posted
If I were a potential newbie checking out Hatrack, I don't think that any of the threads on the first page, with the exception of the CMZ thread, would attract any interest from me. It's almost all fluff, self-forum referrential stuff that's only interesting to those of us who already know each other, or people complaining about trolls.
I'm not saying that we should get some new stuff up for potential newbies; I'm just surprised; I haven't looked at this place from a newbie's perspective in years.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes has started a couple of good general interest threads. Also, a newbie assumes there is some reason to have 50+ pages of threads to choose from.
Edit: I shall now compulsively rate every thread on the front page for self absorbtion/obvious fluffness.
posted
I disagree. There are a lot of topics covered on the front page. Music, politics, books, movies, television, philosophy, baseball, crafts.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jake, on the front page as I type this are threads about sports, politics, literature, fashion, living clothing, beer, über-fans gone wrong, movies, television, and Chris Bridges' lastest column. I'm having a hard time seeing what you're talking about.
Edit: Oh sure, just go ahead and say what I said before I could say it. Curse my slow fingers!
posted
I think you misunderstand me Icarus. I'm not bashing anything; I've been participating in and enjoying the fluff, and I don't in any way underestimate its value. It's just that in great measure it's interesting to me because I understand the context it's in--I know the people involved, I get the in-jokes, and all that. I just think that if I were new I wouldn't "get" the place from what's on the front page.
Pooka's got a good point though--I remember when I first discovered this place, I read through all of the old threads. All of them. It was fantastic having all that great interesting stuff to read. I remember being disappointed when I'd read it all and had to wait for people to post more. Of course, the forum moved more slowly back then.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of them? Holy crud. You must have had a lot of time on your hands back then. Me, I just lurked for a while before diving in.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
At 12:09 we have "Take a Look at the Threads on the Front Page." I will rate this a 10 on the self-referential scale. I was just thinking the other day that it's been a while since we had a "Hatrack cycle" gripe session.
"...Stop Worrying and love the Chad" (Hey, Ben took my suggestion, I think! ) This is a 10 for self reference, which doesn't make it bad. I think Noemon's point is the preponderance of self-reference.
Beautiful Music: 0. Sure the idea of "Beautiful" is subjective, but so is choosing to post in the English language. Which, by the way, much of this thread does not do.
"Internet Friends": 1. I'd say this would be pretty interesting on any forum. It gets a 1 because of the use of "Wenchcon" in the lead post.
Fashion News from Paris: 0
Choosing your you-ness: 1 point because Chris Bridges columns are a Hatrack tradition and one I value.
Anger Managment: 0. Sure some people try to pull this into the current contraversy, but it actually seems to be about Book's efforts to cope with anxiety.
Amka...: 10. Amka's film was awesome. I've spent 2 evenings with her family and didn't even know it was her kids. They really were acting.
Bev/PSI/Mrs.M/shig: 10
Can anyone solder: 3. It's a legitimate question, the fact that Annie wants you to solder her halloween costume is somewhat Hatrack, in a good way again. Note no one testily cried "do your own homework!"
gnixing's landmark: 10. But I like landmarks.
Monkey's Paw: I'll only give it a 3, since the fact that we play these games is Hatrack but anyone could click on the thread and get into the swing of it. Unless things have gone terribly awry since page 6. Who would have thought a thread called "Monkey's Paw" could go awry?
Are you really a Girl?: 10
I am allergic to: 0
One word story: 3
CMZ: Oh, now I get it. You are worried about what Maureen McHugh would think. That would make a cool wrist band. W.W.M.M.T.
Now that I get it I probably don't need to continue, but I am compulsive...
posted
(continued) What if George Bush...: This rates a 7, because while it would seem that every intelligent person on the board should reply to this question, it takes some name recognition to realize why many feel a moral imperative not to reply.
Job Hunting News: 10
Beer 101: I haven't read this, but from the looks of it, it is general interest. 0
Last Post: This is the first 10 where I unequivocally feel it is a bad thing.
So many apples: 0
Godric's landmark: 10
Puppy photos: not sure how to rate this one. The whole "we went to get a cat... now with Puppy Photos" almost makes me curious enough to look. But I really do hate pets. 3
Pharmacists and the Pill, again: 7 because of the "again". This means one will have to actually run a search to get the background. Any newbie unwilling to do that, I don't want.
Senators gay affair: The only reason I haven't reported this one is because like seeing a liberal embarass himself But this seems more the sort of content one would expect on most message boards about Books, Film, food and American culture [/sarcasm] and a big fat 0. Again, the first time I feel such a rating is actually bad.
Anita Blake, Vampire Humper: I'm not even going to touch that one.
posted
KOL: 3 because this thread was on Hatrack before KOL made "The Slate".
Gilmore Girls: 0
My writing career: 10
And now the moment we've all been waiting for: I don't know, sometimes I refuse to read a thread with a teaser subject like this. And I don't think such thread titles are unique to hatrack. If anything, they are more prevalent elsewhere.
D&D: 3
NBA: 0
Second Skin: Shame on you, Noemon! WWMMT? Still, the fact that a jatraquero would know this almost certainly isn't what it looks like rates this a 7.
Ah!!: Uh, I don't know. Now the dark secret of which threads I don't read is being revealed.
Atheists considered Patriots: 3, just cuz we do sometimes get newbies in here that would assume this thread title is sarcastic. They don't usually last, but it is possible.
Pre Rapture burnout: 7. On any other board, there would have been many jokes about "male responsiveness"
Goodness of goodness: 0. Zotto! is shooting for a lack of reference here.
Pun Smackdown: 10.
That's all of 'em. Now I get to go back and see if Noemon has shamed people into bumping substantive threads.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I were a potential newbie checking out Hatrack, I don't think that any of the threads on the first page, with the exception of the CMZ thread, would attract any interest from me.
It is because I just recommended a thread to someone I respenct a great deal that I was thinking about this, I'll admit. It isn't that I'm concerned that she won't like the forum or something though; I think it's highly unlikely that she'll do much more than glance at the place, honestly. The fact that I recommended Hatrack (to some degree) to somebody just made me think about the place from the perspective of a Newbie, for the first time in years. I haven't done a lot of Hatrack recruiting in the past.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and pooka, I promise that there's nothing even remotely sexual about that Second Skin thread, if you feel like checking it out.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Forgot about that part. Okay, one poor, misguided soul hoped to be able to use living shirt technology (of the pulsating variety) to attract women.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if George Bush...: This rates a 7, because while it would seem that every intelligent person on the board should reply to this question, it takes some name recognition to realize why many feel a moral imperative not to reply.
Now wait a second... Moral imperative not to reply? Based on what? I've been here for over four years and even I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Also...
quote:Pharmacists and the Pill, again: 7 because of the "again". This means one will have to actually run a search to get the background. Any newbie unwilling to do that, I don't want.
I think it's fairly absurd to expect any newbie to run a background search like that. I certainly wouldn't do it, and I'd worry about the amount of free time on the hands of any newbie that did. Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xaposert, I feel a moral imperative not to reply to threads started by people who often post something really contraversial and never check back to see what people are saying about it, and which I know which just make me mad, and involve a hypothetical over which I personally have no control. Even if not for the Hatrack environment, it's not good for my blood pressure. Or they may check back and reply, but simply repeat themselves ad nauseum. I don't reply to those either. Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:All of them? Holy crud. You must have had a lot of time on your hands back then. Me, I just lurked for a while before diving in.
Yep, Miro, I had a pretty undemanding job at that point. Plus, the place was a lot smaller then. I not only read everything on Hatrack, I went back and read the archived threads from Hatrack's previous incarnation.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I remember reading all the threads on the old Big Mouth Lion forum before I started posting. It was fascinating. I remember being a little disappointed when the "new forum" (that is, this one) started getting too much traffic for me to have time to read it all. That was probably why I pretty much stayed away from Hatrack for a couple years. But I'm back now, and I even post occasionally. Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, just for the record, the Anita Blake thread was about series novels, and how or why they jump the shark. We talked about Robert Jordan and a few others. It finnally died when we started talking about Getting things Done, by David Allen. Hardly all that scandalous.
If Pat were around, he'd tell you that scandalous thread titles for ordinary topics are my trademark. Guess I've been away (or mostly away) too long.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comically enough, I have fond memories of a lot of the threads you rated Trisha. I'm going to have to go and find some of them.
This also reminds me that the CMZ thread died befor we'd gotten very far with the discussion. Too bad--that'd have been a fun thread to look back on if it had gone further.
Don't get dspirited on the job thing--I was once offered a job four full months after I interviewed for it. They seemed mystified by the fact that I hadn't waited for them, and had landed a different job in the intervening third of a year.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
But this seems more the sort of content one would expect on most message boards about Books, Film, food and American culture [/sarcasm] and a big fat 0. Again, the first time I feel such a rating is actually bad.![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
WWMMT![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I remember being a little disappointed when the "new forum" (that is, this one) started getting too much traffic for me to have time to read it all. That was probably why I pretty much stayed away from Hatrack for a couple years. But I'm back now, and I even post occasionally. 
