Have you noticed?

[TEPaul]

That there are a few really interesting (dare I say intellecual?) posts going on in the first or second pages of this website?

I have.

I think posts like these ones (if they are developed correctly) are what make this website notable.

I'm speaking of some areas of the Wie/Bamberger threads, the Scott Anderson interview thread, the Darren Kilfarra thread on the 14th at N. Berwick, and the JohnK thread on "rules posts".

These threads could get interesting enough to be memorialized, in some form.

[ed_getka]

I have noticed, but life has been a little busy of late.

[TEPaul]

No problem, ed, GOLFCLUBATLAS.com even in the best of times should be "spare time".  

[Joe Hancock]

That there are a few really interesting (dare I say intellecual?) posts going on in the first or second pages of this website?

I have.

Yea, I miss Barney too.  

Joe

[TEPaul]

ed:

However, you know what bothers me or even pisses me off about this website's discussion group?

It's that some contributors put stuff on here that's totally fascinating and potentially discussable and they don't know how to discuss it or just won't. Maybe they're just trying to make some statement and discussion doesn't interest them or perhaps even threatens them, in some way.

Obviously, I'm talking about contributors like Tom MacWood or David Moriarty et al who seem to like to broach subjects and watch what happens, Dialogue doesn't seem their strong suit, although argumentation may be.

And then there're others like Adam Foster Collins, Michael Moore, JohnK, Darren Kilfarra who put some great stuff out here and can't seem to find many takers to discuss it intelligently.

I've been on here from the first day----it's strange in many ways but overall it's much better that it exists than if it didn't.

[TEPaul]

JoeH:

I definitely miss Barney. I haven't talked to him but I sense he's reading the site (probably steaming) and one of these days he'll be back.

When I think of all the constructive contibutors from the past who are gone for one reason or another.....well, I don't know what to think.

Whatever GOLFCLUBATLAS.com does or doesn't do the one thing that has to happen for it to survive is to stay fresh. There's some "deadwood" on here now that really isn't productive to on-going interest. If I'm part of that then I'd like to change my ways or be gone.

There's a lot of potential change for the good out there and I'd sure like to see GOLFCLUBATLAS.com by an important part of it.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I don't think you need David Moriarty or myself to give a thread life....there are 1500 capable contributors and the threads you've mentioned seem to be doing fine without us IMO. Personally the rules threads don't float my boat.

Just a personal observation...if you have to tell everyone how fascinating a thread is in hopes of generating interest, chances are it may not be as fascinating as you think, at least for the majority of posters. Its not that unusual....there have been plently of threads I thought were very interesting and few evidently agreed. C'est la vie.

Some of the best threads on GCA have been relatively brief and some of the worst you couldn't kill with sledge hammer.

[paul cowley]

Personally I'm bummed because I just cancelled my hoped for time in Pinehurst with Forrest to meet Barney and all the gang that I don't know...........................................

[Doug Siebert]

TEPaul,

The lack of "discussion" from some probably ensues from some of us not having the time or desire to login here six times a day.  It definitely discourages me from starting any new topics because I think its kind of rude to just post something and then go away for a few days without responding to anyone -- by the time I do, the thread is no longer "hot" so most people ignore it and never see my response...they've moved onto new threads where the one who started it is actively pushing the discussion along by responding several times within a day.

I think this site would probably work better if people were restricted to one visit a day.  Discussions would move more slowly, but then more people would have an opportunity to get in on it, and posts would probably be more thoughtful due to the slower pace.

Not really a criticism, just an alternate universe to ponder...

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, now you are making me paranoid.  I check in here a couple times a day, which is probably too much.  But it seems to me (this is the paranoid part ) like many threads I put my two cents in about, are the last posts on a thread.  I am begining to think I'm a thread killer.  I thought we were just getting going on the Scott Anderson thread.  

[Brad Klein]

I think some folks have done a good job of taming the inmates - and themselves. However, I do want to admit that while I was never a fan of Barney's online style (actually, I was quite outraged by it, and didn't hesitate to say so openly) he does have an ongoing commitment to things architectural and to a certain weird kind of integrity that he continues to monitor and advocate - he's not only lurking, but also letting some folks know about it.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I think Barney is like a country western singer, he seemed to always get himself into a whole lotta shit, but deep down in side he is as good a person as anyone, and pretty damn smart.  I think he was fresh and honest about it, and a heck of a lot more interesting .

[paul cowley]

I never understood what the problem was about Barney....a little off the wall irreverence helps keep the pot from 'gel'ing.
....I would welcome his return.

[TEPaul]

Out of consideration to my good friend Rich Goodale I should add his recent thread, "I have noticed" as one of the most fasicnating in the history of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. I thought his post "Go Astros" was remarkable. But there are a few recent threads on here that sure do make me think. Of course they rarely go anywhere.  

And again, I do miss Barney. I've always been more comfortable with crazy people than sane ones.

[Ed_Baker]

Thank You Tommy, I love you too !!
They have let me out of the hand and leg restraints if I promise not to throw food, but they didn't say anything about spitting !!

[George Pazin]

There are always lots of good threads, you just have to be patient enough to look for them.

Also, I don't think it's fair to infer that someone's non-participation in a thread says something bad about them. People choose or choose not to contribute for any number of reasons. I find my own participation may vary depending on how busy I am, whether I'm at home or work, how much I may or may not know about the topic, or even something as simple as whether or not someone has already made a point I'd been hoping to make first. Just because someone does not jump in doesn't mean he isn't interested. Heck, maybe he's on a golf trip!!  

[Ian Andrew]

Tom P,

I think someone like yourself can remember the earlier days of the of the site when ideas were fresh and new. A time when a couple of individuals were always good for a provocative discussion thread (the main one has two kids since then - and no time to post) and most of the people were architecture fanatics (not golf fanatics).

I find the churn to be the biggest problem, the threads come and go so quickly that a great one can die on the vine before developing life (especially with a juicy topic like Wie or Burke to dominate the weeks or months).

That's my take.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P,
I think someone like yourself can remember the earlier days of the of the site when ideas were fresh and new."

Ian:

I do remember since I think I've been here from the beginning. Ideas and topics back then probably seemed more fresh and new because the site was new and they'd never been discussed on here before. I was talking to a guy from Philly who probably knows as much as anyone on here about architecture and he used to be on here some years ago. I talked to him the other day about something else (he's one of the best rules experts there is) and I asked him why he isn't on here anymore and he simply said;

"How many times can I go over the same stuff?"

I guess he's got a good point. So many of these topics on here although they are good ones have come up many, many times.

I've never been an advocate of splitting this discussion group into sections but I'm beginning to wonder if creating a section for just straight research wouldn't be a good thing.

[Bob_Huntley]

I think that there should be a limit on the verbiage.

Say what you have to say in three paragraphs and end it there.

The longer the thread the less the impact.

Bob