Problems to Fix and Possible Solutions

[littlefishie]

So obviously this thread is for people to post their opinions about problems with the old JCNET and to discuss possible ways to deal with that in the new JCNET.

One thing that drives me nuts is that in all these discussion/state your opinion threads, I find a bazillion responses that state exactly the same thing. These responses add nothing but clutter to the thread. They provide no new insights, and members like me are often discouraged from posting due to all this. These replies also make the threads way too long for people to read through. I often don't like posting unless I've read through a lot of the thread to see to what extent something is being discussed, but when I come across when of these long threads, I really don't feel like reading the entire thing.

I mean, people should know that if they don't have anything new to add, they shouldn't comment, but perhaps they feel like they need to show that they agree. In which case, perhaps we could have an agree button function, where people can click the button and it'll show that they agree with the person's post. I guess it's kinda like a thank you button function, but for individual posts... Eh... I don't know if that's a good solution or whether that's even possible... but I would like that.

[jaychous_girl_4ever]

In terms of the "agree" button, don't you think that's a bit...robotic? It would feel like just another poll. I'm not trying to sound mean but like you said, people like giving their opinions, even if it means they are just simply agreeing or disagreeing. There's only so much to talk about or in some cases, so many responses. What if there was a thread that asked, "What is your favorite color?" and you really liked blue. But some one said it already. So should you not say anything now? But okay, maybe that ws a bad example. Let's say, someone posted a news translation about Jay and his new album. Someone already posted that they were excited about it and many some other stuff about what they expect. Well, everyone is going to be excited about it and everyone is going to have similar, but variable feelings. What I'm trying to get at is that I feel it is a bit harsh to say that just because you have nothing new to add, don't comment. That might make members 1. enter a crazy race of who can comment first or 2. feel like they can't say what they want anymore just because it was said before which may lead to an unhappy and dead environment or 3. people will just make up random things to say in order to contribute but keep up their post counts. Plus, determing what is "new" or "old" can be quite a blurry job. They are surely going to be disputes.

[kirasuran]

well i agree with both of you, because yes reading through pages of the same responses, but differently worded is QUITE annoying and time wasting.

but on the other hand, how else would people give a response to which has already been posted?

this is surely one of the biggest problems that we must think of a solution to.

(for example) haha note in this post i have just repeated BOTH of your points of view. now no-one else need to post UNLESS they have other contributions hahaha!

well, this sort of contradicts with what karen said before but i thought id just mention it anyway. this is a JAY forum right? i jus feel theres been a slight loss on the "overall J-factor"

i dunnno....jusa feeling.

[twilighthush]

I rhapsodically agree with littlefishie! Quite frankly, it's rather redundant, especially in the debates forums, when we see the same argument posted ten times in a row.

I mean, it's one thing for someone to take an agreeing response and to expound upon it quite a bit, but its' another thing to literally write the same thing, verbatim.

[judes]

^ i think this will always be a problem in whatever forum you go to though. some people want to share their opinion but find that it's the exact same opinion as someone else, but i don't think they should be barred from expressing their feelings on a certain subject because of that.

the thing is, what kind of forum are we seeing in our minds for the future?
do we want a forum that has short threads with discussions that can be wrapped up within a week or so, or do we want long threads that take pages and pages to read but makes the forum cleaner?

i think that's an important point to address, especially for the entertainment forums with threads about artists, as we have long long threads where people are all "OMG I LUV _____" but no real discussion is happening and nobody really wants to dig through that.

we've kind of gone through a revamp where you can have a pictures thread, a news thread, etc, and i think we should move towards that so there's more activity and "life" about certain artists / topics.

[twilighthush]

^It isn't about barring their opinion. I think the same opinion can be shared, but not necessarily the same exact way. Let's take a hypothetical example:

Jane posts, "I love cheese."
John posts, "Me too!"
Joe also posts, "Me too!"

Take the "Me too!" statement and multiply it by 50. Now that's redundancy.

Now, if John posts, "Me too! I especially like it with crackers and wine. My favorite type of cheese is gouda. The flavor is so smooth" and then Joe goes and posts "I like cheese too, but I like cheddar instead because it has a zingy taste to it" -- well, that's stating the same opinion, but adding your own two cents to it.

