Defining Topics
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 6:16 am
First of all, I apologise If my comments on "staying on topic" have upset anyone.
I'm actually quite confused about how I should define what is, or is not, on topic.
If a topic is defined by its Title, what are we to make of topics like "new web site" or "smilies" or "refresh" or "bosenova" or "Hmmm..." etc etc etc? Please note I'm not attacking the posters of these topics, just using them as examples.
If a topic is, on the other hand, defined by its subject matter, the subject is always going to drift over time.
You could implement a policy that subject titles had to be descriptive and precise, and no subject drifting is allowed. I suspect that you would then end up with almost as many topics as there are posts.
Or you can accept that topics will be interpreted differently by different people, and allow for a bit of subject drift.
For example "Several biggest errors of particle physicists." has never (to me) been about "errors of particle physicists".......it has been about Ivan and his theories. To me, speculation about Ivan's whereabouts is still within that definition.
The competition I suggested was a bit naughty, but wasn't prompted entirely by postings in Ivans thread. I've noted posts like that on many forums and often felt slightly irritated at them, for the above reasons.
I really feel that if you are too strict you stifle the flow of conversation and thought. If I start talking about cake recipes in a physics forum, that deserves comment. But I cannot see the sense in an argument (for instance) about whether a subject belongs in "Off Topic" or "Controversial Subjects". (No I do not wish to comment more on that discussion).
If anyone has any thoughts about how to easily define a topic, I wold be interested to see them.
I'm actually quite confused about how I should define what is, or is not, on topic.
If a topic is defined by its Title, what are we to make of topics like "new web site" or "smilies" or "refresh" or "bosenova" or "Hmmm..." etc etc etc? Please note I'm not attacking the posters of these topics, just using them as examples.
If a topic is, on the other hand, defined by its subject matter, the subject is always going to drift over time.
You could implement a policy that subject titles had to be descriptive and precise, and no subject drifting is allowed. I suspect that you would then end up with almost as many topics as there are posts.
Or you can accept that topics will be interpreted differently by different people, and allow for a bit of subject drift.
For example "Several biggest errors of particle physicists." has never (to me) been about "errors of particle physicists".......it has been about Ivan and his theories. To me, speculation about Ivan's whereabouts is still within that definition.
The competition I suggested was a bit naughty, but wasn't prompted entirely by postings in Ivans thread. I've noted posts like that on many forums and often felt slightly irritated at them, for the above reasons.
I really feel that if you are too strict you stifle the flow of conversation and thought. If I start talking about cake recipes in a physics forum, that deserves comment. But I cannot see the sense in an argument (for instance) about whether a subject belongs in "Off Topic" or "Controversial Subjects". (No I do not wish to comment more on that discussion).
If anyone has any thoughts about how to easily define a topic, I wold be interested to see them.
you are right about Ivan's thread some people really don't like looking there because of what he has said in the past and things like that, I myself miss him as well as a few select people on the forum so if i do want to get hold of Ivan that is where i post as he gets notifaction on all posts hense why i am so worried.
I am not sure why this is does anybody else? more or less all of the posts stick to the correct topic section i do not see a problem with where anybody posts, I am not sure what Chris thinks..............Chrisssssssssssssssssssss 
it keeps me on my toes 
keeps people's mind in exercise i think a good old disagreement 
