I decided to start this based on the following:
Quote from: namazu on April 13, 2020, 06:27:52 PM
Consider that there might be more "regulars", and more vibrant, engaging discussions, if people felt they could get a word in edgewise.
...And if every fourth thread weren't hijacked by the same handful of posters flogging their same few dead horses. It's boorish and unconstructive to derail thread after unrelated thread to rehash the same tired arguments ad nauseam. Most recently, the "what went wrong with academe and coronavirus" thread seems to have devolved into yet another pointless, off-topic "won't someone think of the adjuncts" vs. "beware the adjunct 'death march'" back-and-forth. The "COVID and contingent faculty" thread has been overtaken by ad hominems about "failed academics", and so on...
"Civility" and "niceness" should not be invoked as cover to quash principled, honest disagreement. And I love a well-placed zinger as much as the next guy. But rudeness (which shows up in things like hijacking threads, calling people out as trolls too quickly or devaluing infrequent contributors, and being needlessly condescending or smarmy or cruelly snarky) does not make for a more vibrant forum.
I don't advocate heavy-handed moderation, and as a moderator on another forum, I appreciate the thankless work that goes into keeping the lights on. That said, it would be nice if a few people would step back and quit running their mouths fingers every now and then -- not because their ideas are odious or unworthy of consideration, but because their constant repetition and/or preening is tiresome. But that might be too much to ask. Since they occasionally have worthwhile things to say, I'm hesitant to ignore them altogether. And of course, perhaps those tired arguments constitute the bulk of what remains here because so many other would-be participants have been turned off and left.
Online forums are well-known to follow a Pareto distribution; i.e. something like an 80-20 rule applies.
I looked at the stats for the fora as of today, and here are some of the intersting points:
- There are 1787 members.
- There are over 26000 posts.
- 1158 members have not made a single post.
- The top 2 members have made about 3900 posts, or about 15% of the total.
- The bottom 1680ish members have made about 15% of the total.
- The top 6 members have made about 6900 posts, or about 25% of the total.
- The bottom 1700ish members have made about 25% of the total.
This is a well-known phenomenon. I am interested in the idea of people feeling they "can't get a word in edgewise".
In a
face-to-face conversation, that can happen because speakers do not pause to allow others to speak.
In a
print publication, this can happen in something like a "letters" section because of limited page space so that not every submission can be included.
But what does it mean in an online forum, where bits are unrestricted?
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 14, 2020, 06:03:55 AM
But what does [letting other people get a word in edgewise] mean in an online forum, where bits are unrestricted?
I am well aware that there are more and less active members; I used to be a very active member of the old CHE forum before taking a hiatus.
One can be an active contributor without projecting the attitude that one's contributions are more valuable than those of infrequent posters.
One can be an active contributor without indulging the urge to comment on everything, even areas where one has limited relevant experience.
One can be an active contributor without engaging in off-topic, sniping cross-talk, and without hijacking threads to rehash arguments from elsewhere. (The proposed "don't bring your baggage from one thread to another" rule would seem to apply here, at least sometimes.) Such cross-talk makes it visually difficult to find on-topic, relevant posts and to follow the meat of a discussion. It's also bothersome to have to wade through yet another round of the same few people talking past each other about the same pet topics while impugning each other's motives, which rarely (in my opinion) advances a discussion.
To be clear, it's not that I think that active members should hold back when they have something
relevant to contribute, nor that they should avoid topics about which they hold passionate opinions; I just wish they'd avoid overwhelming the forum with ad hominem squabbling, frequent accusations of bad faith, and diatribes about their pet topics when the thread is genuinely/primarily about something else. (Get a room!)
Bits may be unrestricted, but people's attention certainly is not. I could certainly put the frequent offenders on "ignore", which would filter out their comments and leave the rest, but since they do also have worthwhile things to say, I am loath to do that.
Quote from: namazu on April 14, 2020, 07:48:35 AM
I just wish they'd avoid overwhelming the forum with ad hominem squabbling, frequent accusations of bad faith, and diatribes about their pet topics when the thread is genuinely/primarily about something else. (Get a room!)
The usual culprits are convinced that their pet topics are relevant to just about everything.
They do have their own rooms. But they need to express themselves **everywhere**.
As you might expect, I'm not optimistic that there is any way to get them to STFU.
Quote from: downer on April 14, 2020, 10:55:07 AM
Quote from: namazu on April 14, 2020, 07:48:35 AM
I just wish they'd avoid overwhelming the forum with ad hominem squabbling, frequent accusations of bad faith, and diatribes about their pet topics when the thread is genuinely/primarily about something else. (Get a room!)
The usual culprits are convinced that their pet topics are relevant to just about everything.
They do have their own rooms. But they need to express themselves **everywhere**.
