Would you join a discussion forum ... then not discuss anything?

[Mark]

Something curious I've noticed while viewing this forum's general stats is that GMG has over 500 registered members, yet I'd be doing pretty well to name 50 who post here with any kind of frequency. Which begs my question: Why sign up to a discussion forum if you're not going to start or contribute to threads? Why not just remain a lurker?

Now, I know I've posted a sh*tload of threads to this forum, but that's because I have a low boredom threshold and like to keep the chat going in as many different directions as I can manage. Keeps things interesting, I always think (though I'm sure I wouldn't have troubling finding others here to take issue with this). But just because myself and a few others have fairly high post counts and our names seem to pop up in thread after thread, that doesn't seem to me to be a reason to discourage new or infrequent posters from making a contribution. So I wonder what does?

Any thoughts? (Especially from our less prolific members. )

[Lethevich]

I used to suspect that some registered just so they could utilise the "new posts" memory, to keep up with threads without reading repeated pages. But there is rarely anybody other than regulars on the online list, so evidently this is not the case

[Brian]

Well, I'm sure plenty of people sign up to ask one question, say thanks, and go on their way.

And I, in my infinite wisdom, have joined boards and forgotten about them in the past.  Last month I clicked "register" on one, and it told me that someone with my name and email address had already created an account!  Needless to say it was me ... post-count zero.

[Mark]

Sidoze, in the 'Ignore function' thread, has just given a damning verdict on the state of this place, and how he feels it has changed in just three years. Is it perhaps the case that because, as he puts it, so little discussion of music takes place, that certain people who signed up to do just that quickly decided it really wasn't worth their time and effort?

One point on which I'm afraid I have to agree with Sidoze is his view that GMG is becoming little more than a recording recommendation site ... though not a particularly good one, in his opinion (which, for the record, I don't entirely share). I feel I must accept some of the 'blame' for this, as I'm sure I've made my fair share of recommendations which must've made other, more knowledgable posters cringe.

[drogulus]

     The board is pulled in 2 directions, towards the smaller group that wants high level (often technical) discussions about the music, and towards a larger group interested in practical information about recordings, building a library, or getting specific questions asked about composers or music in general. Some of us occupy a middle ground, and will be generally satisfied with things as they are.

     I don't blame anyone for being critical about the lack of seriousness. I just don't know how that can be sustained, since you'd have to purge most of the members in one way or another.

[Mark]

I just don't know how that can be sustained, since you'd have to purge most of the members in one way or another.

Or have a sub-forum for paying subscribers only, like a gentleman's club.

You're right, of course. I wish I had the knowledge to discuss music at a higher, more technical level. But then, I wonder, would I come here to do this if I could? The answer is almost certainly, 'No'.

[Great Gable]

Or have a sub-forum for paying subscribers only, like a gentleman's club.

You're right, of course. I wish I had the knowledge to discuss music at a higher, more technical level. But then, I wonder, would I come here to do this if I could? The answer is almost certainly, 'No'.

There are a finite number of users who would be able, and have the background, to discuss music at the highest level. Do people only want that level of discussion, only available to the elite? This should be a place for all classical music fans to meet and share. Another way to restrict topics would be to remove all other non-classical threads - again, is that what users desire? We all come at these forums with different levels of knowledge and expertise and we all want something out of it, often unknown to the user.

On the subject of the Ignore thread I started, what I don't want is to be brow-beaten and insulted because I protest about such behaviour. In the workplace you would be sacked and maybe even prosecuted. In private no-one would accept attacks on their person so why should we accept it here?

[bhodges]

Well, I must respectfully disagree with sidoze (who offers many fine tips here, lately on fillms, but on music as well).  If the place has changed, my feeling is that most boards "morph" over time, and that this is a natural process. 

Also, I think people are here for many different reasons: some for a one-time recommendation, some for more in-depth discussion of recordings, some for concert reports, some for help with technical issues, and some for non-musical reasons at all.  (I do notice that some here hang out in the Diner and rarely venture elsewhere.  )

But I've said it before: I don't understand why some here don't ignore (i.e., scrolling past) posts they don't like, or stay out of entire threads altogether.  This is an absolutely huge board, with thousands of posts, and I can't imagine even trying to keep up, reading it all.

