Stamp out logorrhea on GCA

[Brad Klein]

Logorrhea is a well-known psycho-social syndrome involving uncontrolled, excess spewing of words, whether written or spoken. It derives its name from its biological cousin, diarrhea. Unfortunately, too many GCA posters with logorrhea are ruining this Web site, turning what was supposed to be a discussion group into just another puerile chat room.

In the past few weeks, I've had occasion far too often to read 4-5-6-7 page threads, half of them consisting of self-serving and obviously unedited ramblings by folks convinced of their own importance and equally deluded into believing that others share their inflated sense of their standing in the world. It's fine to explain at length, but it seems that a number of people can't seem to be clear about what they are trying to say the first time out so they have to go back and rephrase, respond, clarify and back into what they mean. Along the way they feel the need to respond to every post, and to respond as if it's about them. The narcissism is obvious.

The result is a once-promising Web site that is now rapidly degenerating into an infantile chat room, scarcely distinguishable from one of those gutter-dwelling sites in which communication consists of grunts, swear words, icons and shorthand.

What a sad development. There is a lot to learn here, but the valuable message is getting lost in the chatter and clutter - what communications people call a high noise-to-signal ratio.

Interestingly, the greater the din and excitement on the site, the more GCA has become the object of scorn and dismissal from industry observers who increasingly overlook it as a site that has lost its focus.

What to do? Simple. Just follow a few basic rules:

-think out carefully in advance what you want to say before you write it.

-edit it (typos are one thing, bar-room ramblings quite another)

-resist the temptation to respond at all. Let others contribute as you back off and slow down. There is no excuse for two or three people contributing half of a 100-post thread. That's mere indulgence and bores most others.

-how about a three-hour rule, whereby you desist from the temptation to answer any one thread more than once every three hours.

(Maybe I exaggerate for dramatic effect here, but the point is clear.)

[Steve Lapper]

AMEN...

We could ban the offenders who put up more than 4 posts per thread!

[redanman]

-edit it

Wouldn't that be nice.

[cary lichtenstein]

well said

[Dunlop_White]

The three hour rule isn't a bad idea. Better yet, simply go to your home course and take down a tree between every post.

Seriously, the substance is dwindling.

As the year comes to an end, it may be a good time to send GCA/Ran a contribution. Just a reminder! In addition,  Brad Klein has clearly listed many other ways we can contribute toward the well being of this discussion group.

I happen to agree with him once again.

[Scott_Burroughs]

I admit to getting a mild case of logorrhea in two of the threads early on.  I took some penicillin late Tuesday and then took a 5-day break.  Never even saw responses to my posts and don't care.  I also was lamenting the dwindling of the site.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Well said Brad.

[George Pazin]

I personally would like it if the following posters would develop logorrhea:

Tom Doak, George Bahto, Geoff Shackelford, Ran Morrissett and, of course, Brad Klein.

 

Sorry if I've suffered from it occasionally myself. I'll try harder next time.

[THuckaby2]

Concur with George.

In the meantime, lighten up - this too shall pass. And remember also that one man's signal is another man's noise.

 

TH

[RJ_Daley]

A few things:

First a mea culpa, I let myself get sucked into two threads recently that were way off the rails from GCA.  Even though I think I started out my first two posts on the long "rankings" thread with two very appropos statements over the course of the first two days.  Those first two comments on the rankings thread were a heartfelt point of view about GCA.com as it relates to the yearly rankings debacle.  Some of us try to take a position that rankings are way "overrated" pun intended, and some try to debunk the various ranking system criteria.  Are you sure Brad that 'any' negative comments about the value or method of rankings aren't putting your nose out of joint?

Secondly, GCA.com has been a triving cyber-community fostering some good cross country and international fellowship of golfers and those that love to discuss 'many' subjects that are related yet sometimes wander off specific architecture points.  Who is going to determine when a heated debate breaks out over some maintenance practice, or some golf development financing issue, that censorship must take place.  

Thirdly, That fellowship has led to some very gratifying personal meetings and new friendships.  Sometimes because people come to know eachother, not just by the full command they have about specifically gca, but other ancillary matters.  