As you might expect, I'm not optimistic that there is any way to get them to STFU.
So should there be a "poster rating" system here for relevance and insight? Then in principle one could choose to filter our people who are low in one or both.
downer, I agree with your assessment.
Quote from: marshwiggleSo should there be a "poster rating" system here for relevance and insight? Then in principle one could choose to filter our people who are low in one or both.
The "ignore" feature approximates that already, with the added benefit that members can set the "Are this person's posts worth reading?" threshold for themselves. This precludes the likely accusations of mob rule, unfair targeting for unpopular ideas, etc. that would arise if a system like you suggest were implemented.
But even the posters who frequently make the kinds of (off-topic, repetitive, and/or boorish) posts that irk me do offer interesting perspectives and valuable insights at times, so I am hesitant to ignore/filter them altogether.
Quote from: namazu on April 14, 2020, 11:45:57 AM
downer, I agree with your assessment.
Quote from: marshwiggleSo should there be a "poster rating" system here for relevance and insight? Then in principle one could choose to filter our people who are low in one or both.
The "ignore" feature approximates that already, with the added benefit that members can set the "Are this person's posts worth reading?" threshold for themselves. This precludes the likely accusations of mob rule, unfair targeting for unpopular ideas, etc. that would arise if a system like you suggest were implemented.
But even the posters who frequently make the kinds of (off-topic, repetitive, and/or boorish) posts that irk me do offer interesting perspectives and valuable insights at times, so I am hesitant to ignore/filter them altogether.
How does an "ignore" feature work, and how can I activate it?
Quote from: dismalist on April 14, 2020, 03:52:32 PM
How does an "ignore" feature work, and how can I activate it?
Instructions here: https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=28.msg5279#msg5279
I haven't used it myself, so I don't know exactly what gets blocked from view under what circumstances. It should be reversible, though, so you can test it out.
Quote from: namazu on April 14, 2020, 04:03:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 14, 2020, 03:52:32 PM
How does an "ignore" feature work, and how can I activate it?
Instructions here: https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=28.msg5279#msg5279
I haven't used it myself, so I don't know exactly what gets blocked from view under what circumstances. It should be reversible, though, so you can test it out.
Thank you. Ignore is under buddies, which is not intuitive!
I put in only one name, so far. :-)
Sure, use the "ignore" feature. Just know that you're basically doing the same thing as my mother, who's been on a Fox News-only diet for about twenty years.
Another candidate? :-) :-)
Quote from: namazu on April 14, 2020, 04:03:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 14, 2020, 03:52:32 PM
How does an "ignore" feature work, and how can I activate it?
Instructions here: https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=28.msg5279#msg5279
I haven't used it myself, so I don't know exactly what gets blocked from view under what circumstances. It should be reversible, though, so you can test it out.
It works in the individual threads.
However, if you just click "see all new posts" it doesn't work. But I glance at the names at the top of the post and skip those I choose to ignore.
Quote from: namazu on April 14, 2020, 11:45:57 AM
downer, I agree with your assessment.
Quote from: marshwiggleSo should there be a "poster rating" system here for relevance and insight? Then in principle one could choose to filter our people who are low in one or both.
The "ignore" feature approximates that already, with the added benefit that members can set the "Are this person's posts worth reading?" threshold for themselves. This precludes the likely accusations of mob rule, unfair targeting for unpopular ideas, etc. that would arise if a system like you suggest were implemented.
But even the posters who frequently make the kinds of (off-topic, repetitive, and/or boorish) posts that irk me do offer interesting perspectives and valuable insights at times, so I am hesitant to ignore/filter them altogether.
Well, you chose to be educated.
Quote from: downer on April 14, 2020, 10:55:07 AM
The usual culprits are convinced that their pet topics are relevant to just about everything.
One person's pet topic can be the pet topic of others who don't like animals. Thus, the experience of one professional educator is not of general interest; this person is a 'warm body' a person with false consciousness, or some other defective sort.
And pet topics can be a community's stock-in-trade, for example bigotry, real or imagined.. No one person or group has a monopoly on pet topics. Some academics give you the impression they can't go to a baseball game without seeing flagrant racism.
A little perspective helps.
Quote from: namazu on April 14, 2020, 04:03:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 14, 2020, 03:52:32 PM
How does an "ignore" feature work, and how can I activate it?
Instructions here: https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=28.msg5279#msg5279
I haven't used it myself, so I don't know exactly what gets blocked from view under what circumstances. It should be reversible, though, so you can test it out.
The ignored user's posts are turned into "You are ignoring this user. Show me the post." Then, one can click "Show me the post" if one wishes to read something of the blockee's. Yes, this is reversible. And mind Ciao_yall's
QuoteHowever, if you just click "see all new posts" it doesn't work. But I glance at the names at the top of the post and skip those I choose to ignore.
