An open letter to our esteemed OLO founder and moderator...

Graham, can I please request that we be able to post four times in 24 hours on the article threads.

It is good to see articles that are right up to date with current affairs, such as today’s piece by Chris Lewis; ‘Abbott draws his Battlelines’.

I have found it extremely frustrating, especially with articles like this one and just generally with the articles section of this forum, that posters can only put up two comments while the subject is hot to trot!

I don’t understand why we can put up four posts on general threads and two on the article threads.

It seems that an imbalance has developed, with the general threads being considerably more popular. The best way to address this seems to me to be to allow four posts per day in response to articles.

I also feel that the authors that contribute articles would feel that it is more worthwhile if they received more comments. This would pervade into more success for OLO overall, which would in turn bring more people into the fray.

It is a shame that a lot of the articles get very few comments. I think that any means of encouraging more comments would be a good thing.

Yes I know we’ve discussed this before. But that’s the nature of forums like this – that things get revisited and re-mulled over!

What do other posters reckon?

I don't get why there's a limit on commenting at all. Kills a conversation.

I'm very happy with the posting limit. We all want our say, but not everyone can post regularly. The limits mean that OLO isn't overrun by retirees and schizophrenics on disability pensions who have lots of free time.

That's the same reason the text is so bland. Can you imagine what this place would look like if posters could change the size, font and colour of the text? I get seizures just thinking about it.

Sancho, I’m proposing a small increase in posting freedom on this forum. Not something that would allow “retirees and schizophrenics” to run amok!

I appreciate the need for restrictions.

“Can you imagine what this place would look like if posters could change the size, font and colour of the text?”

I think that it would improve OLO considerably if we could use italics, bold text, different font styles, sizes and colours and even emoticons, etc.

The discipline of cutting one's thoughts to 350 words can stem windiness. Some posters run on until they have about 350 words of repetitious blather. Others organise their thoughts, direct comments to several other people in the same post. Taking off the restrictions will likely increase the number of posts from the former. That would decrease the quality of olo.

There are two views on this, both with merit.

On the one hand the cap forces people to write more, without some cap, some threads would be in danger of being over-run by a few people who seem to have too much time on their hands, but on the other hand, even with people who want to write prolifically about something, that would really only be annoying if they have nothing intelligent to say.

My view is there should be a cap, but it should be more generous than at present. The majority may disagree, but then the majority of OLO viewers don't write much at all.

A few thoughts/points/ideas:

Whatever cap is set, should be increased for threads as they get older. There is often a flurry of posts shortly after an article is published or a general thread started, but usually within a couple of days there are only a few posters left who are in practice trying to have a conversation of sorts. Whilst a low cap seems sensible whilst there are numerous people trying to post, when there are only a handful of likely posters left, the cap becomes really annoying, and not just for the people trying to post. Often it is annoying for the people awaiting a response. My suggestion is that the cap of two posts be kept for the two days following an articles population, then it should be increased to 4 per day for the next 5 days and then lifted to 6 or 8 thereafter.. perhaps the revised cap could be determined by reference to the recent activity).

<continued in my next post>

<continued>

Also, the caps should not be based on 24 hours. This again just favours those who have plenty of free time, for whatever reason. Many professionals, such as myself, prefer to post when we have a good block of time, which only occurs occasionally and it is irksome when, not having posted for weeks at a stretch, I am just as capped as others who post every day.

Finally, as someone said, the two post cap is a real conversation killer. It forces people to write long posts, anticipating questions which may never be asked so as to get their point across and punishes those who would prefer a more conversational style of exchange. There is some merit in this as 30 three word posts exchanged between writers having a conversation can be tiresome to other readers, but some scope for compromise ought to exist. Perhaps the cap could on either a word limit in 50 word bites.. so that 6 <50 word posts would equal 3 100 word posts or 1 300 word posts.

Just some ideas that might not be too difficult to implement and would represent some compromise.

Sancho: The limits mean that OLO isn't overrun by retirees and schizophrenics on disability pensions who have lots of free time.

