POLL: SCF Gallery- is bumping OK?
-
Thanks, Stu. Now, what is your plan of action?
-
Plan? What Plan?...I just like going around upsetting people!
-
Nothing more to offer than ranting, "metaphores", and easy irony then?
moving on
-
@unknownuser said:
I dont think people do it out of selfishness, just through wanting to show their work without cluttering the gallery with new threads..
Some people do, some don't. On the old @last forum Gallery there were NO "personal gallery" threads, folks either had the manners to let others keep their thread active or the common sense to realise that by continuously posting in their own thread they are abusing the "last-post-first" system, unfairly pushing other members' threads off the first page before people even get a chance to see them. Regarding selfishness, you only have to look at the "most active topic" for several members whose topics are constantly on the front page to see who is more interested in promoting/discussing/bumping their own work than contributing to the forum as a whole.@tomsdesk said:
I don't see a difference to the forum...if someone wanted to "hog the limelight" they could just as well post a new thread as "bumping" an old one: sameo-sameo.
You really don't see a difference to the forum? Until a year ago there were no permament front page topics, now there's several, all of which have been blatantly bumped by their author when they dropped off the front page. As bumping has apparently become the only way to get your "fair" share of recognition here, I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't 10 or more such perma-topics in a year's time from now, effectively halving the exposure that the Gallery should provide.@johnsenior1973 said:
"Bumping" is when someone posts a new post solely to get the thread back into the first page. That's not what he's done at all.
(Re: GreenToaster) Isn't it? It's certainly a convenient side-effect that every time you post in your own thread it gets another day's exposure and 100 views though isn't it? One member recently added a post 2 months after the most recent post in their thread just to say that they had edited their first post; what possible reason could you have for adding a post to say you've edited your first post other than "this'll get me another few days on the front page"? If it was just about improving the quality of the thread, the edit did that, but the post referring to it was a bump, plain and simple.@unknownuser said:
I think a topic with over 20 posts is probably rare and a topic with over 40 posts is probably very rare I'm just guessing here but I gather that most posts are less than 20 reply's and then they melt into obscurity.
That's exactly my point. Before the last-post-first system was adopted (on the @last forums) it was talent alone that decided how many views a topic received as fans would eagerly follow them whether they were on the front page or the 20th. No great topic "melted into obsurity" as members frequently linked back to them in other threads, ensuring great work or advice was passed on as long as it was relevant. For several years after the system was changed, good manners and common sense meant that even the most talented authors let their topics slip off the front page when others stopped posting. That's sadly no longer the case IMO.@unknownuser said:
As for people complaining about that thread's length: what of it? It takes neither special skill or effort to skip a thread. There, problem solved. This issue is a non-issue.
To address your last statement first, currently 40% of respondants don't think it's a non-issue, so it's a little arrogant to dismiss it. I know you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it came across. Regarding your first point, you're right, it doesn't take much effort to skip a thread, but it does to skip 5 or 6 threads and more so to keep checking the second page to see if any good work has been pushed back there before anyone even had a chance to see it. If the current trend continues a year from now I'll be checking the 3 and fourth pages to just get a glimpse of new work from new members.@unknownuser said:
As far as I can see, the only way around that, is to impose some form of selection.
Far from it. A sticky outlining forum etiquette would be one way, removing the last-post-first system would be another (not ideal IMO), but probably the most effective would be for more people who would rather not see a tiny minority claim the SCF Gallery front page as their territory to speak up and vote here.I'd like to make one thing clear, my concern isn't rooted in some sense of possession of the SCF forums, or nostalgia for the good old days (although I am nostalgic haha), or a personal feud with any individuals or dislike for their work. It's simply about returning the SCF Gallery to being somewhere where everyone can get their fair share of recognition rather than have their work shoved aside by a minority who cannot stand to be out of the limelight for more than a few hours. They are the ones who are (intentionally or not) claiming the forum as their own.
-
Im still not convinced. For me it comes down to the fact that if you post good work in the gallery you get recognised for it. As long as thats happening im happy.
-
I still think that things ought to be left the way they are. However...there is a much broader church here now than the effective 100% professional users that used the old @Last forum; and it seems obvious that some people just dont "get it". Therefore a sticky explaining the netiquette of not hogging the front page might be useful.
If that fails (and I think we are only talking about a small number of people here...so it wouldn't be too onerous to have a mods discussion on individual cases) then a PM ought to be sent to the people concerned, suggesting they show a little more consideration for other users. If that fails, lock the thread so it sinks naturally.
-
@jackson said:
@unknownuser said:
As for people complaining about that thread's length: what of it? It takes neither special skill or effort to skip a thread. There, problem solved. This issue is a non-issue.
To address your last statement first, currently 40% of respondants don't think it's a non-issue, so it's a little arrogant to dismiss it. I know you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it came across.If you know I didn't mean it that way, why bother pointing it out? Let me anwer that for ya: to get a little rhetorical leverage.
