| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Directory? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 20 2011, 02:08 PM (3,205 Views) | |
| OcelotJay | Sep 1 2011, 06:16 PM Post #61 |
|
<3 mine [big]Miaow[/big]
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A complete restart? Eep! I imagine that won't sit well with boards that are active and have earned their place in the directory. I know they can and would rebuild, but some covet their rank as a mark of their hard work. That doesn't mean the idea wouldn't work of course. If the slate is wiped clean then inactive boards will naturally remain off the directory until an active admin reintroduces them to the directory, whilst active boards will add themselves and flourish. The issue of course is regular maintenance. As has been pointed out, only two people can manually deal with the directory (I'm assuming Brian has access; I've been off the team too long to remember his myriad roles =P ). I've become fairly acquainted with the back-end of websites over the last two years and although I don't know the formula Brandon uses, I can imagine that any sort of manual upkeep might be a major, time-consuming pain in the derrière. A script of some sort would probably be best, something to coincide with how the directories work out ranks in order to flush out boards based on the factors that would define one inactive enough to be removed. But defining them is the hard part. Boards that haven't been used in years are easy prey - made in 2003, last post in 2005, no activity since? Bosh! - but what about others? How do you distinguish between a board that is temporarily inactive and one that has just died? And what about boards that are no longer maintained but get spammed to high heaven, or have lurkers posting here and there? They are active in the simplest of terms and I'm not sure a script would be intelligent enough to get beyond that. Thus we come back to the idea of manually purging forums and the burden that might present. It's a tough one. I admit that a big restart is probably the easiest solution in the short-term but doing that repeatedly will wear down on some owners. =-/ Why bother with the directory and ranking if every year to six months you have to start over? OcelotJay shrugs. Muddy thoughts and no real solution but I try. =r |
![]() |
|
| Stephen | Sep 1 2011, 06:20 PM Post #62 |
|
Twilight is upon me, and soon night must fall.
![]()
|
You raise a good point Jay. Which leads me to my point. Rather than dump everyone and make them resubmit to this board, if we are forced to take such a drastic step, we should just wait and remake the directory from scratch so that these problems are handled automatically from now on. As to your other points Jay, it may be difficult to complete sort out boards that belong and don't, but a series of filters and a way to report bad boards would be enough to keep the directory mostly clean. |
![]() |
|
| cnm | Sep 1 2011, 06:21 PM Post #63 |
|
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm a little confused over the use of "temporary" here -- what does that mean? It seems pretty subjective (and I'm not calling out any one post in this thread, but I've seen the word used quite a bit). To me, temporary is a couple days, maybe a few weeks, at most. Temporary isn't 6 months or a year. I agree that a complete wipe would be a bad move. It seems as if it would be a huge hassle for the powers that be, and for admins whose boards are active, but may be pretty self-policing, and not require a lot of administration. But I think it would be a very good thing to remove boards that have had no posts in over a set time. If they're being used for testing or file storage only, they shouldn't be in the directory to begin with. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sep 1 2011, 06:31 PM Post #64 |
|
Deleted User
|
Just something to clean it up...Who said temporary? |
|
|
| Shiarrael | Sep 1 2011, 08:32 PM Post #65 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This pretty much sums up my feelings on dumping the whole directory. I'm quite proud to have a board that's in the top five of its category and to be a member of the board that's number one at the moment. |
![]() |
|
| cnm | Sep 1 2011, 10:54 PM Post #66 |
|
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A couple of posts implied a what if scenario, regarding how to define an inactive board (what if it's inactivity is temporary, etc.). Perhaps I misread, but the notion of a board being inactive temporarily, to me, means less than 6 months. If no one's posted on a forum at all for over 6 months (or a year, or whatever length of time TPTB opt for), that's not temporary. It's subjective. I am all for cleaning it up, but would not want a total wipe, especially not knowing how the rankings are achieved. I think that would be detrimental to the active forums who have rightfully earned their ranks. But clearing out obviously inactive/dead forums would help bolster other active boards in the rankings. And that, I'm a fan of.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sep 2 2011, 09:58 AM Post #67 |
|
Deleted User
|
I think that it would mean that your board would be in a better slot. If it's active than it will be even higher or the same. How would that put you back any farther is what I'm trying to figure out. |
|
|
| cnm | Sep 2 2011, 11:06 AM Post #68 |
|
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But if there's a full purge of the directory and it starts all over, then isn't there a chance that some older boards might not retain their rankings? Given that we don't know how the boards are ranked (I'm not advocating we should know -- I think that it's fine that we don't), it seems as if it might be a possibility. Now, is fair to newer boards that may be more active or have more members, etc.? Probably not. But there's something to be said for seniority, and I can respect that, as long as the board is active and not dead or relegated to test-only status. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sep 2 2011, 01:13 PM Post #69 |
|
Deleted User
|
If the ZBD is using the same ranking why would it be any different except dead boards removed from it? |
|
|
| cnm | Sep 2 2011, 03:28 PM Post #70 |
|
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
True.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sep 2 2011, 04:04 PM Post #71 |
|
Deleted User
|
If anything your board might rank even higher. |
|
|
| ElementalAlchemist | Sep 2 2011, 04:15 PM Post #72 |
![]()
|
Depends on whether the board rank includes "time in the directory." Which it very well could. (I'd argue that it's a pretty terrible statistic to use in deciding the board rank, but it's certainly possible.) |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sep 2 2011, 04:31 PM Post #73 |
|
Deleted User
|
I don't think so. Most boards at the front have more posts and members. The dates there created are not the same. In fact, I think some of the older boards are up front if they have a lot of posts and members. |
|
|
| ElementalAlchemist | Sep 2 2011, 07:44 PM Post #74 |
![]()
|
Like I said: It's possible. It's not necessarily true, but it's possible. It's probably quite unlikely, and I'd argue that if it's in there, it's a terrible metric. |
![]() |
|
| Joe K | Oct 5 2011, 06:23 PM Post #75 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But you just killed your own forum, as surely as I did with Alt_R4_boards, and I don't think you had the excuse of 'artistic differences' with Zetaboards... http://s4.zetaboards.com/Radio4forum/topic/9132807/1/ |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Service Discussion and Feedback · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
10:42 AM Jul 11
|



![]](http://b1.ifrm.com/0/1/0/p601690/pipright.png)





10:42 AM Jul 11