Third Eye Film Society Forum Index
Author Message

<  Third Eye Archives - Specialty Forums  ~  Pay no attention...

whiskeypriest
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:34 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 6916 Location: "It's a Dry Heat."
Breaking out "Couch With a View" into genres might be a good idea, but I doubt it will solve what is really the main problem if you are not familiar with the board: it is very difficult to have anything like a continued structure of a discussion about a topic the way the board is set up. If I come here and want to discuss a recent movie, there's no real way to easily see what's been discussed, there's no way to easily respond to another's point. In part it's because of the search function being dysfunctional, in part it is because of a lack of threading. But discussions of a film may draw out over time because we don't all live in areas where movies first appear, and we don't all get to new ones right away. By the time I get to see A Serious Man, billy's comments will be pages and pages in the past, and there's no good way for me to find them and respond to them.

I think this is what kills the discussions more than anything, more than the idle chit-chat, which is everywhere you go, because, you know, people. I don't have a clue how to remedy that.

_________________
I ask you, Velvel, as a rational man, which of us is possessed?
View user's profile Send private message
Melody
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:45 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 2242 Location: TX
About the only way to remedy that would be make an overall category called Current Films. Then inside of Current would be separate threads named for each movie.

Right now, only Lorne & the Mods can start new threads, so we'd either have to notify them we wanted a new thread or we'd all have to be given the power to start a new one. Crazy, huh?

_________________
My heart told my head: This time, no.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
chillywilly
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:23 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 8250 Location: Salt Lake City
Marj wrote:
Can I just say how happy I am to see Chills and Melody back here more often. You've both been so missed. Very Happy

Why thank you. I'm making schedule changes to my uber list of projects so I can be here several times a week.

_________________
Chilly
"If you should die before me / Ask if you could bring a friend"
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
chillywilly
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:32 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 8250 Location: Salt Lake City
Marj wrote:
This is also the kind of idea I had. And I agree that there's nothing wrong with the board as it is. But if we want to attract new members, which Lorne says we must, this might be the way to go.

Marj, yes, you did suggest this as well. When I typed out that post, my mind was wondering how many have made similar suggestions.

I think the biggest question here that needs to be answered is:

Do we need more members to stick around?

I am with Lorne on this one with answering yes, but it needs to be from a perspective of integration. Friends of friends then letting others find us as we tweak settings, sub forums and search settings.

Growth is an ongoing process of any society. We are a collective group that's melded into a comfortable place on our own, but even some of our own have made their exits, quite possibly the person who owns the rights to this place (Marc).

As we face the eFork in the web, we need to decide what direction to take this place. We have some options and a bit of time.

_________________
Chilly
"If you should die before me / Ask if you could bring a friend"
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
chillywilly
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:58 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 8250 Location: Salt Lake City
whiskeypriest wrote:
Breaking out "Couch With a View" into genres might be a good idea, but I doubt it will solve what is really the main problem if you are not familiar with the board: it is very difficult to have anything like a continued structure of a discussion about a topic the way the board is set up. If I come here and want to discuss a recent movie, there's no real way to easily see what's been discussed, there's no way to easily respond to another's point. In part it's because of the search function being dysfunctional, in part it is because of a lack of threading. But discussions of a film may draw out over time because we don't all live in areas where movies first appear, and we don't all get to new ones right away. By the time I get to see A Serious Man, billy's comments will be pages and pages in the past, and there's no good way for me to find them and respond to them.

I think this is what kills the discussions more than anything, more than the idle chit-chat, which is everywhere you go, because, you know, people. I don't have a clue how to remedy that.

Lady_W's suggestion of a newer version of the software could be in order and it most likely supports better structure.

_________________
Chilly
"If you should die before me / Ask if you could bring a friend"
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Syd
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:15 pm Reply with quote
Site Admin Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 12887 Location: Norman, Oklahoma
What you need is something called an index. Any idea how to set one up on a blog?

_________________
I had a love and my love was true but I lost my love to the yabba dabba doo, --The Flintstone Lament
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
lady wakasa
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:31 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 5911 Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Syd wrote:
What you need is something called an index. Any idea how to set one up on a blog?


Not automatically happening with PHP (the package we use now). Several of the suggestions given would basically do that, though.

One extension of Whiskey / Chilly's comments: if we do, say, Current with subtopics by movie names, we could consider moving the topics once they're a little dated (e.g., A Serious Man discussion could be moved to a "Past Happenings" after six months or a year).