And Jackson, really, how arrogant is bluntly assuming that people keep adding to one thread "to hog the limelight"? I find that quite an arrogant and insulting persumption. As I pointed out before, I for one aimed at keeping things tidy. I do admit, it takes some suspension of disbelief to assume that people mean well. Come to think of it, just about as much as it takes to assume the opposite.
I wouldn't be opposed to some new rules, btw.
-
@jackson said:
Stinkie,
I was trying to put it as polite as possible, especially as I know you're not an arrogant person. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but if you want to argue about it rather than just saying "ok, my bad", fine. There's no need to go on the warpath in a thread just because someone disagrees with you. I actually remember clearly when the continuing feud between you and Stu started (something to do with J1mmy/Goon of Doom I think): simply because you misunderstood one sentence Stu wrote you started laying into him, he retaliated and so it continues. I just wanted to say, as politely as possible that your choice of words came over as arrogant so that we could move on.
My current disagreement with Stu has, as far as I'm concerned nothing to do with previous disagreements he and I had. I feel his arguments are wrong, that's all. Mind if I add that the stray dog metaphore was quite rude? But what has this to do with me saying that this issue is a non-issue? That was the remark you called arrogant, wasn't it?
@jackson said:
@unknownuser said:
As I pointed out before, I for one aimed at keeping things tidy. I do admit, it takes some suspension of disbelief to assume that people mean well. Come to think of it, just about as much as it takes to assume the opposite.
As I explained before, I do not assume that the motive behind authors who continuously post in their own threads is selfish."Remus wrote:
"I dont think people do it out of selfishness, just through wanting to show their work without cluttering the gallery with new threads.."Some people do, some don't."
"The worst "offender" has now posted over 500 images of similar models in the same thread, none of which are particularly informative. In other cases authors simply add an extra line of "information" or refer to an edit when they see that their thread is almost off the front page giving it another week or two of attention."
"With a default of 25 threads per page I wonder how long it will be until the front page of the SCF Gallery is completely dominated by 25 (or less) members who continuously bump their own threads to keep them up top?"
"A tiny minority of members, however, who repeatedly add to/bump their own thread rather than starting a new one seem to be displaying a rather selfish unwillingness to allow others a fair share of the publicity that the Gallery should allow."
EDIT: I must say I feel I'm perhaps being too hard on both you and Stu, Jackson. I think you both mean well. However, populist and skewy rhetorics don't sit well with me. In any case, maybe a new rule would be useful. Peace?
-
Stinkie,
I was trying to put it as polite as possible, especially as I know you're not an arrogant person. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but if you want to argue about it rather than just saying "ok, my bad", fine. There's no need to go on the warpath in a thread just because someone disagrees with you. I actually remember clearly when the continuing feud between you and Stu started (something to do with J1mmy/Goon of Doom I think): simply because you misunderstood one sentence Stu wrote you started laying into him, he retaliated and so it continues. I just wanted to say, as politely as possible that your choice of words came over as arrogant so that we could move on.
@unknownuser said:
And Jackson, really, how arrogant is bluntly assuming that people keep adding to one thread "to hog the limelight"? I find that quite an arrogant and insulting persumption.
It's not arrogant (as in boastful or overconfident), it's an opinion based on observing what and when certain people choose to post in their own threads. If it makes you feel any better, I didn't actually regard you as one of them as you at least contribute and demonstrate good manners elsewhere on the SCF forums.@unknownuser said:
As I pointed out before, I for one aimed at keeping things tidy. I do admit, it takes some suspension of disbelief to assume that people mean well. Come to think of it, just about as much as it takes to assume the opposite.
As I explained before, I do not assume that the motive behind all authors who continuously post in their own threads is selfish. I realise that that there is a logical argument held by perfectly reasonable people that containing all their work within one thread keeps the forum tidy. If that's the case however, why do many of these people also start new threads? Even if they did stick to one thread, what if everyone, even with the best intentions, did the same thing? The public face of the SCF Gallery would not be determined by quality or even date or relevance, but by who has the most spare time to sit and bump "their" threads most frequently. You only have to glance at the 3D Warehouse to see the demographic who are best equipped for this activity and frankly if even the better (and maturer) members here aren't willing to set a good example then it's only a matter of time before the SCF Gallery front page is dominated by "Yoz WaZzuP, mi car kullekshun, kom IN Or kKEp oUt". Sounds far-fetched? It already started. -
@jackson said:
That was an oversight, I edited it:
@jackson said:
As I explained before, I do not assume that the motive behind all authors who continuously post in their own threads is selfish.
That changes things entirely.
@jackson said:
If it's done with the intent of keeping their topic on the front page it's selfish, if it's done with the intent of limiting the number of threads they take up on the forum it's well-intended (unless they simultaneously create new threads while bumping their old ones).
Ah ... but what about people who seem to do that, while they just started a new thread because they recently read that's the way The Coen prefers it?
