressional and senate seats that garner lengthy discussion and postings. Doing away with a GD Politics type room right before we gear up for crucial midterm 2006 would be, IMO, retardant to the importance of these upcoming midterms. Maybe it simply needs to be called Election 2006.

Perhaps also, rather than the severe description of restrictions for a GD Chat, maybe you should consider renaming it to something else that does not use the words general discussion in it, and in itself is descriptive of the type of posts that should be in it. Something like Pit Stop, or something more creative than my mind can fling out in a moments notice.


Thank you.

[Swamp Rat]

122. Suggestion: Also add to the name of the other GD forum.

"General Discussion: Discourse" or whatever synonym you prefer. This will also, perhaps, help direct traffic by eliminating the unconscious choice/automatic response of people (like me) who gravitate to the familiar environment that is "GD."

General Discussion: Discourse
General Discussion: Chat

Good luck y'all! Let's give it a whirl!

[TahitiNut]

124. I think this is a laudable effort, indicating awareness of the issue.

I think I'd like to see "length" de-emphasized and "thoughtful" emphasized. I'd also like to see a greater elimination of duplicates of, or substitutes for, Latest Breaking News posts ... apparently as an escape from some of the rules in that forum.

FWIW ... civility is still an issue. Some seem to think it's merely tone. I disagree. I feel one can venomously (using profanity) disagree with a position without attacking the person. At the same time, smarmy and saccharine attacks on the poster are still personal attacks, no matter how 'sweetly' phrased. Too many seem to think 'civility' is merely blowing sunshine up one's butt. I strongly believe that when the SUBJECT of the post is the person to whom one is replying, it's 90% of the way towards being a personal attack, no matter how lacking in profanity or name-calling.

[BigBearJohn]

125. I prefer it stay the way it is; the cream always rises to the top anyway

[bpilgrim]

126. I wish we could vote on every single post to improve the S/N ratio

the community could categorize and rate every single post (always or on a rotating schedule and/or members above a certain post count) so then when i come into a thread (after setting my individual preference to filter out the 'chatter') i see only the posts that are highly rated and before i click on it i know what category it is i.e. 'funny', 'informative' etc...

check out how they do it on http://slashdot.com to get an idea how it works

BTW: this is not censorship since you can always adjust your filter to see DU uncut as well it also may make the mods jobs a lot easier as well.

peace

[NashVegas]

127. I'll Try Anything

I don't really have too much of a preference either way, although I have grown to enjoy seeing most of the hardcore political conversation in GD: P. I know which GD forum to read when I'm curious to see what people are arguing over and when I'm not.

[MsAnthropy]

128. Sounds good to me

[bryant69]

129. If you are sure this is the right way to go, why are you asking?

I think this is a very bad idea; it's diffusing the energy of General Discussion, and it's making it more of a pain to look at what we are talking about.

Bryant

[Skinner]

132. Because we want to know what you all think...

...so we won't go and do something that the members of DU think is a mistake.

[DeepModem Mom]

131. I already voted yes, but had another thought.

Might "Editorials and Other Articles," where many posts not allowed in LBN go to die because there is little traffic there, be incorporated into the new GD? Maybe just eliminate that forum, and see if the posts that usually go there get more attention in a slower-paced GD --

133. Great - Thanks

It is often hard to search through the listings to find the real nuggets and this will make it easier. Thanks for the change.

[Sapphocrat]

136. Sounds fine, with one reservation.

I understand exactly why you're doing this, Skinner, and have no complaints about the proposed system. I also appreciate the amount of thought, energy, and work you and Elad and Earl have put into this, and will be putting into it.

That said:

Add me to the list of folks who have a problem with calling it "GD:Chat". It does sound frivolous/Lounge-like.

How about something more descriptive, that A) won't make it sound like fluff, and B) perhaps help guide newbies to the right forum -- like "GD: Short Subjects"? Or somebody mentioned "Express"... There are lots of good ideas -- but please, just not "Chat." It sounds like an AOL pickup room.

Other than that little (but important) factor, I'm behind you 100%.

[Skinner]

139. That seems to be the consensus.

My impression is that most of the negative reactions are based on the negative impression of the word "Chat". We will undoubtedly come up with a different name. But it's kinda difficult to come up with something that is both informative and pithy.

[EFerrari]

142. Hey, the Poetry Forum originated in the Lounge!

Watchit, Sistah. :)

[Sapphocrat]

146. But...

...it graduated! It's a grown-up forum now! ;)

[Justice Is Comin]

137. Problem is

if you're intrigued, involved or entranced with threads on this forum, you may not catch the heads up alerts for "real time" events such as C-Span or Blitzer interviews for example that would now be on the proposed rapid fire forum.

I often learn of something that I will want to tune to immediately because someone puts up the alert. There will be no way to do that with the proposed split forums unless somebody comes up with a picture-in-picture computer. I can envision a lot of bouncing back and forth.

But you're the boss.

[quinnox]

185. I like that name - General Discussion: Rapid Fire

and the other one could be called General Discussion: In Depth

[Skinner]

199. I kinda like "Rapid Fire" as a possible name.

Not a bad idea.

[JohnLocke]

285. I like that one best (nt).

[NNN0LHI]

140. I have learned to trust your guys judgment on these things pretty much

Just give me a bit to get used to the changes after you do the deed. Might take me a while to get settled in at first? Thanks again for this site.

Don

[raccoon]

143. Sounds good to me. nt

[ScooterKen]

145. Good idea

Traffic here is high and its hard to read the good stuff.

[JNelson6563]

148. I have been hoping for such a change

I really don't like the vanity and other such posts in GD.

Bravo!

Julie

[Ms. Clio]

150. I really miss the Ask the Administrators forum

It provided some greatly-needed transparency and interactivity.

[DemReadingDU]

151. How about just having General Discussion

Everything gets so mixed up, cross-posted, and moved around anyway. Use General Discussion for just about anything - GD, GD Politics, and Late Breaking News. Yes, it will become large, but when people feel the topic is important, it will be moved to 'Greatest' with 5 votes.

Take both GD Politics forum and LBN forum and "hide them". Bring either of those forums back whenever you need a special important forum, like the Fitzgerald press conference Libby indictment.

[jayctravis]

183. General Discussion: Soapbox...where the

long intial posts above a set minimum are replicated and non-replyable. People could read the soapbox forum, which would filter out the "My cat just pooped in the shape of Cheney's head!" posts.

That would ensure the people who work on posting a long and thoughtful post would have it show up in the soapbox. If you want to reply, you click the link and are referred back to wherever the initial post is in GD. Eventually the Soapbox posts would drift down, but if the minimum is set hight enough, it would hold up for a while and not get lost in the blast of me-too responses.

[OrwellwasRight]

290. I like this idea a lot and hope that the Admins

and others read your post. It would accomplish what I think the Admins are looking for without ruining the nergy and vibrance of GD.