Desirable pet cause: racism. There's good money being made publishing about it, teaching courses about it.
Dog doo pet cause: The plight of the 'part-time' college teacher. There's money in ignoring or maligning it and there's powerful people to be annoyed when you don't.
Quote from: mahagonny on April 14, 2020, 06:05:01 PM
Quote from: namazu on April 14, 2020, 11:45:57 AM
downer, I agree with your assessment.
Quote from: marshwiggleSo should there be a "poster rating" system here for relevance and insight? Then in principle one could choose to filter our people who are low in one or both.
The "ignore" feature approximates that already, with the added benefit that members can set the "Are this person's posts worth reading?" threshold for themselves. This precludes the likely accusations of mob rule, unfair targeting for unpopular ideas, etc. that would arise if a system like you suggest were implemented.
But even the posters who frequently make the kinds of (off-topic, repetitive, and/or boorish) posts that irk me do offer interesting perspectives and valuable insights at times, so I am hesitant to ignore/filter them altogether.
Well, you chose to be educated.
Namazu, your sense of entitlement is showing. You want other people to change what they do so you can have the fora experience you want. There are many peer reviewed publications you could be reading that might be more to your liking. But it will cost you.
One thing I notice about this incarnation of the fora is we don't have lots of threads regarding the nuts and bolts of how to teach better, how to acquire sources/materials, or anything else that is primarily mentoring on the teaching side. Jedi Mind Tricks and Humane Course Policies are pretty low traffic.
We don't have a lot of threads on the nuts and bolts of research that is primarily mentoring on the research side.
We don't have a lot of threads that are pros and cons of specific committee and service work that is primarily mentoring on the service side.
Instead, there're a lot of threads on the general state of higher ed; jobs, jobs, and more jobs along with how the job search ought to be; and a couple specific posters who start new threads regularly regarding how unhappy they are with the quality of their students in a slightly different scenario.
Quote from: mahagonny on April 15, 2020, 02:45:51 AM
Namazu, your sense of entitlement is showing. You want other people to change what they do so you can have the fora experience you want. There are many peer reviewed publications you could be reading that might be more to your liking. But it will cost you.
But many of the topics here are different from the peer-reviewed publications. Yes, one can get the kind of research I frequently post in peer-reviewed publications, but one can't get the discussion that then follows. There is no option to focus primarily on the specific teaching/research/service questions that individuals have.
One reason I mentioned upfront how these fora are different from the old fora in terms of topics is focusing on teaching/research/service without encountering the job/bigger picture discussions used to be quite possible. I remember Namazu from those days and also remember that she was less active for years right up until we started transitioning and she posted a lot regarding transition.
However, the problem that Namazu states in wanting to be somewhat shielded from certain recurring topics is almost exactly why I keep bringing those topics up in various venues.
One way to counteract the oversized influence of the Professor Sparkleponies of the world is to ensure that people reading along also get the relevant realities on the discussions of proposed academic career paths, administration as a necessary evil, athletics as more than just competition for resources with academics, and changes in student demographics that are more than anecdotes that directly affect academic jobs.
Yes, that is repetitive to those who read along and also read the relevant higher ed mass market literature that says similar things on those topics. That's what I mean by saying specific messages "should be deafening in certain circles" because I can't see how people of good conscience who know the realities aren't putting a solid dollop of "dude, just don't".
Thus, coupling people who are still asking the very naive questions with the regularly recurring first-person pieces in "all" the mass media outlets that aspiring academics should be reading indicates that Professor Sparklepony is winning and we need still more people who will point out the realities when the question itself is so closely coupled to one of the bigger issues.
Sure, it's repetitive to those who pay attention. Yep, I'm tired of reading it even as I write it. And yet, people who leave academia tend to not remain in more general academic discussions and thus all the discussions will ignore those perspectives because they aren't here to contribute. I'm loud because I'm representing that important missing viewpoint to hammer home the survivorship bias that will necessarily be part of many of these discussions.
Quote from: namazu on April 14, 2020, 07:48:35 AM
Bits may be unrestricted, but people's attention certainly is not. I could certainly put the frequent offenders on "ignore", which would filter out their comments and leave the rest, but since they do also have worthwhile things to say, I am loath to do that.
Trust me, it's worth it. When 90% of someone's posts are the same garbage, the remaining 10%, if at all intelligent, is echoed somewhere else.
You can see the poster commented with the post hidden. Click on the post if you feel like showing it. Otherwise, skip over.
Quote from: polly_mer on April 15, 2020, 05:04:15 AM
One way to counteract the oversized influence of the Professor Sparkleponies of the world is to ensure that people reading along also get the relevant realities on the discussions of proposed academic career paths, administration as a necessary evil, athletics as more than just competition for resources with academics, and changes in student demographics that are more than anecdotes that directly affect academic jobs.