I think the "agree" button would really be reserved for comments that have no value to the conversation.

[judes]

i'm not sure, because sometimes there really isn't anything you CAN add to a conversation. like if someone above you has already said that they like cheddar cheese, i mean you can also agree with them if your favourite cheese is cheddar cheese, but wouldn't that be a "redundant" post? i mean opinions are going to overlap all the time, so it's difficult to really distinguish which is an "i agree" post and which is a "new opinions" post when they're really closely related.

to me an "i agree" button seems kind of silly.
i honestly have no other suggestion that could be an alternative. i'll have to think on that.

[twilighthush]

^ Hmm, now that you put it that way, it does seem to make sense... Maybe an "I agree" button would be a little too universal because who knows what you're agreeing to since it usually only lets you agree to the person who made the post in the first place.

[judes]

*head explodes*
i don't know if this problem can ever be solved. there are always going to people who will post one liners just to agree or disagree with a discussion.
which is why i like the rules we have here, i don't think we were too lax or too easy with them, but like other people said, maybe it's our ways of enforcing the rules that are a little over the top and made people afraid of expressing what they feel.

i was thinking of my earlier question though, do we want a forum that consists of a lot of long threads but not that many threads, or do we want many many threads but they're short and wrap up in about a week to a month's time?

i think that perhaps we may want to take the route of having shorter threads to keep the feel of the board fresh and alive. we also might want to delete threads that are older than a certain time just to keep the conversations going and so people don't go back and dig up older threads.

[twilighthush]

In regards to the long/short posts thing -- I think it's better to have a mix of both, a median that has just a bit of this and that. But that's just my opinion.

[HarmonyCloud]

I feel that people's posts aren't particularly long or short. It just gets a little frustratiing when people don't post or a thread dies and then randomly comes back to life. But People are busy and have school certain times of the year etc...are bound to be quite especially since most members are returning members and ofcourse things happen like certain times of the school year people cant always be active...

[Wendy]

I just like to point out another problem we have on jcnet.

Like most other ppl might have noticed, this forum is most active when Jay releases a new album, or movie. Other than that period, this forum is kinda "dead". With only a few people posting and the helpful news posters.

I do also understand that most members are still schooling. They need to concentrate on their studies. However, what i am suggesting is that, we can ask members (for example) to login / post at least once every week or whatsoever, to keep this forum alive. And of cos, we don't want "junk" posts for this. I know that this is easier said than done. However, this is just my little suggestion.

[jayx8318x]

One thing that drives me nuts is that in all these discussion/state your opinion threads, I find a bazillion responses that state exactly the same thing.
Of course that drives some people nuts, but usually the people who have read or followed the entire thread correct? Just like the discussion topics concerning the revamp, people have responded with the same suggestions or problems over and over. I don't really think it's something we have to solve bc it's just not easy to REQUIRE people to read a topic before posting. Now for topics that are 1-2 pages and the posts aren't novels like we have for the JCNET planning stuff, that's a different story.

I know I hate it when people ask a question in Jay Q&R and one person responds with the correct answer, then 5 people respond with "Yep that's correct!" and continue to repeat exactly what the answer was. In this case we can just lock it.

But for a discussion topic, what are you gonna do? *shrugs* I just don't see it as THAT big a bother.

And for something totally different:

I wanna address a problem that no one seems to have brought up.
We've talked about "older" members ganging up on newbies or noobs. But how about the established members turning on each other? Many instances there appears to be members in groups scheming, or acting in a way collectively to perturb another member, either to drive them out or whatever.

I know it's difficult for members to confront each other. But how can we mediate this? People want the person in question to know they are bothersome or whatnot, but they want to stay anonymous about it. Send a collective virtual "you suck, shape up or get out" greeting and hope they get the message?

Yes I've seen it, but turn the other way or don't comment. But I think there has to be a better way. So that all parties don't leave with a bad taste in their mouth.

[littlefishie]

But how about the established members turning on each other? Many instances there appears to be members in groups scheming, or acting in a way collectively to perturb another member, either to drive them out or whatever.

I know it's difficult for members to confront each other. But how can we mediate this?
Hmm... Well, usually the way to go would be to have a third party mediator(s), either one with more authority (like a group leader) or someone who is close to either party. That person could casually point out (as opposed to send a right out warning) some of the problems to the bothersome member and at the same time, ask the other members to keep an open mind and give the member a second chance. And this is supposed to work.