[mourningdove92]

152. I like it.

Things sink so fast in GD that it is hard to get a chance to read everything.

[Time for change]

153. Sounds good to me n/t

[chat_noir]

155. example of a GD Chat thread - lightweight and short-lived topic

it's mine


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5476460


(posted it for any that wanted to release some Condi hostility)

[Spazito]

156. I like the proposed changes

and think they will be positive for DU as was the set up for GD: Politics has been. I also really like the 'runner' idea, especially as a alert such as "So and so is on CSPAN now" as I find them very helpful.

[Neil Lisst]

157. Why not one board to discuss Democrats, one for Others?

This would make separating topics easier for both the posters and the mods, because the topic tells you which forum it goes in. If it's about a Dem, the Dem forum. If it's about a Pub, or someone not affiliated with the Dem party, it goes in the Other forum.

One board becomes where we talk about the opposition.

The other board becomes where we talk about our intraparty issues.

It's a simple way to have two boards, since no one board can effectively handle the traffic. Both boards discuss politics, but one is directed towards adversaries and one is directed at party differences and policy issues.

While not all issues can be easily identified as more appropriate for one board or the other, a rule can make it easy. Who is the first politician mentioned? Use that to determine where it goes. That way, all the mod has to do is see the first political name in the original thread post, and the rest is easy.

[Chovexani]

159. I like this idea

I'm a big Lounge Lizard but I think "GD: Chat" would quickly turn into Lounge 2: Electric Bugaloo. I agree with the person upthread who suggested a better name for it would be GD: Political Chat, just to minimize confusion (especially among newbies who might be unsure about where to post things).

[Baclava]

160. GD & GD - Good stuff ........sounds good to me

GD is a Platypus, lots of things don't belong, but, it is what it is.
GD Political forum is redundant - everything is political.
The Lounge is a refuge - don't change it.

Just let us know where the "live" hurricane threads will go and everyone will be happy....

[UTUSN]

161. "Links to articles from other sources... would not be permitted in here"

"Links to articles from other sources, or long-format written pieces by DU members would not be permitted in here."

This would seem to knock out most of what Regular GD now is and make it GD-Lounge. A frequent challenge is, "Link?"---implying a certain weight beyond just pesonal venting and jokes.

Does "long format" apply to links to 4 paragraphs from a gossip column (on a political topic)?

My .02 is that keeping GD-Regular as, say, "anything political" and the other GD for primaries and blockbuster events ("GD-SHIAVO") would be fine.

But then, this is from somebody who thought DU was perfect as it was a long time ago.

[MaineDem]

162. I don't like the "Chat" word

It gives a connotation of, well... chat. Sounds more like the Lounge, as someone mentioned above.

If two threads are needed, and I rather think they are, I would like to see the second one be called something other than GD-Chat. Something that would more readily describe its purpose. I'm not sure what. Maybe a GD-Express as someone else mentioned up thread. Or not even GD at all. A "Happening Now" or "Other Political Stuff"?

I find the two current forums a bit confusing, especially the dupes in GD. I understand the time involved to keep it as clean as LBN but people should be adult enough to check previously posted topics before posting the tenth edition of "what a hugh moran".

THanks, guys. You're terrific and I'm sure we'll all become familiar and happy with whatever you decide to do.

[milkyway]

163. I like GD: Express (or how about GD: Rapid Reponse).

Overall, it sounds reasonable. I know some don't like the idea, but it's easy enough to have two windows open, one for each forum.

My only concern is that too much not get separated out of the premium forum so that it becomes too small. I could see it becoming regarded as the "serious" forum that people go to only when they have a lot of time. The tricky part will be finding a threshold that will keep the two forums balanced.

[chat_noir]

167. GD Chat suggested topics now found in GD

smoking vs nonsmoking

caption this picture

O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc.

GWB's plastic turkey

gas prices

famous, nonpolitical people

Newsmax

Free Republic

Jeff Gannon, unless he makes the news

Mike Malloy, Stephanie Miller, etc.

[pinto]

168. GD: Main Menu...GD: Today's Specials...? (my 2c)... I like the proposals.

A lot. Think they'll prove more user friendly for members - in real time - than the current GD arrangement. A few comments:

The "heads up" GD posting notice during Fitzmas didn't seem intrusive to me, at all.

Poll posting guidelines in GD (link to article or accompanied by an original discussion piece) would be a plus, imo.

Seems the difference between the Lounge and GD: Chat would be clear over time (actually the same as now).

Combining threads in GD would help the pace of both that forum and the Latest page.

GD:Chat would remain a faster paced, what's up now forum.

More member ability to customize their DU format/forum participation.

And, I see the issue with "Chat" as a GD label. Hence my suggestion above -you'd have the Lounge, the Main Menu and Today's Specials...

Maybe you could rename Editorials and Articles the Library or the Reading Room...

(I'll stop)

Thanks all. Appreciate your asking for input.

:thumbsup:

[SOteric]

171. It sounds like a good idea, and we should try it, but

I'm concerned that this will start a fresh wave of 'they're shutting down the Lounge' speculation.

And of course, I will send up prayers and disburse karmic wishes for the moderators.

[Skinner]

174. We would never shut down the Lounge.

Because if we did, then all those posts would end up in GD, which would not be a good thing.

It is obvious that DU needs a Lounge for all of the non-political stuff. We would be fools to shut it down.

[SOteric]

176. Well that's clear, concise and to the point.

Thanks!

[meti57b]

172. Call them "GD" and "GD: quickies"

:evilgrin:

[Angry Girl]

173. Sounds pretty good. Have a minor reservation about GD Chat

As I think we've all seen chats develop into full-blown discussions with links and all, but I suppose then the discussion could migrate over to the GD forum area. More work for mods? Probably but I'm not sure of a solution. Perhaps a Voting/Recommending system to bump a GD:Chat thread to a GD:Forum one?

And, off topic and probably priority #396 on your lists: What's going to happen to the DU Frugal and Energy Efficient Living Group and the Economic Activism and Progressive Living Group? Will they get merged?

Keep up the great work!

[Skinner]

177. We have no plans to merge any groups at this time.

We still reserve the right to shut down groups that don't get much traffic. But that isn't really a top priority right now.

I kinda think that those two groups are different enough to stay as separate groups. Unless the members of the two groups want to merge. And if they do, I haven't heard about it.

[Pirate Smile]

218. A good GD: Chat thread could still get voted onto the Greatest Page.

edit to add - I assume GD: Chat would include the long threads from people watching something happen on C-span or breaking news that explain what is going on. Those, if they are full of info, frequently get voted onto GP.

[iconoclastNYC]

175. Sounds like a solution in search of a problem. N/T

[Adelante]

178. Objection

I think splitting the GD is fine, if it works better.

