The secret life of threads
An Thropologist
Posts: 39,854 Forum Member
✭
One of the many things that fascinate me about forums like DS is the life threads can take on or not.
I have written threads that have instantly caught light and much better threads that fell into oblivion with barely a soul noticing.
Then there are the threads which do a U turn. I wrote one silly and inconsequential thread starter post last year which quite rightly seemed to be heading on the road to nowhere. A couple of days passed and even I had forgotten about it. I had been out somewhere, came back and to my amazement found the forgotten thread being hotly debated and onto its fourth page.
I wish I had the ability to analyse this. I am fascinated to see how threads ignite or fizzle. I suspect I need to understand chaos theory or some other such similar mathematical skill is needed.
From my own observations the quality of the topic is not a major factor. My most successful thread (not that I am having a private competition to start a successful thread
) start this year was about Tapioca which I think you will all agree is pretty random.
I feel that timing matters, a random subject seems to fly better on weekday afternoons. This thread if it catches light at all will die when the noms are out and attention is (rightly) turned to them.
Then what of the threads that start during HL or eviction shows? Several near identical threads can start together and one will rise to the top of the pile as the thread that debates that point. It isn't necessarily the best starter post on the subject, so I find myself wondering if it is just fluke that that particular thread succeeded where better ones failed.
Does anyone else ever think about the success or failure of threads? Any insights or conclusions to offer?
I have written threads that have instantly caught light and much better threads that fell into oblivion with barely a soul noticing.
Then there are the threads which do a U turn. I wrote one silly and inconsequential thread starter post last year which quite rightly seemed to be heading on the road to nowhere. A couple of days passed and even I had forgotten about it. I had been out somewhere, came back and to my amazement found the forgotten thread being hotly debated and onto its fourth page.
I wish I had the ability to analyse this. I am fascinated to see how threads ignite or fizzle. I suspect I need to understand chaos theory or some other such similar mathematical skill is needed.
From my own observations the quality of the topic is not a major factor. My most successful thread (not that I am having a private competition to start a successful thread
) start this year was about Tapioca which I think you will all agree is pretty random.I feel that timing matters, a random subject seems to fly better on weekday afternoons. This thread if it catches light at all will die when the noms are out and attention is (rightly) turned to them.
Then what of the threads that start during HL or eviction shows? Several near identical threads can start together and one will rise to the top of the pile as the thread that debates that point. It isn't necessarily the best starter post on the subject, so I find myself wondering if it is just fluke that that particular thread succeeded where better ones failed.
Does anyone else ever think about the success or failure of threads? Any insights or conclusions to offer?
0
Comments
I've often thought about it. Wouldn't be surprised if some sort of evolutionary theory is almost possible, if a little tongue in cheek. Although you couldn't set rules such as 'evolutionary regression is impossible'. Sudden impact theory works - someone leaves (the catastrophe), and their contribution fades, eventually to die off.
On second thoughts, other than a mod deleting a thread, that first one is a possible rule - once the posts are there, they are there.
Love to see that developed as a proper study!
So I shall simply do my duty by responding and bumping this thread up.
The strange thing is... as that thread starts to die off and disappear... its previously rejected identical twin suddenly gets a new lease of life and reappears from page 3 or something, and often goes on to become the more populated thread of the two.
I must admit I like to read the new threads first and those with one or two posts always attract. I suppose this is mainly because once we get going on some meaty topic some FM goes off on the 'where is your evidence' and 'please provide proof' line. Sometimes FMs get personally insulting to each other. At either of these points I get turned off and leave as for me it is a discussion and hopefully a bit of fun
I shall keep popping back in and hopefully learn more.
PS How long will it be before someone points out helpfully "you have posted this on the wrong forum". Place your bets ladies and gentlemen - I think it will be by 7pm tonight
The only conclusion I was drawing was that to DS BB forum users Tapioca is intrinsically interesting and discussion threads intrinsically dull.
Dave TS I have a hunch it would be something like road traffic management studies. I feel as an analogy RTM has similar problems, inter relationships of causal factors and a peppering of randomness that we need to factor into our equations.
thank you both for indulging me. XXX
For a double whammy, make the subject matter racism or homophobia.
I've often wondered myself, why certain threads do well and others fall into the abyss.
And at least your tapioca thread didn't descend into name calling and tit for tatting!
They are named in the style of
"Does anyone else think..." or "Really not acceptable".
You know, not a clue to the content matter, it's just that the thread maker wants you to open their treasure like a tin in the cupboard that's lost its label.
I think ............... should win because (intelligent argument)
I think your wrong so nerrrr!
I think......should not win because (intelligent argument)
I think your wrong so nerrr!
Rinse repeat again again!
