| | Some posters like to go where their thoughts take them, based upon the article or thread topic, whereas others prefer that posts strictly address the thread title, or the article content. (This came up in a thread under one of Professor Machan's articles)
These seem to be our major choices: - The most stringent form would be where etiquette required that each post had to relate solely and directly to the article or thread title, and be addressed solely to the author. I don't think that would ever fly here on RoR.
- The next most stringent form would ask that posts stay within the context of the subject matter of the article or thread title.
- Still less stringent is where it is permitted to stray from the article or thread content, but only if it is following the context of a prior post - thus becoming like a conversation, which can wander somewhat over time, but where the requirement is continuity. (I like that form.)
- Last is where anyone can hijack a thread in the sense that they start a thought unrelated to the article, to the thread title or even to a previous post. This form calls out for a new thread.
A good compromise between wandering threads and a total hijack is where someone posts a link in some thread to their new thread (as I've done here) and I think that is as close as we will get to branched threads.
As Dean said, in that previous thread, this software is a dinosaur, but I like it better than nearly any other forum software package I've experienced. Each thread is a conversation, and some of the conversations here have not only wandered over time, but into areas and new content far better than the originating thread or article.
|
|
