30 day trial....

[Pete Serotta]

Lets try

[David Kirk]

Lets try

very good.

Would it make sense to drag the current OT threads into this space to give it a jump start?

dave

[jbrainin]

Drag 'em in and reopen them!

[jbrainin]

Lets try

And they said it could never be done!

[SoCalSteve]

Thanks Pete!!!

Hope this works out...

Just sayin'

Steve

[rugbysecondrow]

Thanks Pete!!!

Hope this works out...

Just sayin'

Steve

How is "Works" being defined? Do you mean you hope all OT threads (which I am not certain how something can be OT in a General Discussion area since, by definition, it is meant for GENERAL DISCUSSION) would find their home here or do you mean it would work by the General Discussion area being transformed into a Cycling Discussion area only?

While we are at it, how about moving bike fit related question over to that section (4 alone on the first page...I am aghast), and moving questions about rides and gatherings over to that section (3 of those too)...they really seem to be gumming up the works and getting in the way of discussion about Wide Chamois and the newest and lightest bike tool (read deep sarcasim in my voice).

If segmenting conversations so that pure cycling talk is what the tech bike geeks want, then why have a General Discussion area in the fist place because that is really not what is desired.

This is not directed at the Mods because they have interests that are often very different than us regular participants to reconcile, this is directed at the people who seem overwhelmed by the non-cycling discussions that are taking place in the General Discussion area.

[Blue Jays]

Outstanding work, Pete. Thank you very much.
Concur with idea raised by Mr. Kirk to move "previously OT" threads here.

[Hai H. Ho]

Thank you again Pete. I too agree that we should move the OT threads here as well. Remember growing pains.

[pbjbike]

Well Done! Now, where's the wine toasting icon?

[paczki]

getting in the way of discussion about Wide Chamois

I think there should be a section of the forum just devoted to Wide Chamois discussions.

[Keith A]

very good.

Would it make sense to drag the current OT threads into this space to give it a jump start?

daveDone! I only went back three pages...I figured that was enough of a jump start.

[Lifelover]

I dissent. I liked it the way it was.

However, with my memory, in a week or two I won't even remember how it was. :banana: :banana:

[thwart]

I'm with rugbysecondrow.

This is not an upgrade.

Requiring OT in the title, fine. But another whole section for it... sheesh. :no:

[RABikes2]

I'm with rugbysecondrow.

This is not an upgrade.

Requiring OT in the title, fine. But another whole section for it... sheesh. :no:
+1

Real simple ... if it says OT in the title and you aren't interested, don't read it, but another section ... plain silly.

RA

[William]

+1

Real simple ... if it says OT in the title and you aren't interested, don't read it, but another section ... plain silly.

RA


+100 cuz.

Silly and lame. I guess if a few whine enough they get their way. Too much trouble to NOT click on a thread title they don't want to read.







William

[Blue Jays]

+100 cuz.You two are cousins?
That's fantastic! :beer:

[victoryfactory]

A major wrong turn IMO
This move makes the forum instantly less user friendly
and it now becomes a chore to visit.

Either OT topics are ALLOWED or they are NOT ALLOWED
If they are still allowed, why segregate them?

Just so a few over sensitive people can pretend they don't exist?

This reminds me of how rich people put up fences so they don't have to
look at the poor people.


VF

[dogdriver]

What does OP stand for? Off topic? Officious Tort?

Or, for that matter, ESPN?

[fiamme red]

There are other cycling forums that I hardly ever look at any more, because they're divided into so many sub-forums, each with its own habitués. I'm sorry to see that we're going the same way here. :crap:

[Blue Jays]

No need to get so passionate. It's a helpful and evolutionary improvement to boost reading ease:
Viewers can simply choose either format and it's still only a single click for both
Those who wish to see everything as mixed content can click on NEW POSTS above
Those who wish to concentrate on bicycle-specific posts can click on GENERAL DISCUSSION also on the front page
People shouldn't berate Serotta_Pete for his forum vision, diversity, good planning, and inclusiveness.

[William]

What’s even easier and more inclusive was to leave it as it was.