OMG, a dirty discriminator. It's Politically incorrect, I'm offended. Ban him for life. Boo Hoo Hoo! Where's a tree? {;-O

I agree the 4 post limit is not enough when you are on a roll. The 350 word limit is a bit short too. 500 would be good.

Ludwig,

I don't mind the posting limits. David f spells out the reasons fairly well. I think the different posting limits in this forum and the main OLO article area have a noticeable effect - the standard in the OLO area is better. In other words, I think the limit of 2 is just fine.

What I do have a problem with is the limit of 5 posts in one day. There are 6 new OLO articles posted each day, and discussion on them often goes on for days. Yet you don't even have enough posts to comment on all of one day's articles, let alone participate in the ongoing discussion of lots of them. The limit should be at least 10. 8 seems to work OK for this discussion area, but there are fewer threads.

It's funny, the ones that want change are the ones that hardly comment.

Sancho,

"The limits mean that OLO isn't overrun by retirees and schizophrenics on disability pensions who have lots of free time"

Riiight. As opposed twats?

“The limit should be at least 10”.

Agreed rstuart. Four posts per thread and ten per day on the article threads, to bring them in line with the general threads.

“…the standard in the OLO area is better…”

I can’t see that the standard in the articles section is any better than in the general section because of the 2-posts-per-day limit. I think that quite the opposite would be the case, for reasons as outlined in my OP.

----

Interesting ideas Kalin1. They have merit but it is also important to keep it simple, so that the rules can be easily understood by all.

----

I tried to post this post several hours ago, but ran into the 10 general posts in 24 hours brickwall! Yeah ok, so I’ve been twaddling on too much on the ‘chill out’ thread. Silly me. But nevertheless, even after four years on OLO, I just completely didn’t see it coming. I don’t encounter this restriction very often, but the five post limit on the article threads has been a repeated nuisance!

It would be much easier to keep track of if the 24 hour period started at a given time, say midnight, rather than being 24 hours from whenever your tenth most recent post was put up (or fifth as the case may be).

i got sick of getting the no post allowed message..in articles
so stopped going there...funny how..my posts now...are a very comfortable 3 or 4 perday...all in general.[generally speaking]

i know my reduced posting..has overjoyed many...they dont have to skip past them no more..[reportedly]...ok im deliberatly dumbing myself down..[by ignoring articles]

how dumb..]metaphoricly speaking..[..is putting in up to 6 new topics per day...and only 4 comments...one on 4 of em...or 2 on one of em..

anyhow as this topic..is about articles

well..im over posting there...unless unavoidable...

heck im only checking for new articles...in the general mailout..articles dosnt even have notice..[that i have noticed]..im flippant of course...others would have better descriptors

anyhow post done...now i might read some of the other replies

I agree with ludwig. I think there should be a 4 post limit on both articles and general discussions. It would create less confusion and frustration if the same number of posts were allowed across the board on olo.

I must admit to a degree of frustration when someone has just blasted at me about being a feminazi, and I can't blast them for being a chauvinazi until 24 hours later! It is actually damaging to my (usually totally solid) mental health at times!

The posts should not be any longer than 350 words though.
I have never felt the need to go on for that long anyway I don't think.
If a post is too long, I will lose interest in it and just skim it anyway.

"i got sick of getting the no post allowed message..in articles so stopped going there..."

Yes one under god, this is what I fear: that a lot of (most?) people that OLO attracts are spending the vast majority of their time on the general threads and basically bypassing the article threads.

They've got to go to the trouble of at least half-decently reading the article in order to meaningfully comment on it. That is a pain for a lot of people. They don't need further discouragement on top of that, by way of a very restrictive post limitation.

The Articles area of OLO under seej - who would have ever thought to see the day!

While not wishing to be one for ducking a worthy issue, I have to admit I'm of two minds as to Ludwig's request. I'll try and be mandrake, and express them both.

My first reaction is to endorse the view put in david f's post of Thursday, 3 December 2009 at 10:37:55 AM.