Fouthly, some of the loggorrhea has taken place now that many of us are snowed in and frankly have a confined life.  GCA.com is a friend and helps the day go by for some of us.  If we want to respond to issues more spontaneously than once every three hours, I don't think we need an editor to tell us we are too vociferous on a matter because we might post several times in a 3hr or some time frame.  Sometimes in the sponteneity, valuable observations or ideas are expressed just as much as restrained comment because one might have to live up to an arbitrary time limit.  For what it is worth, humor seems to be spontaneous.  I don't think I could live with this discussion, no matter how much I love the subject without the humor many of our GCA.com personalities grace us with.  

Fifthly, we have an editor.  His word is final.  He has rightly taken down a few threads, very sparingly over the years.  Most recently the one, I unfortunately became weak on and let personal political feelings overcome my common sense.  I AM SORRY ABOUT THAT RAN.  

Lastly, but not finally as I may want to respond in less than 3 hours; unless I am missing something on the contributors button, or there has been a takeover-merger, of GCA.com and Golf Week-Super. News, I don't see the name Brad Klein as editor, webmaster or contributor.  While much of what you say is true and points taken and understood Brad, somehow I feel you have given a lecture that may have been RAN's to give.

[Scott_Burroughs]

I personally would like it if the following posters would develop logorrhea:

Tom Doak, George Bahto, Geoff Shackelford, Ran Morrissett and, of course, Brad Klein.

Don't forget Gib Papazian.  And all of the architects and supers who have ever contributed.

[kwl]

I agree in principal. I do not choose to read the unrelated topics or personal attacks-maybe everyone should apply the "if you don't have anything nice to say..." rule. Try to be nice, even when it is not the Holiday Season.

That said, "editing" is a slippery slope and Ran does a fine job. We each need to chose signal from noise, but football, healthcare, and vendettas are OB.

Maybe a parallel forum (chat room?) for those that choose to discuss "unrelated" topics with fellows with similar interests (gca)...

[SL_Solow]

Brad;  Thanks for the excellent thoughts.  In particular, the political rants which seek to connect every perceived problem (or every possible solution) to the Clinton administration belong on a different site.  RJ, I don't believe that Brad's post was meant in any way to intrude on Ran's prerogative as founder and administrator.  It was a request for self-censorship which is far superior to depending on Ran to have to spend his time screening everyone's posts.  Perhaps if we all decided to ignore some of the more inappropriate posts and let them die a swift and natural death rather than "taking the bait" we could all spend more time discussing architecture and less time wading through the rest.  

[Mark_Fine]

I could be wrong, but Ran hardly posts anymore.  I know he is quite busy with the new baby, but he is hardly ever on the site.  I wonder why?

[swindon uk]

Stove here.
         Firstly, may i appologise, as i am probably guilty of many of the crime's suggested by Brad,  "Logorrhea".

But you have got to understand that i am a Golf fanatic, and feel very comfortable in the surrounding's of the g.c.a.

I think it's a fantastic site to air your veiw's, and the comment's are of a quality i have not experienced, from the most bazaar to the most serious of Golfing matter's.

As that say, talk is cheap, on here it is free, and I, along with all the other member's guest's, i'm sure i can speak on there behalf, appreciate the site.

I thank you Ran, Brad, and all who else Govern this site.

all the best...Stove..

[MargaretC]

Brad:

Well said!  

There have been occasions wherein I have also engaged in "logorrhea."    I seldom enjoy reading long-winded diatribes -- why should I think that others enjoy mine?    a duh?  

Thanks for bringing up this topic!    

[redanman]

I personally would like it if the following posters would develop logorrhea:

Tom Doak, George Bahto, Geoff Shackelford, Ran Morrissett, Brad Klein, Gib Papazian, all of the architects and supers who have ever contributed.

I thought about this as I read the latest bevy of posts

-Technically,  we should call it postorrhea. (Medical terminology is a very specific language.  Physicians technically have the greatest (largest-once again "Depends on your definition of 'good') vocabularies in society) how many physicians are great writers?)   Logging on a lot is not a bad thing;  it's good in fact; typing and posting ad nauseum is a bad thing.

-How about cypherorrhea - lots of nothing  

-More bits and bytes used is not better.

-Dr. Klein is calling for quality.