No need to get so passionate. It's a un-helpful and de-evolutionary un-improvement to reduce reading ease:

• Viewers could simply choose to look or not look with only a single click to read or go to another post
• Those who wish to see everything could click on any thread in one GENERAL DISCUSSION area and read it.
• Those who wish to concentrate on bicycle-specific posts could click on bicycle-specific posts in one GENERAL DISCUSSION area.

No one is personally berating Serotta_Pete for this forum de-evolution, divisiveness, and copying of other forums on the internet. A bad move is a bad move. Nothing personal.



William

[Blue Jays]

LOL, nice one! :)

[victoryfactory]

Those who wish to see everything as mixed content can click on NEW POSTS above


Thanks, I didn't know that trick. I was too busy being unreasonable.

VF

[Blue Jays]

"...Thanks, I didn't know that trick..."Sure, no worries. :beer:
That is the true beauty of Serotta_Pete's implementation that it's flexible to highlight either bicycle-specific, OT-specific, and blended recent posts from a single click on the front page.

[Keith A]

What does OP stand for? Off topic? Officious Tort?

Or, for that matter, ESPN?OP = original poster
OT = off topic

[false_Aest]

This section is THE new forum.

[victoryfactory]

This section is THE new forum.

Hey wait a minute Will cycling posts be allowed in the
OT section?
I was riding my bike today and I was wondering where
to get a new SLR....

this is stupid

VF

[RABikes2]

What’s even easier and more inclusive was to leave it as it was.

No need to get so passionate. It's a un-helpful and de-evolutionary un-improvement to reduce reading ease:

• Viewers could simply choose to look or not look with only a single click to read or go to another post
• Those who wish to see everything could click on any thread in one GENERAL DISCUSSION area and read it.
• Those who wish to concentrate on bicycle-specific posts could click on bicycle-specific posts in one GENERAL DISCUSSION area.

No one is personally berating Serotta_Pete for this forum de-evolution, divisiveness, and copying of other forums on the internet. A bad move is a bad move. Nothing personal.

William
+101 Cuz

Yes, he is the relative who has the gift of putting thoughts into words well.

[Blue Jays]

Humorous as always, Ritaann!
Try it, you'll like it. :)

[William]

Sure, no worries. :beer:
That is the true beauty of Serotta_Pete's implementation that it's flexible to highlight either bicycle-specific, OT-specific, and blended recent posts from a single click on the front page.


In theory you may be right. In reality the threads are moved and participation will dwindle. Part of the success of the "Old" way is that folks who may not usually participate may see an OT (as they scan bike-specific threads) that is related to their area of expertise and jump in to share. I've seen that time and time again. When people gather, discussion tends to cover many topics and drifts along. No one stops and tells someone else if you want to talk about another topic, go into another room.

I like Pez's description of a group ride. No one ever talks only about bikes on a long ride. Many interesting topics come up, as well as bike related ones. In my opinion, this move is a step in killing off the community feel this forum has cultivated over the years in lieu of someones need to pigeon hole discussion.

Just my opinion.


William

[rugbysecondrow]

In theory you may be right. In reality the threads are moved and participation will dwindle. Part of the success of the "Old" way is that folks who may not usually participate may see an OT (as they scan bike-specific threads) that is related to their area of expertise and jump in to share. I've seen that time and time again. When people gather, discussion tends to cover many topics and drifts along. No one stops and tells someone else if you want to talk about another topic, go into another room.

I like Pez's description of a group ride. No one ever talks only about bikes on a long ride. Many interesting topics come up, as well as bike related ones. In my opinion, this move is a step in killing off the community feel this forum has cultivated over the years in lieu of someones need to pigeon hole discussion.

Just my opinion.


William

I agree with William.

I don't mean this as piling on, but here goes. What is the problem that this solution is attempting to fix? If it was the Serotta name in relationship with some questionable threads, then an OT section doesn't address that. If it was political threads become heated and counterproductive, the new section doesn't address that either. If it was the quality of OT threads, I really don't think the new section will address that. It seems that this solution is an attempt to pacify the squeeky wheels who took issue with having to scan the General Discussion forum for topics THEY find important (presumably OT threads made this VERY difficult), that doesn't change with this separation, it actually makes scanning more difficult. Not only do you still have to scan the General area for topics that appeal to you, but now you have to look in the OT area as well. So, forumites still have to scan for topics that appeal to them, that task was not removed nor was the process made any easier.