I object to trashing GDP. Why shouldn't we stay ahead of the curve on 2008 as we work on 2006? I will never understand the objection to talking about the presidential, any old time, but especially when we haven't got it, and especially when we already have a field of prospective candidates to discuss and learn about. There is absolutely no reason to wait until 2007.

I like GDP; as others have said about GD, it's where I live. GDP was formed, because GD didn't want the election and candidate posts. What's the big deal about having this place when nobody who wants to go there is free to stay out? Probably the same thing will happen. People will be saying don't talk about this and don't talk about that and there will be more arguments instead of less.

DU members should be free to talk about what interests them short of what is destructive to the Democratic Party, which is how I understood the boundary set down as DU policy, and that includes 2008. You guys call the shots, of course, but I can register my opposition and I do.

[MaineDem]

211. Upon further reflection, I agree with you

If I had my druthers I'd keep GDP as it is. I prefer it to GD. I spend most of my time on DU in LBN and GDP; because of that I can't really comment too much on GD other than to say there are too many superfluous topics there for my taste. I tend to lose what I'm looking for.

But, of course, I'll live with whatever the admin feels is best. They get the big bucks to think all this up, after all. ;)

[DoYouEverWonder]

179. I don't see the difference

between this new format and what we have already?

Sounds more like a new name for 'Editorials & Other Articles'.

Personally, I would like to see 'GD - Politics' become 'GD - Elections' and leave regular GD the way it is.

Maybe perk up 'Editorials' with a new name to try to get more traffic in there but I still like the mish-mash of stuff that ends up in GD just because I don't go into the other forums as much.

Thanks,
DYEW

[Fovea]

181. I like this idea quite a bit

I would like to suggest something slightly related.

How about a "Timely News" forum for news peices that have fallen past the "Latest Breaking" format? There is a lot of news out there, and not all of it makes the time cutoff.

But yes, I like the way you are suggesting handling what is becoming an ever larger problem with GD and GD-P.

[omega minimo]

182. Can we call it The Mezzanine?

:evilgrin:

[welshTerrier2]

184. mostly positive feedback ...

i tend to write fairly long posts and have felt for some time that threads disappear too quickly in GD to make writing them worth the effort ... for that reason, i make most of my OP's in GD-Politics which tends to move at a slower pace ...

i'm a little wary of being moved over to GD but, if the new rules are able to slow things down a bit and enhance real discussion, i think your ideas are well worth trying ...

a change i'd like to see would be the elimination of posted articles where the poster does not provide any discussion whatsoever ... DU should not be just a "clipping service" ... a discussion forum should require the person starting the thread to DISCUSS whatever the article they're posting is about ... they can agree with it, disagree with it or whatever but to just "dump and run" is NOT discussion ... the same should apply to polls ... the original poster should provide at least a little discussion about the issue being polled ... permitting polls with no discussion leads to lazy polling ... it leads to "who ya for in '08" with no discussion about the position of potential candidates on the issues ... it leads to "Who has the best Iraq plan" with no elaboration of what the plans are or what the OP thinks ...

finally, i'll lend my voice to two themes that seem very prevalent in the responses above ... i really appreciate the effort you're making to improve the quality of discourse in the GD forums ... while there are no guarantees, your ideas are trying to make things better on DU and i appreciate that ...

as for GD-Chat, i think the forum could use a better title ... "Chat" software has a specific meaning on the web ... it allows all kinds of features that GD-Chat will not provide ... just to toss my hat in the name that forum contest, how about: GD-Quickies?

[crispini]

186. Quickies.... Heh heh heh heh heh.

:evilgrin:

Must. Not. Get. Thread. Locked!!!!!! :7

[sybylla]

187. I say go for it

What we have now seems abnormally bloated from the double posting/cross posting that everyone seems to feel they need to do. As a dial-up DUer, I would appreciate the general reduction in posts and see the new organizational plan as a plus in finding exactly what I'm looking for when I visit the GD forums.

Provided this doesn't overly complicate the "search" function preventing people from unintentionally double posting, I'm so with you on this.

[CabalPowered]

192. I have no opinion but would like to say that I miss the Lobby..

very much. Having a root page w/o ads was very nice. My other real complaint is the the nav bar on the discuss directory. I personally like having GD, GDP, LBN on the immediate left instead of the top level directories. Just my prefs but as long as DU is up and running.. I'm happy! :)

*on afterthought, sorry for hijacking this thread for that minor rant.

[Skinner]

203. The lobby is still there.

You can get there by clicking the icon that says "Lobby". It looks like this:



Also, if you want to use the Lobby as your default page for the discussion forums, you can do so by setting your preferences. Go to "Options" then "Edit your preferences" then look for "Show Latest not Lobby as default?" and select "no".

[CabalPowered]

304. Yay! Thank you Skinner!

[0007]

196. I think your research forum is a great idea. Been reading on it

the last few days, a lot to get a handle on. But in my opinion once one gets the hang of this forum it will truly be a great one.

[HereSince1628]

200. Since I joined DU I've spent most of my time in GD

Personally I think everyone will adapt to whatever is implemented, or they will leave.

I think DU posting has become much more average as membership has gotten larger.

I don't know what the practical constraints are on your servers and software, but it seems to me if you want to promote longer perhaps more thoughtful essays (which may or may not actually turn out to be better than just longer winded idiosyncratic crap) why not create a newly named forum for longer pieces?

[ulysses]

202. works for me.

:thumbsup:

[Sapphire Blue]

204. Is it possible to add 'General Discussion: Chat' as a new forum

... in addition to existing forums, rather than changing/replacing GD & GD: Politics?

[Nobody]

205. How about giving it a go for a month

And if it's too cumbersome, revert back.

I like having things in one place, but it's also very easy for things to drop out of sight.

I'm game for trying this out.

[Skinner]

265. That's what we're going to do.

Except my guess is that we'll know very quickly whether or not it is a good change. I suspect it will take less than a week for us to know. If it's good, we'll keep it. If it sucks we won't.

[incapsulated]

207. I don't like it, myself

I like it the way it is: one forum for politics and another for everything else. Sure there is garbage there, but there will be even more garbage in this "chat" or whatever it is called. It doesn't seem very well defined to me. There is an area between a dissertation and a sentence and I don't see that being serviced. I'm afraid the GD Chat will become either filled with posts that disappear in seconds, and even "turn on the tv" needs some time, or become too silly and pointless to read. I want a forum where I can discuss and read political topics without having to write an essay. Nor do I always want to read a long essay.

:shrug:

[incapsulated]

212. I just want to reinterate...

After re-reading the description of what would be in the GD Chat, this really doesn't seem to be enough for a whole forum. The majority of what constitutes the "meat" of the GD and the GDP isn't determined by length, it's the substance. Which can be essay-length, to be sure, but is often no more than a few paragraphs. I'm afraid you will be killing off what makes both GD and GDP worthwhile.