Speaking for myself, as a poster and music lover, there are dozens of people here whom I enjoy and with whom I've had interesting exchanges (and with whom I've talked on the telephone and met in person), and most of these I would not have encountered elsewhere.  I enjoy the recordings reoommendations, the concert reports (e.g., from as far away as New Zealand), and the occasional chat about interesting books, food, or other subjects.

On the other hand, speaking as a moderator, there is little we can do to discourage frivolous posting, and frankly, there is a fair quotient of nonsense on almost any board, anywhere.  (The down side of a democracy is that people are as free to post garbage as they are to post something that's genuinely helpful.)  I would welcome suggestions for the four moderators (not counting Rob, for the moment) to help, acknowledging however, that we do this voluntarily, and can't often "come to the rescue" when there are problems.  It's not easy, straddling a line between permissiveness and censorship, and I suspect most of the four of us err on the "permissive" side when possible.  (I know I do.)

But returning to the comments at hand...

Looking through some thoughts just posted, I totally agree that people here come with all levels of expertise and interest, from the highly technical to the completely non-technical (and as said before, even non-musical), and I think it's virtually impossible for a single board, even one as large as this one, to be "all things to all people." 

All of this said, I still see GMG as the most fun, most fertile (no, not in that way  ) and most diverse board, with people from many different countries and occupations.  Is it perfect?  Hardly.  Do I spend every waking hour here?  Gad, no.  Is it a nice complement/supplement to other parts of life?  Yes.  Has GMG made my life better overall?  At the moment I'd say "definitely."

--Bruce

[Lady Chatterley]

I've learned a lot about music as a member here,I do scroll past the posts or posters that bore me.
I suppose if one wished to have only serious discussions on music one would have to join a serious ,music only board,or get rid of the diner and forget about food and films.

[Gurn Blanston]

If your interests are off the beaten path, like mine are, it can be hard over the long haul to sustain a steady stream of topics that will draw the attention of like-minded posters, since they are thin on the ground in any case. In the old forum, I started a few dozens of threads on obscure composers. The response was enthusiastic from a very few, strongly negative from about an equal amount, and total disinterest from the vast majority. Since music history, rather than performance, is my interest, I have little or no desire to play the "recommendation game", or the "how big is my collection game" either. But the evolution of genres and performance styles and instruments, and the actual influences of various musical figures, whether composers, teachers, performers or instrument makers is a subject that I would happily engage in.

So I can relate to what Tony Sidoze is saying, even though I don't have the passion for it that he does. I just read anything that is interesting to me, many things that aren't (as a moderator I sort of have to), and then move along. It is rather sad, really, that we do spend such a small amount of time on what is our ostensible reason for being here...



----------------
Now playing:  Zoeller / Brandis / Ueberschaer - Beethoven - Bia 114 Op 25 Serenade in D for Flute, Violin & Viola 6th mvmt - Adagio - Allegro vivace e disinvolto

[MishaK]

I think there are a number of one-off members who just join to post a question in the Name the Tune forum and then disappear, as well as lurkers, who might have thought of posting, but found sufficient info in existing threads without themselves joining the fray. I myself have joined some forums without posting, simply because I was looking for information and the information on the relevant forum was inaccessible for non-members (some software manufacturer support forums are a great example).

[Don]

All of this said, I still see GMG as the most fun, most fertile (no, not in that way  ) and most diverse board, with people from many different countries and occupations.  Is it perfect?  Hardly.  Do I spend every waking hour here?  Gad, no.  Is it a nice complement/supplement to other parts of life?  Yes.  Has GMG made my life better overall?  At the moment I'd say "definitely."

--Bruce

My sentiments also.  I'm surprised that any members feel that this board was better two or three years ago.  I've been here well over two years, and there has always been occasional bickering and hostility.  That hasn't changed.  Also, I don't find that the quality of recommendations has declined at all.  Further, outside of Herman, I can't remember the name of anyone whose recommendations were better than the current crop of members.

One last thing.  The loss of a member is not a bad thing; when one wants to go, it's best for the board that he/she takes a hike.  No one person, except for Rob, is important for this board to retain its viability.  I greatly enjoy being a member, and that enjoyment hasn't decreased in the least.