Forum Brancing....thingy

Firstly this isn’t really a suggestion because I’m not even sure if it’s possible to do. The problem I have is with the hierarchical structure of the topics and also with how topics get buried never to see the light of day again, I’m sure there are plenty of interesting threads which would still be active if only they were more easily accessible…so I thought some kind of branching structure for posts would be nice, so that when a person posts something on specific subjects such as time, consciousness, Nietzsche or whatever then other ‘relevant’ threads would appear also, kind of like the ‘similar feature’ feature on youtube. But then if there could be some way of interweaving the relevant threads depending on the discussion, without somehow obstructing the discussion…I’m not sure how the interface would operate all this…threads would need tags, maybe that feature could actually be implemented…seems like allot goes to waste here, we need some voodoo thread magic to resurrect the dead threads. Just a thought.

I think we already sorta have that. All you need is a poster who is a) drunk and belligerent b) angry/focused on a particular subject and c) willing/able to use the search function. It doesn’t happen too often, but there have been some Sunday mornings where daring feats of thread necromancy have been revealed.

A lot of what you’re suggesting would require a substantially different software package than the one we’re using. It is also pretty experimental: instead of sequential discussion, you’d sort of have a set of disconnected thoughts about a subject, which might be better for research, but would make discussions harder.

Others have suggested a Wiki in the past, and I’m considering one. A Wiki would allow for stable content which doesn’t expire in the same way that threads do. Topics could be updated when new threads about them come up, and the significant progress could be transferred.
This is just sort of a jury-rig approximation of what you’re suggesting, but to do the whole thing is beyond my skill level. I’m actually unsure that I have the requisite knowledge to install Wiki software without totally destroying everything, which is a large part of the reason I haven’t done it yet.

Xunzian also makes a good point: topics never totally disappear. The search function is sub-optimal, but the topics are all there, I think all the way back to the beginning of the site, but I can’t swear to that.

I don’t think I would necessarily like something like that.

The problem that I see with it is that it would dramatically lower the number of new topics as many people would take notice to a topic already having been discussed.

While that is not necessarily a negative thing in itself, I do not know that older members and newer members especially would be as quick to post regarding something that has already been discussed.

While many see this as a good thing, I do not because I am of the impression that the opening post in a new thread is a sort of launching pad which could take the thread in many different directions that the already existing thread may have failed to go.

Even if a new topic (that had already been discussed previously) was posted and the content was 1% original and 99% a repeat just with different wording, I would hate to miss out on that 1%. When you look at a specific topic (that you are thinking about starting) that has already had a thread and said thread has had 200-something replies and has been inactive for a year, that can be kind of intimidating and a newer user may not want to post the new topic anymore.

My final argument against continuing tapped-out threads as opposed to starting a new thread is that some of the members that post regularly now were not here then, and some of the members that posted regularly then are not here now.

Different People = Different Conversation

Yeah Yeah it’s not a great idea, Carleas was right about it being more appropriate for research rather than discussion.

:laughing: My idea is a lazy mans approach to the search function, lazy or realistic I’m not sure.