[Skinner]

266. I think you are getting the wrong idea about length.

Our minimum length requirement isn't going to require people to post full essays. The cut-off will be relatively short. I'm thinking around 200 words, which is basically two medium-length paragraphs.

[incapsulated]

279. Ok, thanks

That makes me feel a lot better.

Although I still think that now that the GDP will be gone, you are going to have an awful lot of threads in this new GD. Even without the "OMG" threads, it's a busy place. It will be even more busy with all the political threads moving over there from GDP.

Given that we are about to move into an election year, I ask you to rethink dropping GDP. We really need a place to discuss hardcore politics. If the same rules that applied to the new GD applied to an improved GDP, moving out the less substantial threads, it would be an easier transition for everyone and make room for more threads in both forums.

[ClassWarrior]

209. Is length the only criterion for judging? That seems rather arbitrary...

...considering that I've seen some rather long-winded but frivolous posts, as well as some very brief but significant posts.

Just my 2 cents.

NGU.

[Why Syzygy]

255. Other than the length

I got the impression from OP that it has to do with adding original ideas (either written by a DUer or carried in from an outside article, etc., with DUer opinion). The "shorter" forum would have the insta-reports on who is saying what on MSM, and other short messages related to Topic (politics). Many times I see a GD post that contains ONLY a link. I can't recall what OP said about posting those . . . ? Would they be allowed in "Chat", if there is nothing there more than a link?

I really like the idea of separating polls. I'm not interested in voting in every poll, but if someone generates a conversation with their OP, I might have enough interest to give it some thought and vote. Those would be the polls I'm interested in.

Skinner said there would be a trial basis, and from what I've seen of DU Admin, if more members can't stand it than can, it would probably be reverted back to 'as is' or some other idea.

Define "frivolous". If someone's original idea warrants writing enough commentary to fulfill the minimum word count (at least in their own eyes), what's the problem with allowing them the same opportunity to be read as those you don't consider "frivolous"?

I hope it's a "Go".

[williesgirl]

213. It ain't broke - so don't fix it! Like things as they are now.

[SeanQuinn]

214. I really really really like the change.

But with that being said, when, if the community supports the change, would the change occur?

[Princess Turandot]

215. In addition to this change, is it possible to allow sorting of threads..

by either most recently posted thread or most recently 'replied to' thread? Right now, the only option is the most recently replied-to sort. I realize that one can go to the 'Latest Page' and see new posts in all forums, but it would be useful to be able to adjust the individual main forums' view, bypassing threads with one word responses or special interest ones being frequently bumped.

[SharonRB]

216. Sounds like a good idea to me, Skinner

Thanks again for all you do.

[democrank]

219. Let`s try it.

Appreciate your effort. Thanks.

[Stand and Fight]

220. A Few Points... Okay, a Few Long POSITIVE Points.

Given the hectic nature of the current GD forum, it seems that the administrators are making a responsible and considerate decision. As it currently stands, the GD forums -- both GD and GD-P -- are hard to distinguish between. However, the reasons that Skinner, EarlG, and Elad have listed for applying changes sound wholly realistic to me. The two aforementioned forums are cluttered, hard to follow, and without a concise direction or purpose. However, if the two forums were broken down into -- for lack of better terminology -- "the long" and "the short," posters pressed for time could better peruse the site.

There seems to be a consensus about the connotation of the word "chat." While I understand the meaning that Skinner et al tried to imply, I am forced to agree that, the word "chat" leaves me with a decidedly negative connotative feeling. After reading through the entire thread, I was happy to see so many fine suggestions brought up by my fellow DUers. Though this has not been put to a vote, some of the names that I would support in such a scenario are as follows:

General Discussion: Premium
General Discussion: Rapid Response
General Discussion: Rapid Fire

And a few of my own to throw in the pot:

General Discussion: Appetizers / General Discussion: Entrees
General Discussion: Espresso / General Discussion: Premium Blend
General Discussion: Filtered / General Discussion: Unfiltered
General Discussion: Fire-Side Chats / General Discussion: Dialog
General Discussion: Checkers / General Discussion: Chess
General Discussion: Live Fire / General Discussion: Annotated
General Discussion: Unhinged / General Discussion: Unhinged
General Discussion: Abridged / General Discussion: Unabridged

Overall, I like what Skinner, EarlG, and Elad suggested for the changes to the GD forums. I don't buy into the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality," because I've found more often than not in life that...

I recently had some car trouble that I would like to share with everyone. Several months ago I noticed that despite regular maintenance my car seemed to be driving different somehow. I could not pinpoint what it was so I continued to drive the car. I drove up to the city and was fine. A couple of weeks later I was having to add coolant every couple of weeks. I didn't pay it much attention because -- to be honest -- I only know how to perform routine maintenance on my car. Well, on my way to work on day I noticed all this gray smoke trailing me. I immediately pulled over, checked the coolant level in the tank and it was bone dry. As it turned out, somehow coolant and water had gotten into my engine and blew a gasket. I ended up paying heavily to fix the car. The mechanic told me that if I'd taken the car in the problem would have been fixed for a lot less headache. A simple maintenance check would have prevented having to shovel out nearly a grand!

What I'm saying is that just because we're all comfortable with the way the site is doesn't mean that it doesn't need to have maintenance performed on it. Democratic Underground is a great place and helps me stay sane in a heavily Republican area. For that reason, I often recommend fellow local Democrats and friends in other states to this site. (I am sure that I am not the only one that does this.) I know, I know, I should shut up already! Well, let's put it this way -- every day more and more people are joining this website. Just because the GD forums work fine right now doesn't mean that they can continue to work as smoothly as we're used to with more people joining the community. Rather than trying to address the problem when it happens, we should instead focus on solutions before any problems crop up.

Of course, that is just my humble opinion.

Thank you, Skinner, Elad, and EarlG for all of your hard work.

[carolinalady]

222. I see your point, but I don't agree with all of your solutions.

One-- I think eliminating the polls on GD would be good. Two--I hate the idea that you can't post a few line thoughts that are politically oriented. For example, What if I need to ask a question that pertains to a political topic--esp. if I want the really insightful posters to see and answer. Three--Also, what if I am reading these long posts and something, REALLY important is on TV? I can't see both forums at the same time so I will miss it.
Perhaps you should eliminate the GD thread all together and just have GD Politics and allow TV posts and short thoughts as long as they are on political topics. You could even have a Political people thread and a politcal issues--such as pot, abortion, etc. Put the polls in the lounge.

Just my two cents. :) Kim

[DeepModem Mom]

223. How about GD Section A, and GD Section B -- like a newspaper? nt

[Laelth]

224. Preliminary, not-well-vetted suggestion

It seems to me that the term "General Discussion" is useless. It carries no meaning. It doesn't accurately communicate what ought to be posted in such a forum. This is a bit of a problem.

