The quality of Avalon: keeping the signal-to-noise-ratio high

[onawah]

I doubt many are going to understand what you are really saying in that post any better than I do, Bluegreen.
Would you care to elaborate?

Posted by Bluegreen (here)
I was curious, and clicked back to find one contributor posting a 2-hour video after it went up to youtube "5 minutes ago". The next video I clicked on from this contributor featured a 24-year-old Richard Dolan. I thought, Oh. I see.

Another time, I was going to post, but didn't, a video by a well known researcher, because by some glitch, there was no sound. The next day another contributor posted it; I clicked on it and thought, Oh. I see.

[Sue (Ayt)]

Posted by onawah (here)
I doubt many are going to understand what you are really saying in that post any better than I do, Bluegreen.
Would you care to elaborate?

Posted by Bluegreen (here)
I was curious, and clicked back to find one contributor posting a 2-hour video after it went up to youtube "5 minutes ago". The next video I clicked on from this contributor featured a 24-year-old Richard Dolan. I thought, Oh. I see.

Another time, I was going to post, but didn't, a video by a well known researcher, because by some glitch, there was no sound. The next day another contributor posted it; I clicked on it and thought, Oh. I see.

Guess we posted at the same time, Onawah. Hope you don't miss my post which was the last one on the previous page.

[onawah]

I saw your post, Sue, but I don't understand what it has to do with Bluegreen's cryptic post.

[onawah]

Sometimes the cognitive dissonence is so great and the aggravation factor so high that there is very little chance for polite or calm discussion.

Posted by Sue (Ayt) (here)

Posted by onawah (here)
Whlle the thread that I started gets very little attention from members by comparison, so non-members are not likely to even notice it.
It's all presented on the pro-Goguen thread as legitimate information, with the Avalon fans of Goguen buying it all as legitimate, so non-members will likely be concluding the same.

The views on the KG thread, as with other threads, do not necessarily mean that folks view it as legitimate info. Views may sometimes be for entertainment value, curiosity, searching for clues in KG's rhetoric, trying to figure out who or what is pushing the info, or just for the pure flabbergast-factor of KG's highly audacious claims.

I also feel that the KG thread might be better suited in the personalities section of the forum, for now.

A pet peeve I have is when threads on a topic need to be split into two factions, like the pro and con KG threads as well as several others. This often happens when a couple of highly opinionated folks refuse to allow pro or con discussion on a thread that they feel strongly about. If all sides were able to be politely and calmly discussed on one thread, people could more easily be presented with both sides, and perhaps reach their own conclusions more readily.

But overall, I do trust that eventually karma does catch up, and the hoaxers and scammers do get taken down. Sometimes it is even hard to watch.

[Bluegreen]

Posted by onawah (here)
I doubt many are going to understand what you are really saying in that post any better than I do, Bluegreen.
Would you care to elaborate?

Posted by Bluegreen (here)
I was curious, and clicked back to find one contributor posting a 2-hour video after it went up to youtube "5 minutes ago". The next video I clicked on from this contributor featured a 24-year-old Richard Dolan. I thought, Oh. I see.

Another time, I was going to post, but didn't, a video by a well known researcher, because by some glitch, there was no sound. The next day another contributor posted it; I clicked on it and thought, Oh. I see.

No. . . .

[Sue (Ayt)]

Posted by onawah (here)
Sometimes the cognitive dissonence is so great and the aggravation factor so high that there is very little chance for polite or calm discussion.

Ok... well, I think I will just go right over to the KG thread right now, and ask Gwin Ru (and others there) why he feels there is truth in the thread. Politely.

[Ewan]

Posted by onawah (here)
.... Just to be clear, I don't believe Bill's complaint about posting youtube videos without watching them first or commenting was addressed to me as I don't make a habit of doing that.
Though in certain cases, such as with the SuspiciousObservers posts, when the source is so well known that no explanation or comment is really necessary, I don't comment.
I was not bragging about being a prolific member of the forum, .....

I'm fairly sure Bill's comment was not addressed to you, any more than any of my points were.
I certainly was not thinking of you as I made my closing comments either.

Rest easy.

[onawah]

National Slam the Scam Day 2/27/24
See: https://www.facebook.com/oigssa
The Office of the Inspector General and the FBI's scambusting apparatus apparently hasn't extended itself yet to scammers like Kim Goguen, but hopefully that day will come soon.

[Tintin]

Interim comment:

Somewhat ironically, it's getting quite 'noisy' in here

[JackMcThorn]

Serial Posters - Propaganda - and other rantings...

Man, I was thinking what in the world is going on this past few weeks. Then I realized what I did. I unblocked a few people that I normally block due to signal to noise because of the war news. I wanted to see if these posters were submitting some good information or if the twitter rush was locked on or not. Then, I forgot I unblocked them and my stress level was like triple normal and the amount of propaganda was at an all time high. At some point, the truth finds a way but you have to admit the past 4 - 6 weeks it has been a real challenge.