However, perhaps the problem in our case, is that the member might not take into consideration these suggestions, or the other members are expecting the member to fix things right away and it doesn't happen. So the basic conflict is still there...

I'm not sure how we could fix that when a lot of the responsibility lies with the parties involved.

[linny]

^ I agree, it'd be difficult to mediate if members don't take up responsibility. I'm not sure how mediating sessions would work since a constant flow of communication would be needed... Scheduled chats? PMs? The whole idea brings up court rooms and go betweens.

I don't know, I think if certain members are bothered by another member, the bothersome member should be allowed to know who's bringing up the complaint/suggestion/feeling. A mediator is probably necessary, but I still feel like it's common courtesy to make both parties involved aware of each other. :x


As for the discussions and what to do about them, I don't think there's any real way we can police this. It's not really easy to tell which threads people will really be excited about and want to expound on and which ones will just eventually flounder out. Plus, JC.netters actually have an unusual talent for finding ways to make the smallest topic become something interesting, so...

What might help with this is put a limit on threads to maybe 100-300 posts instead of the standard 500 right now.

Also! We could have a thing where at the front of the first post or maybe at the top of every page, the poster makes a short bulleted list of what's been stated on the last page so when people look, they're not lost and can continue the conversation?

We could also have certain members who are active in that topic appoint themselves as discussion leaders and periodically steer the discussion in different directions until the topic's been flipped inside and out.


AND! I actually have another problem I'm kind of hoping we can brainstorm solutions for. In a lot of threads (especially some of the artist threads), oftentimes it feels like it's hard to jump in because a lot of members will reply to specific members, leaving little leeway to really break into the discussion. Is there a way to decrease this? Or is it just one of those cases where those who are afriad to post in should just suck it up and dive in? o.O

[judes]

We've talked about "older" members ganging up on newbies or noobs. But how about the established members turning on each other?
*blinks* i think it's unavoidable. if you have a group of people together, they're going to turn on each other eventually because someone will annoy another. all we can do in this case is if it gets really bad, a mod or an admin will have to speak up and tell them to stop. it's like a teacher/student thing, but that's the only way i can see it stopping.

What might help with this is put a limit on threads to maybe 100-300 posts instead of the standard 500 right now.
i like this idea a lot, this way threads can become even more manageable. it's a pain scrolling through 500 posts of giant threads when we can cut down even more on the number of posts within a thread and have an "updated" first post for each thread so members don't have to dig through all of those posts. i think 100 is a pretty good number.

We could have a thing where at the front of the first post or maybe at the top of every page, the poster makes a short bulleted list of what's been stated on the last page so when people look, they're not lost and can continue the conversation?
it's hard to know who will end up at the top of every page though, and someone will have to go in and make sure that the poster for that post updates the info on the last page. i think this would be too difficult. the only way to solve this would be to, like you suggested before, shorten the post numbers in each thread.

In a lot of threads (especially some of the artist threads), oftentimes it feels like it's hard to jump in because a lot of members will reply to specific members, leaving little leeway to really break into the discussion.
erm there will always be problems with this again. people like familiarity, but perhaps we should work on the members and have them be more encouraging and fostering an environment where everyone can contribute.

[DragonPrince]

The long posts: I think its hard for people to catch up sometimes. Even for people like me who comes up and very often could get myself lost at times. Maybe someone can summarise everything or recent topic by the click of a button by the side, or somewhere, linking them to a page where they can read what was mentioned. Its not difficult for people who come up almost everyday. Hmm...who is going to take over when someone goes for a holiday? Another mod? Even when you shorten the thread to 300 posts, I believe some poeple will be lost too.

But I don't think it will apply to some post threads and picture threads, sometimes, they say about the same things and posting something similar is so common. If you want to avoid the same comment posted by different members, I think the gallery or news threads will die off after a few posts.

When I was a newbie, I didn't know how to post or where to start. I just go in, greet people. Maybe we can have a guide to newbies like as in how to start to chat. e.g. 'Go in' and say Hi or something. Some newbies are too afraid to post after they knew that there are so many rules to follow. We can send them a PM of things they can look for when they first come in. e.g links to rules.