It seems that the leadership is looking for a way to more precisely define what ought to be posted where, while also dividing up the threads that now appear in the GD forums into "short" ones and "long" ones. Fine.

How about this:

DU Rants (for the short ones)

and

DU Ruminations (for the long ones)

No need to use the term "GD." As I argued earlier, "GD" is meaningless. But "rants" indicate quick, emotional outbursts, while "ruminations" indicate long, thoughtful discussions. You could even drop the DU from my suggested titles and just call the forums "rants" and "ruminations," if you prefer.

And why not just ban cross-posting altogether? I see no legitimate reason to cross-post (other than advertising), and I find advertising generally offensive (which is why I prefer to play on my computer rather than watching TV).

Hope someone finds these suggestions useful.

-Laelth

[mike_c]

225. son of GD and bride of GD...?

The GD that would not die. Night of the living GD.

Seriously, I think a change is in order-- the current GD: Politics is not particularly useful. As long as EVERYTHING still scrolls down the Latest Page, I don't see how restructuring GD can be anything but an improvement-- people who still want to see everything in one big mixing pot (like me) can simply link the Latest page as their primary DU interface.

[scarletlib]

226. i like the concept. I think it can work.

[I Have A Dream]

228. I think that this is a really good idea.

If someone puts a great deal of effort into a post, it deserves to be considered premium, in my opinion.

[RoyGBiv]

230. A Question --

First of all, I genuinely like this idea. GD is the Big Forum I visit most frequently, but the signal to noise ratio sometimes makes it very difficult to navigate in an attempt to find the kind of discussions I feel make it worthwhile, especially via the Latest Page. I'm also in agreement about GD: Politics. It seems redundant to me at this point, and outside the primary season, I've not really understood its purpose.

My question is about the Latest Page. Pardon me if this has been covered already; I admit to not having read this entire thread. You mentioned earlier in the thread that we would be able to perform a greater customization of the Latest Page for ourselves. Would this perhaps include an ability to remove, for example, GD: Chat from the Latest Page we view individually, much like we can remove Lounge threads from it? The chat style postings are something I like to visit as well, but they are also what I view as cluttering the Latest Page, especially when some Big Event takes place and we have a dozen iterations of the same one-liner.

[Skinner]

267. We would give you the ability to remove GD: Chat from the Latest Page.

That is the plan, at least.

[tuvor]

242. As long as Lounge-worthy posts don't get posted in any GD.

That's all I'd like to see.

It's starting to drive me nuts.

[LSdemocrat]

244. Excellent! Perhaps GD will be like it was in the early days of DU

[tyedyeto]

245. Combining repetitive posts a la LBN ....

would be a much better way to solve this problem, IMHO.

Why have so many posts about the same subject matter? That will keep new posts to a minimum.

Often, I will post only a sentance or two because the poster has said what I already think and re-enforcement of those ideas can be good for the community as a whole.

[Dances with Cats]

246. Do whatever you like, BUT

As progressives lets always take great care when "stifling" anything is mentioned. Leftward, HO!
Dw/C

[Carmerian]

248. Minimum-length posting rises from the grave!

This idea has been floating around since near the beginning of DU, and it looks like we may finally see it. You'll get no complaints from me about it, either. It's tiresome to have good posts spammed off the first page by crap.

Regarding forums names, I've long thought that it's redundant to have a "General Discussion : Politics" forum on a site that is primarily about politics. "General Discussion" itself is a misnomer, since the subject matter posted therein is restricted.

Lastly, I think you could cull all of the forums down to four or so : LBN, Discussion (for long topics), Current Events (or something like that, for the spam), and the Lounge.

[dogman]

249. Why?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[kohodog]

250. GD Chat sounds like the lounge to me.

Great threads seem to rise to the top. The GD community has a different feel and is different group than the lounge. How many times do we see a lounger talk about how they ventured into GD? I'd hate to see GD be broken up in that fashion. I enjoy the hugh series threads sprinkled in.

Personally I'm against the change as GD may lose it's flavor and become too wonkish. I suspect people who have been around for a while can figure out how to navigate GD despite the fast moving nature of sinking threads. I'd rather see a listing of recent posts before submitting a new post, similar but perhaps not as restrictive as in LBN.

How about changing the editorial page into a more serious home grown forum for serious discussions.

[snowbear]

251. I kinda like the idea.. but kohodog & others raise a good point...

Could the GD-Chat somehow inadvertently turn into a "Lounge #2" ? ...

If it doesn't create new headaches for the moderating crew.. I say "Go for it!"

But the concern about how the lounge and chat would differ is definitely a good one!

[LincolnMcGrath]

252. Doesn't the cream always rise to the top anyway?

Not very 'wordy' post is all that and a bag of chips, ya know?

[snowbear]