Creating the categories, etc isn't hard - but it really should be left to moderators.

I'll see if I can start putting all the comments together this weekend, although there is a milestone happening Monday which already has been working late tonight (and which I have to get back to).

=============

You know what's nice about this? We are *discussing* it. That's what I think needed to happen.

_________________
===================
http://www.wakasaworld.com
View user's profile Send private message
Joe Vitus
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:51 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 14498 Location: Houston
I'm frankly baffled by the complaints. In the first place, I don't understand where the idea comes from that our layout is confusing. It is identical to what we had at the Times, and I don't recall many instances where a newcomer there was perplexed about where to post. So I don't understand why newcomers would be perplexed now.

As for the the idea that we break this forum down into threads for individual movies, I think this is a bad idea because, while it might help in following the topic of a particular conversation, it hurts the collective imput of particular personalities. So that, rather than have an idea what movies Billy is seeing at this time and what he thinks of them, I'm just left with a lot posts that demonstrate how many people did/did not like This is It. It also complicates the process of comparing movies to one another, which generally leads to larger conversations about Current Releases, or Pre-Code Movies or whatever. An All About Eve folder discourages a protracted conversation about Hermn Mankiewicz, Bette Davis, adult dramas as they were produced in that era, or various other conversations that the movie might lead to. To put it simply, I think very specific folders lead to dumbed-down conversations.

Similarly, I don't understand what's difficult about catching up with past conversations. In the first place, the search engine is pretty simple to use. And if someone is having trouble with it, one post about how to search will bring a ton of responses saying "Click posts, not topics" and the problem is solved. But you don't even have to do a search. If you post about a movie you've just seen, most people who have seen it are likley to comment again. Few people here are uncomforatble with re-stating their opinions.

Remember, the template we use is extraordinarily common. It's used for everything from entertainment to study topics, to health issues. Any new member is likely to have encountered it at least once before, including the somewhat cumbersome search engine.

If the argument is that our current layout keeps members away, I think that is flat out wrong.

_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.

-Topher
View user's profile Send private message
lady wakasa
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:26 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 5911 Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
I can't respond to everything (because I'm actually working late), but here's a quick response, Joe.

Joe Vitus wrote:
I'm frankly baffled by the complaints. In the first place, I don't understand where the idea comes from that our layout is confusing. It is identical to what we had at the Times, and I don't recall many instances where a newcomer there was perplexed about where to post. So I don't understand why newcomers would be perplexed now.


Actually, I'm pretty sure there were more categories at the NYT...

A big part of the issue is that we've lost a number of members, just due to life changes. We don't have a huge base now, and if we lose a few more people - which will happen eventually - both the server charges and just having enough people to keep the site going become considerations. So we have to figure out how to address that.

Quote:
As for the the idea that we break this forum down into threads for individual movies, I think this is a bad idea because, while it might help in following the topic of a particular conversation, it hurts the collective imput of particular personalities. So that, rather than have an idea what movies Billy is seeing at this time and what he thinks of them, I'm just left with a lot posts that demonstrate how many people did/did not like This is It.


I think it comes down to what this site really is, as Marj described above: a group of friends that sometimes discuss movies, or a movie discussion site with a group of friends. What we have no is the former, which is fine if that's what people want; but it's not working well as far as drawing people in.

It is *very* possible to have personalities on a site whose main focus is film. That's not a problem (although it may seem like it looking from the set up we have here).

Also, I would think for a newbie, though, who'd seen This is It and wanted to talk about it but doesn't know much at all about the people here, this is not a friendly layout at all.

(And while my viewing is down until my employment situation changes, my major film discussion isn't really here. Yes, I can't find many people who see what I've seen, but there aren't that many sustained conversations about a given film here.)

Quote:
It also complicates the process of comparing movies to one another, which generally leads to larger conversations about Current Releases, or Pre-Code Movies or whatever. An All About Eve folder discourages a protracted conversation about Hermn Mankiewicz, Bette Davis, adult dramas as they were produced in that era, or various other conversations that the movie might lead to. To put it simply, I think very specific folders lead to dumbed-down conversations.


Don't agree at all, because I've seen it happen very successfully under the structure you're describing.

Quote:
Remember, the template we use is extraordinarily common. It's used for everything from entertainment to study topics, to health issues. Any new member is likely to have encountered it at least once before, including the somewhat cumbersome search engine.


Most instances of it have been upgraded (a few times over), including the search engine functionality. This would be comparable to using Windows 95 today (even disregarding the speed issue).