[Wendy]

AND! I actually have another problem I'm kind of hoping we can brainstorm solutions for. In a lot of threads (especially some of the artist threads), oftentimes it feels like it's hard to jump in because a lot of members will reply to specific members, leaving little leeway to really break into the discussion. Is there a way to decrease this? Or is it just one of those cases where those who are afriad to post in should just suck it up and dive in? o.O

Well, i always think that jcnetters are the friendliest people i ever met in the cyberworld. I recently joined in an artist thread, and they were really welcoming, making me feel really at ease. Its a matter of whether u are willing to make your first post or not.

Another thing is that, I saw somewhere that someone mentioning that to delete older threads or to prevent people from briniging up old threads. I was thinking, why not instead of completely deleting the threads, we can archive them. So that people can go back and read them, but not posting in the threads. Or did we already have that?

[ColaPoP]

i think that perhaps we may want to take the route of having shorter threads to keep the feel of the board fresh and alive. we also might want to delete threads that are older than a certain time just to keep the conversations going and so people don't go back and dig up older threads.
Idea: On vBulletin, does this forum have the function for members to 'rate' threads? That way, interesting topics with a high rate point stay, and lowly 'rated' topics are automatically discarded. So it's fine for people to talk about 'their favourite colour', but as it's not that great a topic... it will get auto-deleted over time. Even if the same topic shows up again, it would be a cycle. Something bothersome, but not burdensome.

Potential problem: Noobs that try to bolster the 'rate' of a thread they've created.

it's a pain scrolling through 500 posts of giant threads when we can cut down even more on the number of posts within a thread and have an "updated" first post for each thread so members don't have to dig through all of those posts.
Updated first posts can be a pain in the ass the manage, plus you'll need the 1st poster to commit to that responsibility. Can I suggest browsing large topics through Archive (http://www.jay-chou.net/forums/archive/index.php)? (bottom right of screen). This is also a great way to surf on dail-up to browse large threads, or find specific keywords "CTRL +F" as it lists the basics only: poster & comment.

I wanna address a problem that no one seems to have brought up... I know it's difficult for members to confront each other. But how can we mediate this? People want the person in question to know they are bothersome or whatnot, but they want to stay anonymous about it.
You mean, even after individual members have all PMed memberX and they still don't get it? Beat's me. I find once the majority of people have made a decision with a negative opinion of memberX, that member is done. Outta here. It's sad... perhaps we will need to examine past incidents with membersXYZ cases individually, and discuss in hindsite what could have been done instead to avoid that ganging up process? Either in F54, or upper sub-forums. That way we can try and address such cases early on, before it gets out of hand. Tho sometimes... such membersXYZ motives baffle me, we meet unique and unusual chracters all the time. Perhaps, as individuals, we can be more acceptable of differences in character from the norm? That said, this is a personal issue and not a forum issue. *sigh*


The Alpha to Omega Guide (http://jay-chou.net/forums/showpost.php?p=654574&postcount=1) for the New JCNET [Last Update: 7/28]
Forum Features / Functionality
- Ranks
(everyone in the JCNETizen group or higher will be able to edit their own rank, none of that "Jay admirer, Jay #1 fan" default ones, unless you choose not to change it)
This should be fun, but I imagine there will be some silly buggers out there. Will this need modding? Just thinking...

[jayfalc0n]

i was thinking of my earlier question though, do we want a forum that consists of a lot of long threads but not that many threads, or do we want many many threads but they're short and wrap up in about a week to a month's time?
i think that perhaps we may want to take the route of having shorter threads to keep the feel of the board fresh and alive. we also might want to delete threads that are older than a certain time just to keep the conversations going and so people don't go back and dig up older threads.

what's wrong with digging up old threads? sometimes you want to discuss a topic which has already been brought up before, but since it isn't advisable to repeat a topic, members just search for a similar one which already exists... much better than making up a new thread to discuss something old right?
i think the current closing-threads-after-500-posts rule works fine.

[judes]

^ because once again, people will have to read through many many pages of threads and then post an opinion or else (sometimes) sound misinformed or repeating everything over and over again.

i think there should be a forum purge once in a while and perhaps any thread older than a certain time deleted.

it's just an annoyance to me to see threads that are two years old come back.