253. ...Or they could be "Regular and Decaf" ?

~~~ :shrug:

[Theduckno2]

256. Sounds good to me.

Typically I'll visit My Posts then LBN, Gen Disc, Gen Pol, Edit & Art and rarely the DU Lounge (not knocking it though). Though I am not a 1000+ poster, I do find it dissappointing to see a good article on the Iranian Oil Bourse slide off the page in favor of the "MORANS" photo. I believe your proposals are good ones. Good Luck.

[omega minimo]

257. "GD: Focus" and "GD: Fracas"?

Congratulations on DU's success and this good idea.

Folks who are more interested in concentrating on concentrated information that took a certain amount of concentration to put together will appreciate having a wheat and chaff sifter in place. The ticker is a great idea.

Thank you.

"...with the "premium" GD forum becoming the go-to forum for more serious or topical stuff, and the GD: Chat forum hosting the up-to-the-second stream-of-consciousness chat-style stuff."

Does that make the Lounge the place for "the up-to-the-second stream-of-UNconsciousness chat-style stuff"?

I'm KIDDING.

:patriot:

[elsiesummers]

258. Could name one "General" and the other "Discussion".

Or one "Specific Discussion" and the other "General Discussion."

Maybe "Think Politics" and "Talk Politics".

Or "GD: Tastes Great" and "GD: Less Filling".

It may be better to drop the "GD" portion altogether. General is not a particularly descriptive word.

Maybe "Democratic Ideas" and "Political Conversation". (I like the title "Democratic Ideas" for a major forum title since it contradicts the attempted Republican meme/framing.)

I liked the upthread suggestion of "Thinktank" and "Brainstorm".

A word with better connotations than "Chat" is "Banter".

[Why Syzygy]

275. I like

Thinktank and Brainstorm ...

[Vektor]

259. Can't we just have an OMG THIS IS HUGH!!!11!!1 forum?

Kidding.

I think this proposed change sounds like a good idea. Makes a lot of sense to do it that way.

[lostnfound]

262. Is it technically feasible for forums to appear blended on a users screen?

I like the concept that you are considering.

But I was wondering whether the software makes it possible for users to be able to choose to show forums as if they were a single forum (combined content, threads interleaved)? I'd guess not, or it would have been done already. But it seems it should be do-able, and what a handy tool that would be.

[lostnfound]

263. "GD - Top Shelf"; r-K reproductive strategy; Surf or Deep; Chaos or Order

It's very much like the difference between the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-selection">r-selection and K-selection strategies of reproduction. One place for ideas to breed like rabbits/insects/cats, and another place for them to be raised and nurtured like humans/elephants/gorillas. Too obscure of a term though... 'Sperm' and 'eggs' wouldn't be obscure but obviously wouldn't be appropriate.

Ocean analogs: "The Surf" for immediacy and openness to more casual discussion, "The Tidepool" a calmer place to incubate and educate, or "The Deep".

Probably the same tension the founding fathers had when they decided on a bicameral Congress. Too confusing and prejudicial though to call it the Senate and the House.

How about "The Commons" and "Top Shelf"? Or just leave GD as GD and add a GD-Top Shelf forum? Conveys the idea that it is special but not unreachable with effort.

[Robert Cooper]

303. I'm impressed...

...not many know of r and K, and it is entirely appropriate. I also like "The Surf" and "The Deep", though their poetic nature stands out against the naming convention I've seen here.

Well done!

[lostnfound]

310. Thanks! nt

[The Judged]

264. Great idea! More Please!

Being a mostly late night user, I wonder if the proposed changes will impact us off-peak DU'ers who often deal with this problem:

"Latest Breaking News" or GDP thread with working links gets posted at 3:15 AM and two or three others just like it land on page two within an hour while some "Latest Breaking News" or GDP thread from yesteryear is defibrillated and put on the top of the heap, because a someone sees value in adding this reply to message 43 (from last month) in a thread with 87 messages (with the last message prior to this latest one dated last week): "huh?"

Greatest Threads go away after 24 hours, but "Latest Breaking News" or current GDP threads linger, seemingly, for an eternity.

"Latest Discussion Threads - Page 1" does nothing to save overnight threads from the morning rush-hour crowd and their new threads on regular daily themes.

Maybe it is just me?

[LisaLynne]

272. I think this is a good idea.

I see the GD:Chat (or whatever it ends up being called -- I agree that "Chat" has some connotations that aren't intended) forum as being fast-paced, topical, and more relaxed. A place to just post whatever political or interesting insights pop into your head or what you just heard on the radio or CNN or whatever. GD:Premium (or, again, whatever it ends up being called) hopefully will be a little slower, where you can read a post, actually think about what it said, and then reply -- confident that you'll still be part of an active conversation.

I think it's a great idea and I think after the initial shock of change wears off, it won't be long before people get a feel for what goes where.

I also love the "ticker" idea.

:thumbsup:

[Catchawave]

273. My final thoughts, maybe :)

General Discussion: Editorials and other Articles
General Discussion: Current Events
General Discussion: Politics and Campaigns, absorbed from: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=108

Trims the lobby and cuts to the chase :)

[BattyDem]

274. I like the idea.

The rules sound clear enough to avoid confusion in most cases.

I also agree that GD: Chat doesn't sound "serious" enough. How about something like GD: Dialogue or GD: Exchange. I also like GD: Express, which another DUer suggested. You could call it GD: Ramblings ... but that probably sounds worse than GD: Chat. :P

A suggestions about the GD: Politics forum ...
Why not keep it, but rename it GD: 06/08 so that we can still discuss candidates, primaries, etc. :-)



edited: typo

[area51]

276. proposed changes

I'm in the minority of those who like the system the way it is now.

[dajoki]

277. i think eliminating GDP...

would clog up the GD Forum.

[ScreamingMeemie]

278. I don't normally have an opinion on changes but, I don't like it.

Too many times threads are combined that really shouldn't be. I like the idea of leaving threads in GD lie...even if they are seen to be duplicate by some (who in my opinion have too much time on their hands). Other than that Chat style and long length style would be fine, but don't take upon the mantle of trying to decide which threads are similar enough to combine...toes get stepped on, and donations suffer. keep that in Latest Breaking News. Again, just my opinion.

[BattyDem]

294. I agree with you about combining posts

Very often, posts start out being very similar, but as the threads progress, each one veers off in a different direction. When that happens, more views and ideas are put forward and discussed. If you get too overzealous about combining similar threads, I'm afraid we'll lose the diversity. Instead of having two or three discussions, each concerning a different aspect of the same topic, you end up with one thread bogged down by information overload, LOL!

[Skinner]

298. I think you misunderstand our thoughts on this.

We would only combine threads in the new GD if they are identical -- like, when two people post the identical article. We're not going to combine threads n GD that are merely similar, or about the same topic.

[BattyDem]

302. Oh ok ... thanks for clearing that up for me

:-)

I misunderstood. It sort of sounded like the "combining threads" policy would be a bit more aggressive than they are now.

As I said in an earlier post, I do like your ideas ... and now that you've clarified this issue, I like them even more! :D


edited for clarity :crazy:

[redacted]

280. What about a Video-Audio forum

to remove video and audio news reports from GD? Posts like these sink to the bottom of GD rapidly because of traffic, and because nobody sees them, there's little incentive to post them.

If video reports aren't breaking news, and they aren't sensational enough to quickly get greatest page votes, they just languish in GD without page views. But these days there are a great many video reports, especially international press reports from Iraq and Britain not aired on U.S. media, that DU'ers deserve the opportunity to view and reference in their own posts.

[JohnLocke]

288. Great idea!

[annabanana]

283. The "greatest" page functions as GD premium now..

And posts get there by consensus from all forums. I fear that under this new plan, GD will end up being more like editorials.. and GD chat will become what GD is now.