Quote:
If the argument is that our current layout keeps members away, I think that is flat out wrong.


If that's true, why have we had maybe two new members in the two year period before two weeks ago, both of whom ended up being banned? That's the real problem: in that period we've lost 5-10 people, and gained zero.

_________________
===================
http://www.wakasaworld.com
View user's profile Send private message
lady wakasa
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:02 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 5911 Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
One other thing: we are always having people post their impressions of a film, and someone else comes up and says "but I posted about that last week / last month / when I saw it last year." So there is an issue with discontinuity of discussions even among us.

_________________
===================
http://www.wakasaworld.com
View user's profile Send private message
Joe Vitus
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:32 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 14498 Location: Houston
Lady,

The Times offered no more selections than we do. There was The Lobby, Current Film, Home Viewing and sometimes a specialty forum. That's it.

I've found discussions on sites that break down files by specific films to be very limited.

The only difference that we would experience with a newer version of this template would be an improvement of the search engine, but as I said once you know what choice to make the search engine is incredibly easy.

Yes, people claim "I've already posted about it." Such a comment is invariably followed by a restatement of their original post. Does it turn people off to read "I've already posted on this"? Are the people saying that themselves offended that they were passed over before. I suspect the answer is "no" in both cases.

_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.

-Topher
View user's profile Send private message
Syd
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:35 pm Reply with quote
Site Admin Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 12887 Location: Norman, Oklahoma
lady wakasa wrote:
One other thing: we are always having people post their impressions of a film, and someone else comes up and says "but I posted about that last week / last month / when I saw it last year." So there is an issue with discontinuity of discussions even among us.


By the way, you can use the url tag to link to the earlier review, which helps.

_________________
I had a love and my love was true but I lost my love to the yabba dabba doo, --The Flintstone Lament
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Melody
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:38 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 2242 Location: TX
I wanted to read what others had written about Zombieland last night, so I did a search for "Zombieland" by post which returned about eight or nine posts. I read those, but didn't have time to follow through from the first instance to see if there were others who talked about it but didn't happen to mention the word "Zombieland" in their posts. Therefore, I probably missed out on reading what some of you wrote.

Another good point about separating Current into subcategories by name of film is that the chances of running across a spoiler are greatly reduced.

Joe, most of us have gotten off topic at one time or another. If it happens in a subcategory of Current, it ain't the end of the world. We're having a discussion about femmes fatale in Current film right now, for instance, triggered by a question Betsy asked several days ago about women in Tarantino films.

Also, I am not one to reiterate what I've said in a previous review. Now I'm thinking many of you must think I don't see movies because I don't do this. I just figure if nobody cared enough to comment about the drivel I wrote previously, why would they care now?

Lady, you raise good points. Let me ask this: If we revamp the site, will we lose the content in the process, or is there a way to somehow transfer and/or archive?

_________________
My heart told my head: This time, no.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Joe Vitus
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:42 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 14498 Location: Houston
Why do we have so few members? This question has been kicked around since we were back on the Times, when the moderator would threaten to radically change things because we weren't getting half as many new members as other forums. We were told this time and time again. Since about the year 2000.

My guess: it's us. Something about the way we interact both keeps regulars coming back and makes potential newcomers feel like outsiders. Indeed, several people here still consider themselves unimportant because they were not part of the core group at the Times. Even telling these people this is not the case and they are considered valuable does not seem to do help much. I don't know why this should be the case. We always heartily welcome new members, and always have. Maybe the intensity with which we defend our positions? Basically, I think it's a question of personalities and what sort of person is attracted to our conversation and what sort of person is not. I do not find our minority status offensive.

In addition, most people only have a couple of regular sites for movies. Few people go all over the web looking for new places to talk. A lot of potential members have already settled in somewhere else.

_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.

-Topher
View user's profile Send private message
Joe Vitus
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:46 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 14498 Location: Houston
Melody,

I'm not bothered by subcategories because of the potential to get off topic. Few of us here are topic Nazis. We allow discussions to wander. My problem is that the nature of sharply defined forums is to discourage conversation about anything other than that topic. The nice thing about something as broad as Current Film is that it can range from a review of a specific movie, to how the movie's genre is generally treated today, to what sort of movies are currently in vogue. It gives us room to expand any particular discussion.

_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.

-Topher
View user's profile Send private message

Display posts from previous:  

All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 152 of 155
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 151, 152, 153, 154, 155  Next
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum