Soapbox Reorganization?

[davar55]

Again, I totally disagree. Conceptual structural organization
is not arbitrary or meandering.

[axn]

Suppose you have a thread that deals with religious objections to evolution and its rebuttals. Where would you place it? Science? Religion? Politics? Philosophy?

[petrw1]

... for some reogranization wisdom

http://search.dilbert.com/search?p=Q...%3acomic&srt=0

[davar55]

Originally Posted by axn

Suppose you have a thread that deals with religious objections to evolution and its rebuttals. Where would you place it? Science? Religion? Politics? Philosophy?

First, let the OPer place it in an appropriate sub-forum of soapbox as he
sees fit among the choices offered in my OP, according to his title and
first post. If the discussion wanders to another topic within that sub-forum's
category, fine, but if it enters another category, post some kind of reference
to where the conversation is continued and move there, even if it means
starting a new thread or continuing a different old one.

If the OPer has a title that crosses categories, use the Whatever
sub-forum category, or some other catch-all that the moderators
have or come to agree on.

OK?

[davar55]

Originally Posted by davar55

First, let the OPer place it in an appropriate sub-forum of soapbox as he
sees fit among the choices offered in my OP, according to his title and
first post. If the discussion wanders to another topic within that sub-forum's
category, fine, but if it enters another category, post some kind of reference
to where the conversation is continued and move there, even if it means
starting a new thread or continuing a different old one.

If the OPer has a title that crosses categories, use the Whatever
sub-forum category, or some other catch-all that the moderators
have or come to agree on.

OK?

How about some soapbox discussion?

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Your original posting suggests to me that the problem you experience is that we often don't know what threads in the soapbox are about without laboriously reading through them first. Is that a fair summary? I agree it's a problem but I don't think a particularly esthetic solution exists.

The fact that the sub-structure which you suggest does not change the top-level complexity does not in my opinion alter the fact that the forum as a whole is made less easy to grasp by the additional (sub-)categories. These categories would require just as much extra mod monitoring as any other new way of classifying the threads because the subject of a thread, especially in the soap box, very often evolves over time necessitating reclassification if we go down that road.

could there ever be a last ten threads you've viewed idea ? I get that it kinda already exists on the forum in the fact that most popular threads are at the top but maybe the top ten someone follows would stop them from searching through thousands if their choices aren't on top. Of course I'll accept any rejection from this discussion.

[davar55]

Most of the soapbox threads are on topics that are at the intersection of multiple fields of life (science, politics, and religion, mostly). Your attempt to pigeonhole a thread is doomed to failure, regardless of the organization of forum. What you call "meandering" is merely the natural evolution of the thread topic as multiple perspectives are introduced. Stop tilting at windmills.

I'll take that last sentence as good advice. My list of categories should
not pigeonhole anyone else. And any such organization of thread topics
would just add unnecessary and undesirable complexity to the forum.
You've all convinced me. Suggestion withdrawn.

(I added the bolds in the quote.)