I am not anit-change, but I am anti throwing out solutions for problems that either aren't articulated well or are just complaining. A complaint is not a problem, but that seems to be what we have worked towards here.

[victoryfactory]

In theory you may be right. In reality the threads are moved and participation will dwindle. Part of the success of the "Old" way is that folks who may not usually participate may see an OT (as they scan bike-specific threads) that is related to their area of expertise and jump in to share. I've seen that time and time again. When people gather, discussion tends to cover many topics and drifts along. No one stops and tells someone else if you want to talk about another topic, go into another room.

I like Pez's description of a group ride. No one ever talks only about bikes on a long ride. Many interesting topics come up, as well as bike related ones. In my opinion, this move is a step in killing off the community feel this forum has cultivated over the years in lieu of someones need to pigeon hole discussion.

Just my opinion.


William

I also agree 100% with William Please don't kill the unique, precious balance
that exists here.

VF

[jlwdm]

Pete, you can't win. Numerous requests for an OT section over a period of time, you decide to give it a trial run and now all the anti-OT section members go crazy.

Good luck.

Jeff

[jimp1234]

First of all, I have no problem with trying something new as a pilot or trial, but you need some sort of stated "criteria for success" so we as consumers/participants and you as providers/moderators understand what this is suppose to accomplish or improve. An easy gauge of participant acceptance would be to do a thumbs up or thumbs down poll at the end of your trial. Personally I like the "old" way. As to why, well it's like the difference between reading a newspaper, or reading news online. As you thumb thru a newspaper you'll come across stories that you weren't looking for, or knew anything about but enjoy reading none the less. It's that element of randomness or surprise that makes it different (and sometimes more fun) than reading news online. And as long as everyone puts "OT" in the subject line I don't buy the argument that it "bogs down" the general discussion forum, if you don't want to read OT threads don't.

[Blue Jays]

jimp1234, if you wish the "blended" approach of both bicycle-related and completely unrelated news information, click the NEW POSTS (http://forums.thepaceline.net/search.php?searchid=695441) link at the top and you'll receive everything.

[rugbysecondrow]

jimp1234, if you wish the "blended" approach of both bicycle-related and completely unrelated news information, click the NEW POSTS (http://forums.thepaceline.net/search.php?searchid=695441) link at the top and you'll receive everything.

It is ironic that you propose a solution that is multiple times worse than what the General Discussion area had to offer initially.

What I find interesting are all the cogent and legit reasons for keeping the General area the same, but no real thought or explanation for why these should be separate. All people say is, "The OT should be a separate section." but don't articulate why this is helpful or how this makes the forum better.

Go ahead fellas, stand up for your own idea.

[jimp1234]

Thanks for pointing that out, didn't know that function was there. However, being curmudgeonly and set in my ways, I'll probably continue going to "General Discussion" because I have no problem with the current system, and I'm quite capable of deciding whether to read or not read threads of any persuasion including those of the "OT" variety. As I said above it's good to try something new, but at the end of the trial let the membership vote one way or the other and move on from there.



jimp1234, if you wish the "blended" approach of both bicycle-related and completely unrelated news information, click the NEW POSTS (http://forums.thepaceline.net/search.php?searchid=695441) link at the top and you'll receive everything.

[Blue Jays]

As the moderators have indicated, it is because the General Discussion area has occasionally been filled with everything other than bicycle content.
Serotta_Pete's excellent and straightforward plan centralizes bicycle (http://forums.thepaceline.net/forumdisplay.php?f=3) content, centralizes OT (http://forums.thepaceline.net/forumdisplay.php?f=17) content, and facilitates blended (http://forums.thepaceline.net/search.php?searchid=695487) viewing each with a single click from the main forum page.
Very easy to navigate and very neat.

[fiamme red]

What about people who come to the Forum mainly for Serotta content, and are annoyed by having to wade through all those cycling threads not related to Serotta? Why not split the General Discussion forum into Serotta-related and general areas? :rolleyes:

[rugbysecondrow]

As the moderators have indicated, it is because the General Discussion area has occasionally been filled with everything other than bicycle content.
Serotta_Pete's excellent and straightforward plan centralizes bicycle (http://forums.thepaceline.net/forumdisplay.php?f=3) content, centralizes OT (http://forums.thepaceline.net/forumdisplay.php?f=17) content, and facilitates blended (http://forums.thepaceline.net/search.php?searchid=695487) viewing each with a single click from the main forum page.
Very easy to navigate and very neat.

No quite accurate. A) the General Discussion area has not even occasionally been filled with everything other than bicycle content. Count the OT threads, then give a %...that will bolster your arguement. B) The blended include Classifieds, Bike Fit, Image for Custom bikes and Serottas, Rides-Gathering, OT forum and General Discussion. That is quite a compilation to have to weed through just so a few people can avoid OT threads.

Seems like a weak position that for a few peoples convenience (I use that term loosely) that everybody else is expected to make their perusing more difficult.

[William]

As the moderators have indicated, it is because the General Discussion area has occasionally been filled with everything other than bicycle content.
Serotta_Pete's excellent and straightforward plan centralizes bicycle (http://forums.thepaceline.net/forumdisplay.php?f=3) content, centralizes OT (http://forums.thepaceline.net/forumdisplay.php?f=17) content, and facilitates blended (http://forums.thepaceline.net/search.php?searchid=695487) viewing each with a single click from the main forum page.
Very easy to navigate and very neat.

Enjoy it while it lasts. :beer:


William

[Kirk007]

and what about those people who only want bicycle content about something new that hasn't been discussed 26 times in the past three years....

Perhaps this category idea will work and even thrive. But I think there is as likely a chance that the general category will suffer.

[Mr. Squirrel]

As the moderators have indicated, it is because the General Discussion area has occasionally been filled with everything other than bicycle content.
Serotta_Pete's excellent and straightforward plan centralizes bicycle (http://forums.thepaceline.net/forumdisplay.php?f=3) content, centralizes OT (http://forums.thepaceline.net/forumdisplay.php?f=17) content, and facilitates blended (http://forums.thepaceline.net/search.php?searchid=695487) viewing each with a single click from the main forum page.
Very easy to navigate and very neat.


mr blue jay, you took something easy..... and made it nuts.

mr. squirrel

[Ray]

Pete, you can't win. Numerous requests for an OT section over a period of time, you decide to give it a trial run and now all the anti-OT section members go crazy.

Good luck.

Jeff
Since we're in the OT section here, I think it's ok for me to note that its not unlike the current situation in Washington. Except they're dealing with IMPORTANT ****.

My, I don't much like it, but I don't much care either. I tried using the "new posts" button on the top of the page, but then I have to wade through a LOAD of stuff from the classifieds that I don't want to see for any number of reasons. I didn't realize that section was so damn busy. I find this to be an inconvenience, but so what. Life's full of them. This one is pretty small.

-Ray

[Blue Jays]

Mr. Squirrel, I didn't realize that I had that kind of organizational pull around here! Sweet.
Similar to the way you bury food before winter and later return to find it easily, this helps categorize topics.
Serotta Forums moderators loaded it with easy ways to see bicycle-only, OT-only, and blended topics from the front page via a single click.
Enjoy! :beer:

[Climb01742]

this sucks. for me, it has greatly reduced my enjoyment of visiting the forum.

[Mr. Squirrel]

Mr. Squirrel, I didn't realize that I had that kind of organizational pull around here! Sweet.
Similar to the way you bury food before winter and later return to find it easily, this helps categorize topics.
Serotta Forums moderators loaded it with easy ways to see bicycle-only, OT-only, and blended topics from the front page via a single click.
Enjoy! :beer:

dear mr. cyanocitta cristata,
making us jump through hoops to find information is not easier. it is nuts. easier is being able to choose what I want to read, and ignore what I do not. I am a squirrel, i have little paws and a short attention span. Your way is confusing and hard to achieve. Finding nuts and chasing wheels is much simpler. what wheels do you ride and where do you live?

mr. squirrel

[1happygirl]

dear mr. cyanocitta cristata,
making us jump through hoops to find information is not easier. it is nuts. easier is being able to choose what I want to read, and ignore what I do not. I am a squirrel, i have little paws and a short attention span. Your way is confusing and hard to achieve. Finding nuts and chasing wheels is much simpler. what wheels do you ride and where do you live?

mr. squirrel

As I said in the other Thread on this same topic in the General Section:::

[quoth me & RABikes2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RABikes2
Same here.
now have to change so we can please a few.
The General Discussion area was that, an area for GENERAL discussion. The closeness of the forum "family" is losing its charm.