If one's purpose in posting is to influence others to consider a subject from a possibly different perspective from that which they otherwise might, surely it is important to help keep the apparent quality of the Forum as high as possible. Indicated relevance within any given post to the content of an article, where possible accompanied by brevity, are reliable aids to that end.

IMO, there are few greater turn-offs for a viewer of a thread than seeing an extended series of posts that constitute nothing more than a slanging match between a small number of posters over some (generally minor) point of contention.

Kalin1, in the post made on Thursday, 3 December 2009 at 10:58:39 AM, makes the point that "with people who want to write prolifically about something, that would really only be annoying if they have nothing intelligent to say." I have mentioned this elsewhere on OLO, but what about OLO publishing articles by OLO identities? (Ludwig springs to mind as a potentially interesting author.) That way editorial control can be exercised as to the quality of expression and non-repetitiousness of subject matter, while leaving content in the hands of the (usually incognito) author.

This is probably subjective, but I find there are times on OLO when there will be very few articles that arouse my interest, whilst simultaneously there may be topics (substantially selected by registered OLO users) that I find much more interesting. Perhaps, over time, the topicality of subjects in the General Discussions area of the Forum supplants that of the Articles area, at least so far as registered OLO users are conerned.

I agree with Ludwig on this, in general - and thanks to him for raising the issue. He agrees that some limits to posting frequency are necessary, but is asking quite reasonably for a relaxation of the limits in the Articles section of the OLO Forum. I agree that the current rules can constrain communication unnecessarily, and a little onerously.

However, I wouldn't want to see graphic emoticons and other bells and whistles here. I'd rather read the words - but I wouldn't object to being able to emphasise points and central concepts with basic editing facilities like bold face, italics or underlining.

One thing I'd really like to see is an increase in allowable posts for the OP in threads in both the Articles and General areas. These threads are a form of conversation, which is sometimes truncated by posting limits. If you've started a discussion you probably want to respond to people who comment, who probably would like to read a response.

Just sayin'.....

Forrest, your opening comments quacked me up! (:>)

“My first reaction is to endorse the view put in david f's post…”

Yep, I have no problems with the 350 word limit.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3272#77612

“IMO, there are few greater turn-offs for a viewer of a thread than seeing an extended series of posts that constitute nothing more than a slanging match…”

I’m sure the forum rules could be better observed and regulated. I would have thought this quite important, in order to uphold good quality correspondence and thus not risk losing good posters such as yourself.

One of my major themes on this forum is the rule of law, which I am particularly concerned about in regards to road safety, but which I consider to woeful right across our society.

I see it on OLO too, with clearly elucidated rules which are poorly observed and regulated, both via a lack of reportage of infringements by posters to the administrator and an apparent lack of expression from the administration to encourage reporting.

At this point, I express my guilt, not at breaking the forum rules, but at not reporting posters who do.

Another important aspect is the reliability of OLO. It was offline for more than two days last weekend, which is just the latest of many such events. No one said boo about it, which I found surprising. Maybe they are just getting used to it.

It was operating really fast last evening, but this morning every little step is taking literally several minutes!

Editorial control is another area that I don’t understand, inasmuch as the articles are tightly controlled and yet the general thread opening posts don’t even have their titles grammatically corrected, let alone their content! This seems to work directly against the professionalism and appeal of this forum IMHO.

I agree with Ludwig.

As the entire site is devoted to opinionated people, it doesn't bother me if posts are long or frequent. I can just not read a post if I don't want to.

Also, the limits mean that those arguing from the established orthodoxy are at an unfair advantage, because what the body of theory underlying it has already been condensed into convenient phrases or slogans and passed into common use or acceptance. But if you're trying to persuade readers to consider something from a novel point of view, you have to explain the underlying theory that shows the common assumptions should be questioned or rejected. The limits frustrate this, while readers could skip over posts they don't want to read in any event.

Therefore I also ask for some relaxation of the limits.

I agree with David on this. I spend quite some time crafting my replies to maximise content while minimising waffle and the 2 post limit, while frustrating sometimes, also stops me from simply knee-jerk responding, which can be all too easy to do.