Yes, that is repetitive to those who read along and also read the relevant higher ed mass market literature that says similar things on those topics. That's what I mean by saying specific messages "should be deafening in certain circles" because I can't see how people of good conscience who know the realities aren't putting a solid dollop of "dude, just don't".
Thus, coupling people who are still asking the very naive questions with the regularly recurring first-person pieces in "all" the mass media outlets that aspiring academics should be reading indicates that Professor Sparklepony is winning and we need still more people who will point out the realities when the question itself is so closely coupled to one of the bigger issues.
Ok, but this illustrates part of the problem. "Dude, just don't" isn't actually helpful advice and it doesn't generate interesting conversations. I have no doubt that you and others who repeat the "don't go to grad school" genuinely mean well. For all kinds of perfectly legitimate reasons, you believe that deciding to enter academia in many fields is a bad choice so you think that you have a responsibility to keep yelling loudly at people who are considering it. The problem is, that it isn't effective. When people come seeking advice they are looking for information and perspective to help them make decisions. They aren't looking to be told there is only one reasonable choice and that if they don't make it, they are a fool. Most of us tend to discount advice like that.
Look, if some random person came up to me in the street and said "hey, I did really well in college and am very interested in [random humanities field], decide for me whether I should go to grad school, whatever you choose I'll do" I'd choose no. My reasoning would basically be the same as yours. It takes forever to get a degree, you'll think you can do it in five years, but almost nobody does. A lot of people are miserable in grad school and then when you finish the job market is brutal. Even if you do get a tenure track job, lots of those jobs may not be what you imagine etc etc etc.
But I don't get to make those decisions, so I think the thing I can do is try to make sure that whatever decision someone makes, they know what they are doing. A lot of that involves making suggestions about things people should think about and information they need to gather for themselves. All of that can lead to some useful advice for the person asking the questions and some interesting discussions. But, what ends up happening is you take anything that isn't just yelling "NO!" at people as irresponsible rhetoric. People who suggest more nuanced ways of thinking about things are evildoers. They need demeaning names and you have to show everyone that they are bad people who shouldn't be taken seriously. The threads tend to go off the rails from there...
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 15, 2020, 05:32:29 AM
Quote from: namazu on April 14, 2020, 07:48:35 AM
Bits may be unrestricted, but people's attention certainly is not. I could certainly put the frequent offenders on "ignore", which would filter out their comments and leave the rest, but since they do also have worthwhile things to say, I am loath to do that.
Trust me, it's worth it. When 90% of someone's posts are the same garbage, the remaining 10%, if at all intelligent, is echoed somewhere else.
You can see the poster commented with the post hidden. Click on the post if you feel like showing it. Otherwise, skip over.
Possibly I should just start doing that rather than arguing with angry brick walls.
Quote from: polly_mer on April 15, 2020, 05:04:15 AM
One thing I notice about this incarnation of the fora is we don't have lots of threads regarding the nuts and bolts of how to teach better, how to acquire sources/materials, or anything else that is primarily mentoring on the teaching side. Jedi Mind Tricks and Humane Course Policies are pretty low traffic.
We don't have a lot of threads on the nuts and bolts of research that is primarily mentoring on the research side.
We don't have a lot of threads that are pros and cons of specific committee and service work that is primarily mentoring on the service side.
Instead, there're a lot of threads on the general state of higher ed; jobs, jobs, and more jobs along with how the job search ought to be; and a couple specific posters who start new threads regularly regarding how unhappy they are with the quality of their students in a slightly different scenario.
One of the things I thought when I started this thread was that it would be good to see a "Pareto synopsis" of the
threads on here. I'm not sure there's as easy a way to do that as looking at member posting.
I've noted the same points above; if you take out the threads with lots of heated discussion, you'll have a tiny fraction of the postings. It may be very "civil", but you won't need to check it more than every few weeks because nothing will have changed.
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 15, 2020, 05:32:29 AM
Quote from: namazu on April 14, 2020, 07:48:35 AM
Bits may be unrestricted, but people's attention certainly is not. I could certainly put the frequent offenders on "ignore", which would filter out their comments and leave the rest, but since they do also have worthwhile things to say, I am loath to do that.
Trust me, it's worth it. When 90% of someone's posts are the same garbage, the remaining 10%, if at all intelligent, is echoed somewhere else.
Or what we call, in faculty meetings, getting to take credit for woman's observation by repeating it because you're a man.
I've seen this. Something that I will post will be alluded to, acknowledged in a post the follows, without identifying the source. That way the discussion advances and the right people are seen as the most valuable.