Angel ,'Conviction (1)'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
OTOH, we did used to have SV, DS and Farscape threads.
Wasn't folding them in together partly driven by the fact that none of them were getting huge amounts of traffic?
I believe that the lack of show-specific threads to discuss programs currently on the air would lead to increased traffic in Natter.
That lack currently exists, though. You're thinking that if we can't talk about the current Whedonverse, that we'll fill that void somewhere?
Because I think the discussion does not belong here.
It seems to me we only decided we needed to to open lightbulb as an outgrowth of conversation, here. A discussion would start. If someone thought making a proposal made sense in light of the discussion, they would propose, and if seconded, lightbulb was opened to discuss the specific proposal. I feel like maybe there's some disconnect here, or that I'm missing something as to how this isn't a typical use of bureau.
Wasn't folding them in together partly driven by the fact that none of them were getting huge amounts of traffic?
I don't know about the traffic, but I do know we opened threads more or less willy-nilly on WX, because it was easy and we weren't paying for it.
I had thought that you were making a proposal about adding thread(s) for TV.
Since I now understand that you are not, I retract my objection.
Cindy, I was mostly reacting to:
a) what are you watching/what do you plan to watch?
which seems much more Nattery than B'cy-y.
Wasn't folding them in together partly driven by the fact that none of them were getting huge amounts of traffic?
The combination happened as a way to try to fix the problems the board was having at the time, not because the people in them were bothered by the traffic level. At least not that I remember.
not because the people in them were bothered by the traffic level
Sorry -- I didn't mean to imply there was a bother. Just that it was a drive for consolidation of low-traffic threads, and if they hadn't been low-traffic, it wouldn't have happened.
I get that Natter can be a lot to search through, but I don't see a solution. I think anyone who posts there at all skips over lots of stuff everyday that is not of interest to them.
Knowing that adding any thread increases traffic, I don't think we should add any thread unless there is overwhelming support for it. There are basically three Natter threads as it is and another increase of that type of volume is not what we need.
How many TV threads do we think we want? I'd rather start knowing X new threads was the (bullshit consensus) limit and try to come up with the best way to use that X, than to have 45 show threads proposed and try to whittle down from that.
In the past, we haven't had more than three shows with their own thread at once. Does that model work? Or should we do three (or four, or two) with their own threads, plus another three (or whatever) for genres (i.e., reality, cop shows, soap operas)?
I'm sorta with LJ here. Since we don't have any ME shows coming up, I would like us to have some focus OTHER than natter. I would like to know how much addition people were comfortable with before proposing anything.
Personally, I would love an OC thread. I think.