[Ulrich Mayring]

Niall,

if you think my suggestions are impractical, then how would you go about improving the quality of the discussions?

Or are you of the conservative school, that thinks that we should focus on preserving what we have instead of trying to improve and in the process completely botch it? Then let's just carry on. After all, that is what got us here in the first place

Ulrich

[Niall C]

Ulrich

Some might say I'm conservative but I tend to think I'm more laissez faire, hence my reaction to your fairly prescriptive approach to managing the discussion. As to how we improve the discussion, well I think that comes down to each of us as individuals making a conscious effort to bring something to the table that is worth discussing. I recall a while back being bored by the lack of what I consider decent discussions on the DG and coming to the conclusion that if I wanted to see better discussions then it was down to me to kick start some threads that had subject matter I was interested in and hopefully others were too. Every now and again I remind myself to do that.

Niall

[Garland Bayley]

...
if you think my suggestions are impractical, then how would you go about improving the quality of the discussions?
...

True moderation could help improve the quality of the discussions. Something that could get rid of the ad hominen attacks and name calling. Unfortunately, it is quite impractical. I know early versions of discussion groups on the web had moderation, but I suppose the web posting has become too ubiquitous for it to take place now.

Like buttons IMO are a detriment. They simply serve as popularity contests. Heck, put them on here and eventually perhaps the unwashed masses will conclude that Arnold Palmer courses are the best in the world. After all, most of the people of my generation that I talk to have a real fondness for Arnold Palmer courses, and have no idea who Tom Doak, Bill Coore, and Gil Hanse are.

If you like something that someone is writing here, speak up and write a reasoned statement of why.

[George Pazin]

Ulrich, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Golfclubatlas ain't broke.

Well done, Ran and Ben. Both on the site and in the ground.

[John Mayhugh]

Ulrich,
I've had a similar idea about a posting limit.  At the beginning of the year, each poster has X number of posts, with the quantity assigned by the moderators based on merit.  New posters would likely receive fewer, and architects more.  People would be free to post as often as they wanted until they ran out.  After that, they could either beg the moderators for more posts or wait until the next year.  I doubt such an idea would be practical in implementation, but it's fun to think about.

I like your alternative of all being considerate and wise.



Ran & Ben,
Thanks for keeping the site ad-free and fun.  The course reviews add a lot to my enjoyment of the site and the game.  Without GCA, I would have probably played far fewer interesting courses, and that comment has to do with knowledge - not access.  

I don't see any reason to cap discussions at an arbitrary number of pages.  Sometimes those long arguments keep people out of trouble elsewhere.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I agree, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But reading Ran's statement I got the impression he was looking for ways to improve the quality of the discussions. Maybe that is not what he meant at all, then perhaps someone should set me straight on that.

But if I interpreted him correctly, then I daresay we won't improve by slacking off, keeping to our well-established routines and shunning every risk of change

Ulrich

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()