Why the rigid rules for SSP: Local Portland?

[MitchE]

In reference to locking the Lloyd District development thread.

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Please continue these discussions in SSP:Local Portland, and please make separate development threads for the projects if they are not created already.

Mike. I think all these rules are a little rigid. Why do we have to separate every single construction project into its own thread? It appears from your various posts in other threads there is no room to do otherwise. Why does that rule have to be absolute? What is the problem with having district wide threads?

A lot of times the discussion isn't so much about a single project but about an areas evolution [all projects included]. When you force the discussion into various sections and sub threads it decentralizes the discussion making the whole community less engaging.

[mhays]

The suckification of SSP continues.

[PDXPaul]

better watch what you say!!

[mSeattle]

Can't you have project development threads (the facts) and then district discussion threads (opinions/debates/arguing, planning, hob-nobbing etc.)?

I don't like going to threads that I want to find only updated renderings/photos/facts about a project and step into long drawn out discussions about restaurants or whatever totally off track.

[MitchE]

^ I agree. I have no problem with single threads about a single project. But judging by Mike's comments, the number of threads that have been locked or totally renamed; It doesn't seem like SSC is interested in allowing other forms of discussion if it doesn't fit a narrow context defined by [CITY] NAME | HEIGHT | FLOORS | STATUS. I'm obviously not keen on the segregation of the NW forum but there's no need for such rigidness for the threads.

I could care less how tall a building is or how many floors there will be. This doesn't add any value to the forum unless you're sole purpose here is to inventory building height by city.

What is the problem we are trying to fix by doing this?

[mSeattle]

There's something of worth about the project facts. The size and design of a project impacts its surroundings.

I visited the local Portland section. Looks like it has three divisions with one of them being the project facts part and the other two being the discussion parts.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by mhays

The suckification of SSP continues.

You may be banned for that. Happened to me at Urban Planet (though I was actually banned there because I have my own website, and they felt it would compete with their Atlanta section...it has, too).

[MitchE]

Originally Posted by mSeattle

There's something of worth about the project facts. The size and design of a project impacts its surroundings.

I visited the local Portland section. Looks like it has three divisions with one of them being the project facts part and the other two being the discussion parts.

I'm not saying I'm opposed to stating project facts or creating threads about that. I recognize it's valuable info. More power to those that want to do that. It just concerns me when perfectly good threads are locked, and we are told to segregate all the discussion into a hundred mini threads. Why was it necessary to do that? Why must we organize development threads this way? I'd like to hear from Mike or the other moderators? If I'm totally mistaken about what you are asking us to do please correct me.

[Mike K.]

Mitch, you PM'ed me about this and the thread has been re-opened and I made a suggestion to grow it into a general discussion thread about project news that doesn't fit into other threads or is a one-off bit of info.

Hope that helps

[SpongeG]

i've noticed theres a few threads in the portland infastructure and transport area that belong in seattle

[BrG]

This newly enacted, rigid categorization is really stifling to casual browsing.

I think it was a mistake. It feels like you have to know exactly what you want before finding it. Rather than discovering things along the way. That was one of the joys of the forum.

My gut feeling is that I won't be visiting as often any more.

The old format could've been retained with a simple rule about posting the city in question, at the beginning of the subject heading.

It's not normally my style to criticize in this manner but this is a "thumbs down" from me.

[tworivers]

^^^After voting 'yes', I'd have to say that I agree with all of BrG's statement. I have buyer's remorse.

[MarkDaMan]

^I agree as well. I voted yes, but didn't realize how much I wouldn't like the changes, however I've kept an open mind and thought I'd give it some time. The more I'm on here, the less I like the format though I'm still trying to find advantages.

I think BrG explained it perfectly...This new format and the strict rules are already killing the vibrant discussion. I've seldom come on here after several hours to see no new comments about anything...

[Mike K.]

You can still make general update threads and turn them into mega-threads if you like, but if there's an on-going discussion in a mega-thread about a topic or project then turn it into a separate thread. That's really the only "rule," and even that is a lose rule by most standards.

For the regulars who check everyday mega-threads don't present issues but for those who want to join in on conversations and don't follow discussions every day, or for newbs, it's extremely difficult to jump in. I see newbs asking questions that may have been answered on page 33 of a 50-page mega-thread but they don't know that so the regulars shun them or don't even care to answer. Some say "do a search" and carry on with asides. This sort of thing not only alienates new users and non-regulars but it keeps them from participating. This is unfortunately a side-effect of mega-threads thus creating separate threads where individuals can easily follow the flow of discussion and find relevant info quickly really is a respectful and much more engaging format. We don't want forums to become old boys clubs, but sometimes that is invariably what happens.

Since we've only been live with this sub-forum for a few days is it really too much to ask to just give it a try for a little while longer? We're trying to bring some change here to attract more people to participate and it would be nice to have some of the regulars help us do it. If it's a failure in a few months, we'll deal with it then. But until then this place really is what you make it, nothing more, nothing less.

[PacificNW]

I was one of the few who voted no but am willing to give it a shot....nothing else for me to do....

[WonderlandPark]

Hate it hate it hate it, as better articulated by others.

This is a solution in search of a problem.

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by PacificNW

I was one of the few who voted no but am willing to give it a shot....nothing else for me to do....

I absolutely hate it, its everything that I said would be bad. Too many categories, too much clutter. I don't feel like clicking 2-3 threads to view all relevant topics, let alone the 10 or so on here.

[65MAX]

I'm not crazy about the new format either, but it seems like it could be made much simpler by just having the three sub categories (Construction and Land Development; Culture, Transportation and the Economy; General Discussion) without dividing them even further into sub-sub categories. For instance, do we really need to separate Downtown projects from suburban projects? The new thread title conventions should be sufficient to let readers know what's where.

I'm all for organization, but this system seems overly byzantine.

[zilfondel]

huh, I like it. We can still have our ginormous mega-threads, but project info and photos will be MUCH easier to find. You guys obviously have never searched 30+ pages back in time to find some neat pics of SoWa, have you?

[Drew-Ski]

I just changed computer systems at work and it took some time to get used to it. But now, I am very comfortable with the new format and actually perfer it over the old system. We are creatures of habit and change does not always come easy. I say lets give "SSP: Local Portland" a chance while we learn new habits.