[Tim_Weiman]

Brad Klein:

You may get some flak, but I agree with your comments. GCA has come a long way eliminating anonymous personal attacks, but we now need to work on other things, including:

- chat like behavior
- non golf architecture threads/posts

I noticed someone saying your comments really were Ran's to make. Maybe so. But, individually we all have a responsibility to clean up our own act. Ran contributes enough. We shouldn't force him to play the bad guy.

P.S. Lest anyone think we don't still have a lot to clean up, just check out the thread started by "truefanofgolf" regarding Laura Baugh. That sort of junk has no place here.

[Brad Klein]

Appreciate the spirit of the responses. As more than a few responders have noticed, I'm not calling for censorship, merely self-restraint. That's the true mark of a civil society - not waiting for government to impose norms or rules.

Ran is the master and editor and he can decide what to do and how to handle these things. I think the best thing to do with the posts like that about Laura Baugh are to refuse to respond or simply to rebuke the fool.

[Bob_Huntley]

Brad Klein,

Well said. I also believe that our contributors read Lynnne Truss' book, "Eats, Shoots and Leaves."

See today's WSJ, page 1, column 4.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Brad,
Thanks for having the gotchies for saying what needed to be said.

For those of you that question Brad's intentions, his experience with Golf on the Internet dates way back at the beginning of the internet when Brad was the moderator and host of igolf's weekly chat and discussion groups. They were the beginnings of Golf Architecture on the Internet, and a pioneer for this site as well as many others.

[JDoyle]

Thank God someone stood-up and said something that was long over due.  I for one feel the monster threads that are far off topic dilute the quality of the discussion on this site.  It seems the reader has to dig deeper and deeper to find a real topic.  I never read any threads that moved beyong page one because there were always multiple threads that were interesting.  Now I find myself searching the back pages.

[Dan Kelly]

In the past few weeks, I've had occasion far too often to read 4-5-6-7 page threads, half of them consisting of self-serving and obviously unedited ramblings by folks convinced of their own importance and equally deluded into believing that others share their inflated sense of their standing in the world. ... The narcissism is obvious.

You can say that again!

As for me: I don't have ANY standing in the world -- but I do have something to say; maybe it's worth your time, and maybe it isn't:

We could ALL be better editors of our own "work" here. You're right about that. And you're right that some of us go too far off-topic, on occasion. Hell, some of the best-respected people on here -- people with serious STANDING -- go off-topic from time to time. (Can you say "Mini-Golf"? Just teasin', Emperor!)

But having said that (as they say) -- and resisting the temptation to go on at length about why, in my (possibly vain and self-delusional) opinion, architecturally impure threads are essential to the GCA.com Discussion Group Experience, which, in my (possibly vain and self-delusional) opinion, is nowhere NEAR "degenerating into an infantile chat room, scarcely distinguishable from one of those gutter-dwelling sites in which communication consists of grunts, swear words, icons and shorthand," I'll simply say:

No one is strictly requiring you to read these 4-5-6-7-page threads -- particularly those portions of these 4-5-6-7-page threads that are written by "folks convinced of their own importance and equally deluded into believing that others share their inflated sense of their standing in the world."

What to do? Simple. Skip 'em!

Start by skipping everything I write!

As for your "three-hour" rule:

Boy, is that going to be hard to live with!

I note that the "Last Edit" on Post No. 1 in this thread was "Today at 10:00:49am [CST] by Brad Klein" -- and that  your Reply #18 was posted "Today at 11:28:11am [CST]."

That's less than an hour and a half apart!

I'll await your reply -- at approximately 4:20 p.m. EST.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Klein,

Perhaps, if "truefanofgolf" had to post under his real name, that thread would never have found its way to this site.

Anonymity is responsible for a high percentage of bad posts.

If one is serious about golf course architecture, and meaningful discussions on the subject, posting under one's real, identifiable name and email address shouldn't be a problem.  It should be a requirement.

But, that's just my opinion.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

What I find fascinating is that the some of the extremely long posts (Super Posts) are written by people who truly have an opinion they wish to provide for the benefit of others GCAer's.  

Unfortunately due to restrictions on my time and my A.D.D., those super posts go unread.  

What I have always appeciated about good writers and good editors is that they are able to bring a point to rapid conclusion.  Afterall, the perfect discussion would be conveyed by one single phrase or even a single word.  Providing the opportunity for those who could benefit from the message the greatest ability to receive that message.