It's already far too easy for discussions to be derailed by the mischievous or the lame-brained barrow-pusher; increasing the post limit would simply give more power to their elbows, so to speak.

I think the post allowance is adequate. Some people talk a lot of dribble and it becomes illegible.
Direct and to the point, is the way to go, not carry on like some politician, talking in circles.
Some of these of site referrals become confusing and overdone.
350 words should be adequate for anyone to get an opinion across.
Some posts end up causing personal arguments, this takes up space that is not necessary.
Just because someone does not agree with you dosn't mean you have to reply. It's there opinion.
I say the moderators are doing a very good job.

“Some people talk a lot of dribble and it becomes illegible…”

Maybe so, Desmond, but if they do they are doing it within the current posting limitations. So these limitations are not preventing it.

Is there really a significant difference in the ‘dribble’ factor on the 2-posts-per-day article threads, compared to the 4-post-per-day general threads?

I don’t think there is. So I can’t see that increasing the article thread allowance to 4 per day would increase dribbling, er… dribbleness.

----

“I can just not read a post if I don't want to.”

Exactly, Peter. It is very easy to just brush over dribble posts.

----

“I spend quite some time crafting my replies….also stops me from simply knee-jerk responding”

Yes Antiseptic, the word and post limitations certainly help us serious conscientious posters to be efficient with our words. But again, is there a significant difference on article and general threads?

I don’t think so or not greatly at any rate.

All considered it is clear to me that increasing article thread posts to 4 per 24 hours would definitely be a good thing.

Ludwig

Yes, I think it's timely to have this discussion again, so thank you for raising it. I didn't notice it at the bottom of my screen or I would have chimed in earlier. There are many good comments here, most of which I see merit in.

One I definitely disagree with though is your bells and whistles suggestion. I'd much prefer to have plain and uniform text, with maybe slightly better scope for emphasis, eg bold or underline, but not both. The content of the post should always be the focus. Colour and too many font sizes and emoticons etc would just be a distraction.

The reason I prefer the general section over the articles is that I can get straight into the conversation without having to read a lengthy article, most of them being at least two pages. There are many articles I know I'd enjoy and I often intend to come back and read them but rarely do.

The posting limits are also pretty right I think. Perhaps the articles limit could be raised to three. Easing the limits too much could result in the forum being dominated by the same voices. The limits also encourage considered posting as opposed to reflex response, which I think improves the standard of debate.

I also think that timing the 24 hour limit from an individual's last post is best. Changing it to a uniform time could lead to a spike in traffic on the site and possible access issues as a result, though having the changeover at midnight would probably prevent that.

I think the word limit at 350 is about right even though I'm often frustrated by it, but again it encourages concise and considered posting. As someone who regularly posts 350 words on the knocker, I'm wondering how many others skim through long posts, as was admitted to here by one particular poster. I won't mention her name as that might in itself attract her eyes. I'm just checking to see if she's read this far. If I don't get a response I'll know she hasn't. :)

It might be better to have the two post limit for both articles and discussion threads.

Two posts give one 700 words. Articles are between 800 and 2,000 words. If one has a coherent objection to the ideas in a thread or an article write another article. If it is well-written and worth reading olo will post it as an article, and your thought will reach a wider audience.

G’mooorn’n Bronwyn

“I didn't notice it at the bottom of my screen or I would have chimed in earlier.”

Yeah I thought that might be a big factor in limiting the number of responses.

“One I definitely disagree with though is your bells and whistles suggestion…”

Oh I dunno, all these drab grey people with their terribly serious drab grey lives, stressed out, no sense of humour, ready to jump down peoples’ throats at the first opportunity. Give em a suggestion that might brighten their lives a bit….and they just reject it out of hand!! They just want to stay in their drab grey comfort zone. A bit of colour and stuff might be SCARY!! Oooow!!

Sorry Bronwyn. I’ll pull my woolly head in now!! : )

Thanks for your thoughts.

I've previously put up the idea of a daily word limit (in hindsight that probably should be a daily character limit). Perhaps combined with relaxed post limits (to avoid 700 one word posts cluttering OLO or whatever the 1 character post limit would be).