OH and P.S. GD-Politics should go specific for the '06 election not 2008.

my 2 cents...

[JohnLocke]

284. Sounds perfect

:yourock:

[OrwellwasRight]

292. Instead if this proposal, what about . . .

I have now read the OP and every single reply and here is my 2 cents:

I like GD the way it is. That said, why not:

Add the Soapbox Forum (as suggested above) where all GD posts longer than 4 paragraphs, say, get posted for our reading pleasure. If we want to reply, the reply automatically gets posted to the OP in the GD.

Eliminate duplicate posts and polls, from the GD as these seem to annoy people and the duplicate cross posts just eat server space.

Finally, keep GD:Politics, but rename it "Elections" or "Elections & Campaigns" or whatever. I agree with the several posts above that the election 2006 season is heating up & is very important. Now is not the time to eliminate GD:P.

I think these changes would address the majority of the concerns that have been raised, improve the caliber of discussion in GD, and please many long-time DUers by not changing GD too much.

Thanks for reading my post.

Thanks for all your work, Skinner, EarlG, and Elad.

[begin_within]

293. Make a forum just for photos (news photos, Photoshopped images, etc.)

[Speed8098]

297. Great Idea

I am always in GD and I think the GDC would be a great addition.

[FredStembottom]

299. This will take some thorough moderating.....

but that is fine with me.

I would like to add that the more serious GD area require that the subject threads contain at least a snippet of content. Some kind of clue as to what the thread topic is. I am feeling overwhelmed lately with threads that are merely titled: "Oh My God!!!" or "You MUST, MUST Read This!!!" These are difficult to deal with on dial-up (which is all manny of us can afford).


Thanks.

[Robert Cooper]

300. Understood...a few problems you've probably considered

I understand that you want GD to contain the longer, more thought-provoking entries.

But I can see GDC getting swamped, little gems of wisdom or observations being lost in the deluge of 'impulse posting'.

It seems GDC is a catch-all for those of us who don't have posting rights to the DU dedicated groups (like Homeschooling). I've also noticed that some of those groups do not see much use.

Have you considered opening those groups up to the rest of us? Our topics would be sorted more finely, and make it easier for us to search for topics that interest us. Instead of opening up a new forum that is going to bear some heavy traffic, you could more fully utilize the groups you've got and make it a lot easier for everyone to find their preferred topics.

I think the plan for GD is a good one. But I think GDC is going to get out of hand awfully quick.

Just a few thoughts, hope you find them helpful.

One other thought: have you considered an "international" forum? This wouldn't be an American foreign affairs forum, but rather a forum for discussing the political events in foreign countries and the ramifications for American policies. Given that the MSM does not always cover international political events in much depth, or with much understanding at times, this would provide a forum for more useful insights into events elsewhere, preferably from the people living in those countries. Right now these are GD/GDP topics and they quickly get lost in all the topics on America. But if Canada elects a RW government you can be sure everyone will want to know how -that- happened and what it means for Democrats.

Thanks for giving it a thought.

[JackRiddler]

305. Please don't!

I am also frustrated by the way substantive threads are buried by silliness or chatty stuff in GD.

However, this is very much a function of DU's success in attracting an enormous number of members.

There are many, many boards already on here - too many to visit regularly. There are specialties for everyone who wants a specific discussion. There is the extremely useful LBN functioning as a wire service with discussion added.

I don't think another board is the solution. People will end frequenting one or the other, and not visit both. They will be confused and ultimately inhibited about which GD forum is the right one for their post. Innocent rules will end up seeming sinister as posts are shifted back and forth. There's too much of that already.

And imagine what a nightmare for the mods to handle! Save yourselves the extra work.

As imperfect as GD is now, it provides a one-stop, central forum for general interest. I'd rather go into it a couple of pages deep, than have a separate forum to visit that has the unfortunate reputation of being trivial built into its very title (GD: "Chat").

Please keep GD as is. (Also, please keep the "politics" forum for campaign and politician oriented posts. There's an existing rule that could use some enforcement...)

[Skinner]

306. "There's an existing rule that could use some enforcement."

Just for the record, there is no such rule. Under the current arrangement, members are free to post their messages in whichever General Discussion forum they please.

[computerfreak77]

326. To those who agree, why did nobody complain before?

there are a lot of sheep here who would just say hooray to any proposal made by the management of this site.
Nobody has complained of the current format as far as I know.

[Skinner]

330. I think, perhaps...

...that the reason you have not heard any of the complaints is because members are expected to email their complaints to the DU Administrators directly.

[redsoxliberal]

307. OMG! THIS IS HUGH!11!!!1!

[hippywife]

308. I want to add my support for this idea, Skinner!

But I would refrain from use of the word "premium." That word has become almost inextricably used to define pay for use type of services or access on the net.

What would replace that word? I'm not sure but I have confidence you will come up with something!

[Skinner]

314. We aren't going to use the term in the name of the forum.

The forum will likely just be called "General Discussion"

[BJW]

309. Hi Mods--Thanks for your leadership

I'm supportive of whatever you think will enhance the DU forum so that duplicative postings, mini-chats, polls and humor posts and the like are separated out from the front page rolling thread.

I would like to see the Greatest category revamped so the posts stay up much longer, and so that it takes substantially more votes to get a thread moved up.

Thanks again for everything!

[electron_blue]

311. Sounds fine, I'll try it.

[Awsi Dooger]

312. I'd hate to see GD Politics eliminated

For me it's incredibly convenient and far superior to GD. The pace is slower and less confrontational but I get much more information there than in GD. Also the threads tend to be shorter so it's easier to sample them quickly and add a point of my own when appropriate. I detect a small but very high caliber number of regular posters at GD Politics. In the instances I miss a day or two on DU I can flip back a few pages on GD Politics and catch something meaningful that I missed. I do agree too many threads seem to be double posted on GD and GD Politics. I've seen some fairly new posters doing that regularly. A request not to do it would probably suffice.

My days are chopped up with different requirements that keep me away from the computer for hours, then allow a brief return. I can always count on GD Politics to be similar to my last visit, some new threads but the ones I didn't get to merely halfway down the page if that. In GD, it's too much of a blur. I simply can't get a feel for GD proper and seldom post here or even visit. Since the 2006 primaries are mere months away in some cases I don't see a benefit of emiminating that GD Politics forum.

Frankly, I don't think GD Chat would work in a political forum. It's virtually a base contradiction. Politics is heavy material with elongated opinions and need to detail them. Self regulation is not going to fly. If someone throws out a unique and vital point of view in GD Chat what are we supposed to do, regulate ourselves to a few paragraphs, or ask them to move the topic to the premium GD Forum? The Lounge is quick and flippant but your favorite way to pick your nose doesn't require lengthy detail, at least I hope not.

[Skinner]

315. I think you misunderstand the idea behind the second GD forum

(And, for the record, we're not goign to use the word "chat" in the name)

The posting restrictions in the two GD forums would only pertain to the original post whish starts a thread. If members want to post long replies to short orignial posts, that's totally fine. And if people want to post short replies to long original posts, that's fine too.

[BiggJawn]

313. I thought "Editorial" was for the long "insightful" stuff?