I did that. My point is: in many cases (not all) there's really no way of precisely asserting whether or not someone's in it for the 0.0001 seconds of fame. Just like there's no way of knowing for sure that omitting that "all" was an oversight or not. Easy now ... I believe ya. Merely trying to make a point. 
-
That was an oversight, I edited it:
@jackson said:
As I explained before, I do not assume that the motive behind all authors who continuously post in their own threads is selfish.
If it's done with the intent of keeping their topic on the front page it's selfish, if it's done with the intent of limiting the number of threads they take up on the forum it's well-intended (unless they simultaneously create new threads while bumping their old ones). Either way, if everyone did it the SCF Gallery front page would be neither a showcase for new work nor the best of the older stuff.... and it's definitely becoming more common.
Hell, if you can't beat 'em join 'em, I'll start doing it, I've been working on a model and renders for 2 weeks, I've probably rendered 100+ test renders, I should post one every day for the next 4 months, or better still, wait until it drops to the second page then post another.
-
Just as a point of information (I'm not entering the arguement at all :`) but the first thing I hit is "new posts" and I assume I get all the posts posted since I last logged in...? Since I go through this list completely (sometimes several pages) I assume I see every new post (except the ones in forums not included in this "search" by the powers that be)...? So, Jackson: how am I missing anyone's posts as it seems to me I've bypassed your concerns...?
And again...just asking to be educated.
-
Bruce, you assume too much. Jackson is no longer a Mod and this topic was not discussed behind the scenes.
Tom, FYI in response to your post, I look at the new posts in a completely different way. Not that it is any better, I am just pointing it out as a point of reference. I go to each forum directly from the Index page. I seem to be in a better frame of mind knowing I am going into the Gallery to look at images, or into the Ruby Forum to look for scripts, etc. Again, just FYI.
-
Modelhead,
Fisrt and foremost (and I'm not shouting this, I just want to make sure that everyone see it), I am not a moderator, have not been a moderator for over 6 months now and my views are completely my own and do not represent those of SCFs admin or moderators in any way.
I didn't set out to single out GreenToaster or mention any names (although I realise they'd be easy to deduce), I just responded to other replies and had to say who I was referring to. I knew I'd come in for fire over this as anyone who ever expresses concern over an individual or individuals' behaviour on this forum does... apathy is so much safer.@tomsdesk said:
Since I go through this list completely (sometimes several pages) I assume I see every new post (except the ones in forums not included in this "search" by the powers that be)...? So, Jackson: how am I missing anyone's posts as it seems to me I've bypassed your concerns...?
It's a hard to answer without sounding facetious, but obviously if, every time you visit SCF you take the time to view every single new post you wouldn't miss any posts. In any case clicking on "view new posts" is effectively exactly the same (but quicker overall) as simply opening any of the forums as all new posts are top most. Trouble is I doubt many people read all new posts (although I may be wrong), they just go to the forums that interest them and see what's cooking... unfortunately lately it's seems to be pretty much the same menu every day. -
If I honestly thought I'd "humiliated" anyone I'd be mortified as I try to conduct myself online as I do in the "real world", but I didn't single anyone out, I simply pointed out the behaviour of several members (none by name) which I believed was detrimental to the SCF Gallery as a whole. Ironically it was people who support your view who linked to specific topics and named names. I don't think it would be realistic to then continue the discussion and pretend that nobody had said anything.
For someone who has in the past defended a member's right to indiscriminately criticise or outright insult other members and their work you're pretty quick to jump down my throat, accusing me of bullying for simply speaking up about a worrying trend in members' behaviour. Following your (presumably libertarian) logic, if someone posts on a public forum, they are then fair game for criticism.
-
Just to keep the record straight, i linked to the topic because someone asked which thread stu was talking about.
-
@unknownuser said:
Jackson..I just think you put your foot in it...and now you are trying to blaim others for exposing this person...??? I'm a bit bewildered by your behaviour because it is not like you.
I'm glad you recognise that being two-faced isn't in my nature, but how can I possibly win this argument? If I said yes, I named someone or singled them out I would be lying. As I said it wasn't me I'm accused of trying to blame others.
-
@unknownuser said:
OK ....Jackson you are solely responsible for humiliating the man. The administration is off the hook.
Stu is the one who was throwing the insults around (metaphorically, of course) but he wasn't naming names. I was responsible for the insults being attached to the people who were being alluded to.
-
OK, the dog thing was a bit strong but as I explained before the reference was really to the attitude of laissez faire in regard to that kind of posting....'If you dont like it you dont have to look at it'
My point is that I felt this kind of response was inadequate when looking at someone who has spent, and I say it again, forty four pages, on self indulgent posting.
I then saw the fact that this was allowed to happen as an indication of a lack of decent policy and direction for this forum.And no, the Caped Crusader and I just cant seem to get along [Whack, Crack, Crunch, Kapow!!!!]
-
stu wrote
@unknownuser said:
most vocal people here are often the least talented.
Yep I'll own up to that.
So no comment on this thread from me.
Jon
Advertisement