Perhaps a different spread of posts (2 under 35 word posts per day and 2 longer posts). Sometimes I feel it's important to give an acknowledgment, correct an error etc quickly but need some more time to consider a longer response or to wait for comments on what's already been written.

The flow of conversations could be helped by some changes but the difficulty comes in limiting the opportunities for changes to be abused.

R0bert

Rrrrrrgh! I’ve just become REALLY annoyed at not being able to put up a third post on today’s ‘Sorry, global warming has not been cancelled’ thread. I’ve got to wait 12 hours!! Sheeeeeesh!

Oh Cool Bronwyn! It's 'timely' hey!

Hello Graham

I’m seriously asking for four posts per day on the article threads.

I really do think that it would improve OLO.

Posters would be happier and article writers would be happier if they get more posts in response.

And I don’t think that there is any significant downside.

Could we…pretty please…have four posts on article threads. Or a compromise – three??

OK, now this thread has dropped off the general thread main page, as it is over a month old.

But it is still active!

It can be accessed if you hit the 'three months back' option or longer periods back options.... but who's likely to do that?!

Surely all threads that are still active should appear on the front page list, even if you've got to scroll down to see them all, while those that have become inactive having not been contributed to for three weeks could drop off.

This seems like an obvious setup to me.

As it now is, this thread is virtually doomed to no further comments....from anyone 'cept me ( :>|

Also, as I have stated previously on threads of this sort, I find it most unfortunate that no one from OLO has come on to it, especially given that I addressed the opening post to the moderator.

Oh well, happy New Year to everyone who may read this...which will probably only be one person - Laurie!!

Sorry Ludwig you got that wrong.
I open 100 posts back and 3 months every time I visit.
And threads continue sometimes for a very long time after they start.

No Belly, I don't think I'm not wrong.

I reckon you'd be in the tiny minority by hitting the 100 posts back and three months back options as a matter of habit.

So do you support my request for four posts in 24 hours on article threads?

Possibly, Ludwig, possibly.

>>I reckon you'd be in the tiny minority by hitting the 100 posts back and three months back options as a matter of habit<<

I'm a 10/One quarter back person myself.

Your proposal still has me in two minds.

Very occasionally - most often when there are a couple of conspiracy theorists firing both barrels - I feel the need to venture "just one more wafer-thin" post.

Then I think how tedious it would be having to read through a whole lot more elongated ramblings from the same folk, and calm down.

On other occasions I simply write out what I want to rant about in .odt, and revisit it when the curfew has lifted.

Comfortingly often, what I wrote back then was still relevant, its pith and moment having not decayed overnight.

We Ludwig have different ways of following threads.
Some get e mails if action takes place in threads that interest them.
It took time for me to use my system, often I first look at new threads.
Now I am not sure I can agree, the basic reason we have such rules may be the readability of the site.
Some posters would haunt article threads.
While you unhappy no evidenced moderators watching this thread you can bet they are.
I have found some gems by looking at past, seemingly dead threads
And continue to watch this one.

Bugger! I muffed that. From my last post:

<< No Belly, I don't think I'm not wrong. >>

Pffff, I don’t think I’m wrong… and I do think I’m not wrong! ( :>/

Belly, Pericles, we can see exactly what happens when we are allowed four posts in 24 hours on the general threads. It works well. So why on earth it is different on the article threads is just baffling to me.

As I’ve said previously on this thread, doubling the number of posts that a poster could put up on an article thread per day would increase the number of posts written in response to articles, which would surely have a positive effect in the minds of authors, OLO administrators and posters.

What is the downside? I can’t see any significant negative factors.

You may have a point truly not sure.
I have thoughts about the articles page.
I visited this morning, first time in a while.
See plenty who post here there but feel its a bit clicky.
I once only went there, to avoid clashes for a while with ex posters.
I get the feeling, forgive me if I am wrong GY, its is a bit more elitist than our all in back yard.
Ludwig it can not be easy moderating us lot, each of us can be a pain, I went tropo a short time ago after taking a bait.
But forums that protect themselves from over posting work.