Unlike some people, I don't get paid by the word.
Sometimes I am able to perfectly impart my POV in a "Brilliant 2-sentence insight" and Diarrhea of the Fingers is not my style.

But, as you've made perfectly clear in the past, it's your website.

Do as you wish, if I don't like it, I'm more than free to start up my own weak imitation of DU, aren't I? In fact, I could call it "Moderate Something-or-the-Other", right?

[montana500]

316. I like this part

"We believe there should be two General Discussion forums, with the names: General Discussion (GD) and General Discussion: Chat (GDC). These two forums would be mutually exclusive, so that only certain types of posts would be permitted in each forum. The General Discussion forums would still be reserved for topics that have some relevance to politics, public policy, or current events. Non-political stuff would still not be permitted in either GD forum."



Good plan.

[uppityperson]

317. Keep GDP for mid-term election, change "Editorial"

As the 2006 election is coming up soon, I think it would be good to continue with a Political forum for election issues. Perhaps "Election Issues"? One that has always bothered me is the Editorial section. I see the need to have a seperate place to put things like that, perhaps you could combine those type articles with the repeating notices, the topics talking about Scotty during a press-conference, that type stuff. It would be editorial articles and editorial talking ("what a bunch of bs, did you hear that!").

I strongly believe that GDP IS very important in the mid-term election coming up in order to help all of us focus and work together on getting more congressional seats.

Thanks. peace

[NightOwwl]

319. I think it's a GREAT idea!

GD gets clogged up with so much junk (some of it mine, I'll admit.) I love the idea of a "premium" GD forum.

[newswolf56]

320. Three comments about what is essentially a good idea:

(1)-Length alone is not a very apt criterion for deciding which GD forum a post belongs in: long posts sometimes engender short answers, and short posts sometimes engender long answers. Thus I respectfully submit the criteria themselves need further refinement. So refined, they would be a boon to us in terms of readily understood standards, and a boon to you the moderators in terms of minimizing the number of disputes. It seems to me a better standard is that of intent: serious discussion versus humor and sarcasm -- but that of course raises the question of what is to be done with a serious thread that deteriorates into mere quippiness, or the opposite: a thread begun with comedic intent that suddenly blossoms into a reasoned and insightful dialogue. (I fully empathize with your task; as an editor, I have had to deal with this story-category question more times -- and in more frustratingly problematical ways -- than ever I like to remember.)

(2)-I would be remiss if I did not note I was extremely unhappy with the way the "GD/GD:CIA Leak" experiment worked out: there were far too many stories completely unrelated to the CIA Leak but nevertheless gathered into that forum -- so many that in one instance I complained to the moderators and was essentially told the wildly inappropriate categorization was caused by a computer glitch. (The relevant correspondence is no longer in my DU files, which is too bad because I wanted to use its quotes and specifics not to belittle anyone but to illustrate how absurdly far off the categorization actually was: what prompted my complaint was a discussion of the ever-more-dangerous Dominionist Christian {i.e., fascist} ideology that motivates so many Bush supporters -- a promising discussion suddenly relegated to the "CIA Leak" forum, and the thread effectively shut down as a result.)

(3)-One statement in the above OP truly made my night: DU's ongoing quest for "brilliant two-sentence insight into the criminal mind of George W. Bush." Hear, hear! (Not only is the phrase well-crafted; every time it runs through my mind, it makes me grin an evil grin: thank you.)

[Skinner]

322. Answers.

1) I think that a system based on intent would be extremely difficult to implement and enforce. While length is not a completely useful criteria, it would work in most cases, and is furthermore easy to enforce. We aren't going to concern ourselves with the quality of the discussion that ensues -- If a good discussion occurs in the "chat" forum, that's fine, and if a lame discussion occurs in the "premium" forum, that's fine too.

2) I'm not sure that the problem you had with the cia leak case split was really a computer glitch. I suspect what happened is that there were some old threads still floating around in either forum after the name change which would have caused the inconsistncy you saw. But I think a more important point is that random stuff happens on message boards, and it's just a fact of life. Every day we have a number of orphaned threads that are great but don't get much attention due to random chance. That happens now, and it would happen with whatever system we end up with.

3) Thanks. I liked that, too.

[NJmaverick]

323. I don't like tht plan

I know you guys are trying to make things better, but I don't particularly care for the approach suggested. I think trying to split discussion by topics might be a better approach.

[Nimrod2005]

324. I would not have a problem with the proposed changes...Thanks.

[ClassWarrior]

325. Sometimes I like to throw a meme out there for everyone to...

...debate and pass on. And usually that's enough to generate some decent discussion. Now if I don't come up with two paragraphs of fluff to support it, it's going to be relegated to some sort of "ghetto forum" to be forgotten.

I think this idea is arbitrary and ill-conceived.

NGU.

[woo me with science]

334. I agree with this.

I think a rule based on length is going to encourage people to blather on and pad their posts in order to get them on the "important" forum. Some ideas are best presented briefly, particularly on a discussion board.

How about an entirely separate forum for polls? It would be fun sometimes to just go around taking polls.

[computerfreak77]

327. America's butt kissing mentality

A hollywood actor with no experience will run for governor in california.
good idea!
let's invade iraq with no proof that they are a threat.
good idea!
let's make changes to the board that nobody called for
good idea!
Republicans and Democrats alike have a butt-kissing mentality. wake up America.

[expatriot]

328. behind it 100% but I think enforcing an objective wall between the two

will be much easier said than done. This difficulty is no reason not to do it, it does need to be done. It just will be interesting is all I am saying and you guys got your work cut out for you but of course you're up to it, you always are.

[erinlough]

329. As I always have on this forum I bow to the superior wisdom....

of the more prolific posters. As a newer person I can tell you, however, that it is already confusing and intimidating to post on this site. I sometimes write things and then cancel them because of my reluctance to post in the wrong place. So, if the purpose is to suit the more seasoned vets it seems like a good idea, but if you are concerned with making newer posters more comfortable perhaps a clearer definition between the GD and GDchat could be helpful.

[Zinfandel]

331. A General Discussion Media---

For all media discussion posts...HardBall, O'Reilly, AAR, Mike Malloy, Fox News, Limbaugh, Real Time, etc...

[XemaSab]

332. I read the whole OP

and I have two somewhat off-topic suggestions.

One, it would be nice if you could see your PMs while in the forums, instead of just on the Lobby page.

Two, perhaps have GD: Politics and GD: Culture, or break down GD even further into areas for discussing the Administration, the Democratic Party and Democrats, etc.

:hi:

(on edit: also, sometimes there are really short, well thought out OP's, and freakin' manifestos that are very light on content. I'd worry that important thoughts could get buried under this format. Also, what poster wants to admit that their post is fluffy and totally non-conducive to serious discussion?)

[XemaSab]

333. dupe

n/t

[jody]

335. Good idea. Consider moving GD threads after 24 hours to appropriate forum.

That is done in some instances today, e.g. threads to the Guns Forum.

That gives all DU members a chance to participate even though they don't participate in special topic forums.

[all.of.me]

336. i think it's a good plan

it will take some getting used to, but will keep the GD board cleaner. i spend time at LBN, then i go to GD to get more discussions on the topics from LBN. the HUGH!!11-type posts seem lounge-ish for GD, if that makes sense, so a lounge-ish kind of place needs to be opened for them (GD Chat). so... i approve! thanks, skinner, et al.