PDA

View Full Version : Two Seperate Fora for Classifications?



Blood_Axis
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 06:03 PM
Must be due to the merge, but I just noticed something strange: there are two fora instead of one : "Anthropological taxonomy", and "Personal taxonomy", which is a subforum of the first.

I am guessing they serve the same purpose...and if so, you might want to move those posts and delete one of the two :)

Sigurd
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 06:07 PM
Nope, it all has its reason. The "Personal taxonomy" section is intended for members to post pictures of themselves or their friends and family for classification, whilst the general section will be for classifications of famous people, groups, etc.

I haven't heard a reason why it was split like this, but I support the idea, because if people want a classification of themselves, it is less likely that the thread will disappear to page two or three in no time. ;)

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 06:12 PM
A-ha! :sun Thanks, Sig. :D (now I feel so stupid :doh)

P.S. a lot of members seem to be failing to make that distinction (example (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=100845)), so it might be a good idea to post that in the guidelines. :)

Siebenbürgerin
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 06:16 PM
If I recall, the Personal Taxonomy forum is there because it isn't viewable to the guests?

Sigurd
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 06:20 PM
If I recall, the Personal Taxonomy forum is there because it isn't viewable to the guests?

Thanks, Siebenbürgerin, I overlooked that. Thanks for pointing that one out. :hide

See, no one is perfect, not even the great Sigurd. ;)

Aeternitas
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 06:25 PM
Yes, the Personal Taxonomy sub-forum is private (only viewable to members) for security reasons. We don't want every onlooker to be able to fish for the pictures and other private information of members, or their relatives, friends, etc. The Anthropological Taxonomy forum is public because it contains a lot of information that could be useful to the reader. Thus, classifications of members and other private persons should go under Personal Taxonomy (http://forums.skadi.net/forumdisplay.php?f=1090), while classification of public persons such as celebrities, politicians, etc. should go under Anthropological Taxonomy (http://forums.skadi.net/forumdisplay.php?f=238).

Ah, I see Sigurd has posted a thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=101060) about it already.

Sigurd
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 06:26 PM
Posted a sticky in the Taxonomy forum as to what should go into which section. ;)

Thread closed as matter has been answered and dealt with accordingly.

ÆinvargR
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 11:02 PM
I don't know why threads are locked just because the initial question has been answered, when it's hardly impossible for related issues or questions to rise. Well, here's a second thread on the matter then.

I suggest making the personal taxonomy for regulars only. As it is now, those who are unregistered and can't access the forum can easily just register and do what we don't want to be done; it's not much safer at all blocking only unregistered users.

Sigurd
Thursday, September 11th, 2008, 12:07 AM
Good point, Aeinvargr, and taken. Thread does re-opened for further discussion, especially as regards to who should be allowed to view it.

Feel free to voice your opinions freely. :)

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, September 13th, 2008, 10:23 AM
I had a similar thought as yours and proposed it to the Staff. Now the Personal Taxonomy forum is accessible only for members with over 15 posts. Juniors should be able to request classifciation too, in my view. At 15 posts we Staff will have realised if the person is here to troll or spam. That's what the newbie moderation system is for.

OneEnglishNorman
Saturday, September 13th, 2008, 12:10 PM
Should be something like a 50 post bar on starting threads in those forums, stop people joining up just to get classified.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, September 13th, 2008, 03:38 PM
Should be something like a 50 post bar on starting threads in those forums, stop people joining up just to get classified.
Hmm, I'd have thought it is a good idea if there were still many non-Germanic posters here. But now because of the IP limitations, there will be more Germanics and less non-Germanics. I don't think there's anything wrong if a Germanic user posts his picture for classification. Maybe some come for classification but decide to stay because they find some other interesting thing on the forum. :)

OneEnglishNorman
Saturday, September 13th, 2008, 03:48 PM
There's even Germanics who join up, get a classification, then go back to frequenting whatever forums they usually post on. And also non-Germanics resident in Canada, UK etc, who will do the same, but claim to be Germanic or Germanic mixed, like that guy from Australia who was actually a Jew.

Just an arbitrary minimum, say 30 posts or so, could be a useful tweak. So new people could still get classified but it provides some hurdles to jump through first.

Sigurd
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 06:24 PM
Should be something like a 50 post bar on starting threads in those forums, stop people joining up just to get classified.

If they are obviously not interested in Germanics in the least, chances are they won't even get through that 15 posts needed to get off moderation. We tend to be lenient when it comes to these and take a neutral stance about anything voiced in that thread, and thus as a general rule new members' posts will be approved. If we find them to be of irrelevance, designed to flame and insult or collectively are one-liners to the effect of "Yes, I agree", chances are that we will not approve the post.

We could of course raise the threshold for posts required to be taken off moderation but from experience, members tend to quickly lose interest in that case. I feel that 15 posts is both long enough to be able to tell a members' demeanor to some extent yet not frustrating for the poster, as it can be achieved in less than a week or so without much ado.