Once again then - I think the tapioca thread (and its associated discussion of sago,semolina and various milk pudding lol!) felt 'safe' for a lot of posters. Sometimes we 'lurkers' want to join in but seeing how some posters respond to the views of others (no matter how respectfully they are worded or anodyne their content), it just doesn't feel worth sticking your head above the parapet.
So thanks An, for starting such a fascinating thread which revealed so much about the dietary interests of FMs - and at least it didn't descend into name calling and bouts of 'tit for tat'.
LOL I think you are right.
If I were clever enough to unpick the success/fail criteria sufficient to come up with a winning formula I wouldn't necessarily want to attract lots of attention.
My holy grail would be simply to attract the attention of FM's who are interested in moving beyond the fanatic posts and could test ideas and theories without it being about loving or hating such and such an HM.
This show throws up some really interesting moral and philosophical questions and indeed responses which I would love to debate with like minded souls and I know there are plenty on here.
Of course it's not actually totally random. Threads don't appear from nowhere, they exist because someone is making a point relevant (usually
Given a start and an end, it must therefore be theoretically possible to map all the possibilities. :eek:
I've often said 'give me a piece of paper big enough and I'll flowchart existence'. Then again, I don't seem to have many friends any more:D
I used to post on a thread on the ch4 forum that fit your description to a tee:eek:
It was called the "welcome thread" and it's purpose was for those who posted on the LUT thread to say Hi and Bye to each other and for none LUTers to asks questions or say thanks. The kind of debate you talk of happened on that thread Dailey and went unnoticed by the rest of the forum who were busy loving and hating on the general BB section.
Oh well nothing lasts forever, I do miss it though
Never start a thread on a Friday night then!
You get hundreds and thousands who view threads but very few bother or have the decency to say a few words in reply and to anyone who has taken the trouble to post threads that can be most disheartening.
I wonder are there thousands of people who view the BB forum but never can be bothered to reply .
Well I lurked on and off for several years without a post (lost the password in a pc upgrade, and didn't bother for a year or two. 'Silly me', I say. 'Thank God for small mercies' say many others
But that's the same with the blog world. I've subscribed over the years to a number of wonderful blogs on music and comics and stuff, and some very random ones. All, without exception, have a massive difference in the views/posts ratio. One in particular sadly recently deceased one had about 6 posters in a year (including me), but thousands of viewers. In the end the blogger went monthly, and now no more.
And it's always been like that. I led part of a message board for an ISP back in the mid-90s where about 80-100 people posted random very stuff (although loosely linked in a mainly surreal way) daily. The sites stats consistently showed several thousand regular viewers.
I've often wondered whether a similar thing (can I, shall I, must I post after reading) happens with phone votes in evictions.
Firstly, that certain types of HMs attract fans with their own traits. Then what comes into play is a conversion rate to actual voting that does not necessarily reflect the size of the fanbase.
For instance, let's say HM Fred has 1,000 fans, Bob has 100 and Jim has 100 fans. Fred is laid back (or quietly cynical) and only 50 of his fans can be arsed to pick up the phone (they are still
The very tone of established threads might decree whether they encourage active posters (voters) or readers (supportive viewers).
If you're just back, hope you enjoyed it (choke). If you're on your way or if you're there ... it's gonna rain for the next week or so
The most sucessful thread I ever made^
I love threads like this as I get really frustrated with threads that say "Gina hasn't showered" or "XXXXXX should win" although I guess these discussions are what we are all here for. I loved the thread about Josie "smelling" as it was so funny and very tongue in cheek although I guess her fans wouldn't have seen the funny side of it.
Well done for giving us an interesting conundrum to debate although I am guessing there won't be a definitive answer!
You are right of course and the fact that it has little appeal to many posters is almost the virtue from my point of view. Not that this was in my mind when I posed the question. However i have now moved on from wondering about the dynamics of a thread to wondering how that can be harnessed.
To come up with a thread title that certain people will click on and join in and others will leave alone sounds great. It would be nice if it could exist in perpetuity so that those of us who wanted to could take a calm and inquisitive approach to the matters that BB throws up could do so without upsetting the fans.
I realise I am sailing dangerously close to an elitist sort of agenda here but it would be good to have a place where you could talk about say the Hazel/Daley situation and the responses people had to it in an enquiring way without it being seen as an attempt to support or defeat an HM or indeed even a point of view. I actually find the way FM's respond as interesting as the events and the HM's reactions.
I am interested to hear there was once such a place clandestinely living within another thread. Non political titles and thread starts such as Tapioca do provide an amicable forum space but also tend to die out quite quickly - there is only so much you can say about cereal crops! If only we could talk about modern sexual politics for example in the same dispassionate manner.
I too lurked for a long time before putting my toe in the water and am wondering how many other lurkers might be tempted in if they could share ideas and opinions without it becoming so life and death.