I agree, just like more regulation is to protect the stupid people, they were clearly marked threads stating OT. I read with interest everyone's opinion even if I didn't comment and learned things from the OT threads that I wasnt aware of due to the vast intellectual element of the people here on the forum. If I remember there was a vote on this a while back to keep things "as is". Anyway, for my .02 cents I echo what has already been said by most :
ruins the family feel
will stop by less
have to take an extra step for content (come on people do like the easy road, even if its one click vs 2)
also, if im not mistaken, like clicking in the rides section or photo gallery, I sometimes want to go back and posts are gone after a certain time date which is annoying. will this be that way too?
some of the threads i glanced in the general section right now at as i am running out the door are not clearly bike related (i'm not being ugly but diagnoses of diseases etc ) and then some who should be general (birthday wishes that make us more like the family we are/were on this forum) are not (what gives?) Who determines ot?
as above threads were marked and if you can't pass by mcdonalds without stopping in, outlaw mcdonalds?
just my thoughts which most of has been echoed by others in this thread already
__________________

[Sandy]

ok- pea brain Sandy will take a stab at it. I really did not understand why there was so much strong opposition to separating the OT threads from the more bicycle specific threads. Just one more category, and it did stop the occasional genuine imbalance between OT threads and more bicycle related threads. It was a clean separation. Just go to wherever you want to go. Simple to me.

But pea brain Sandy is realizing/understanding better the real opposition to the change.....There is a continuity/easy flow that tends to be diminished with the new category. As one is in the General Discussion area looking at bicycle related topics, a reader may have his interest piqued (correct word?) in looking at a non-bicycle related topic.

If you have all bicyclists who ride red bikes ride on one side of the road, and all with blue bicycles ride on the other side of the road, then it is more unlikely to have the blues talk to the reds and vice versa unless one or the other makes a special effort to cross the road. So both groups lose a little- the smooth easy flow of conversation that may occur by noticing interesting topics discussed on each side of the road.

So I think we may lose a bit if camaraderie and free easy flow between people, and probable lack of posting by some in topics that might pique (that word again) their interest. On the other hand, some here just want a bicycle oriented site without the infringement of off topic threads nearby.

Before I did not see the big deal about separating the OT from the bicycle related topics, but I do now.

My dog King is very upset. He misses the dog photos and descriptions.


Sandy

[jblande]

This is much better atmo

[William]

ok- pea brain Sandy will take a stab at it. I really did not understand why there was so much strong opposition to separating the OT threads from the more bicycle specific threads. Just one more category, and it did stop the occasional genuine imbalance between OT threads and more bicycle related threads. It was a clean separation. Just go to wherever you want to go. Simple to me.

But pea brain Sandy is realizing/understanding better the real opposition to the change.....There is a continuity/easy flow that tends to be diminished with the new category. As one is in the General Discussion area looking at bicycle related topics, a reader may have his interest piqued (correct word?) in looking at a non-bicycle related topic.

If you have all bicyclists who ride red bikes ride on one side of the road, and all with blue bicycles ride on the other side of the road, then it is more unlikely to have the blues talk to the reds and vice versa unless one or the other makes a special effort to cross the road. So both groups lose a little- the smooth easy flow of conversation that may occur by noticing interesting topics discussed on each side of the road.

So I think we may lose a bit if camaraderie and free easy flow between people, and probable lack of posting by some in topics that might pique (that word again) their interest. On the other hand, some here just want a bicycle oriented site without the infringement of off topic threads nearby.

Before I did not see the big deal about separating the OT from the bicycle related topics, but I do now.

My dog King is very upset. He misses the dog photos and descriptions.


Sandy


Sandy and King gets it. :beer:

I might add, if you look at the activity between to two, you'll see that there is much more activity in the "General" section indicating that OT's weren't taking over bike content. Some OT threads were getting bounced to the top continually by a few prolific politico posters, but in reality, OT activity has always been much smaller than the bike centric topics.




William