But I do think there is a problem with a serial posting of a few dozen posts per day and the veracity of same. I think there should be some more care with posting. But it really doesn't matter because I figured out how to manage it on my end rather than the forum end. But I think with respect to Bill and his forum, a higher quality of source and information is due him. -Especially during war. Everyone involved uses propaganda to shape hearts and minds. Good guys and bad guys. If you think your team is innocent, chances are not and neither is the enemy. [Whichever side you pick.]

I may be wrong but the forum is intended to be a high quality collection of information, sources, and resources over time. With a careful selection of membership -not exactly exclusive but limited. So we sort of have a duty of contribution. What is the best service to the collective? Probably the top 1%. Which the posters will never agree on, particularly the serial posters. Notwithstanding, I consider myself no longer inundated with lies with my management idea and these postings do not get my views count.

But it begs the question: does this data/video/tweet help or hurt the collective? Because I'll tell you the stress from over doing it is real. The stress from trying to discern or search for truth is real [and the time investment most of us are short on]. To the point where checking is no longer an option. Simply blocked and the stream ends. This works in peace time and war time. If you are not a quality contributor, you stand to get a reputation -one in which may affect your viewership. I mean the same goes for the main stream and the alt stream, why not you?

Now granted, I do not post tweets, videos, or large articles. I mostly involve myself in reading particularly the discourse of topics. It is my intention to be more of a consumer than a contributor that takes the time here and there to share something that I'm thinking. There is no shortage of high end contributions and there are a ton of guest consumers. Which emphasizes the duty of care.

[onawah]

Agreed. Though the issue these days for me is not so much who is right and who is wrong, as it is how many posts are actual contributions to the forum and how many are just fillers, and given that is obviously an issue, how does that affect the overall impression the forum is giving to the public eye?
When I see dozens of posts per day from one "person", I question whether it is actually one person posting under a particular moniker, or whether it is actually a spokesperson for an undisclosed group with a particular agenda...
...An agenda that has much less to do with contributing to a discussion or adding to the understanding of an issue, as with just filling up the forum to make it look ...what?...like there's a lot going on here?
...Or that most members agree with a particular perspective?
...Or that there's not much point in even trying to separate the filler from the worthwhile content?
...Because providing worthwhile content isn't really the purpose of the forum...(?)
In which case it's basically just a free-for-all.

Whatever the intention is, when there is an overkill of posts per day from particular forum monikers, I highly doubt that that one "member" is actually reading all the articles or watching all the videos he/she/they are posting.
There just aren't that many hours in the day, 24/7, week to week, month to month.
And when the content of those posts is so often from such dubious sources, adding nothing but innuendo, rumor, toxic invective, or just trash, the quality of the forum goes down and down and down.
To the point where sincere members who actually have something worthwhile to contribute begin to wonder if they are wasting their time on a bad investment that just isn't worth the effort.

Posted by JackMcThorn (here)
Serial Posters - Propaganda - and other rantings..
I may be wrong but the forum is intended to be a high quality collection of information, sources, and resources over time. With a careful selection of membership -not exactly exclusive but limited. So we sort of have a duty of contribution. What is the best service to the collective? Probably the top 1%. Which the posters will never agree on, particularly the serial posters. Notwithstanding, I consider myself no longer inundated with lies with my management idea and these postings do not get my views count.
But it begs the question: does this data/video/tweet help or hurt the collective? Because I'll tell you the stress from over doing it is real. The stress from trying to discern or search for truth is real [and the time investment most of us are short on].

[Valknut3301]

I agree with Jack and Onawah, I've had the same thoughts many times, but I also feel that there is truth in lies and it only takes time and a large amount of discernment to ferret it out. Especially when discussing something like wartime propaganda it can be very difficult - if not nearly impossible - to find the truth of things. Each 'side' has an agenda, and neither is entirely correct or innocent in their motivations. It can take years to discover the truth because the people pulling the strings aren't telling us what's really going on, which is why I take everything with a mountain sized grain of salt.

There's good information here and bad information, in equal measure, and they both have value because the truth lies somewhere in between. Bill and the mods do a very good job, the best they can while fulfilling their mission statement, but no one's perfect and it's inevitably up to us to figure out what aligns with our view of the truth. Personally, I think the best thing Avalon can do is let it all hang out while we make our own decisions.

[leavesoftrees]

I think there should be a limit on how many posts a person can post a day. When one person posts so much they completely dominate a thread and those posts are simply copy and pasting tweets with no or minimal comment from the poster, it's time for some moderation from the moderators

[onawah]

I absolutely agree and am sending a note to the Mods so they won't miss this post.
What separates a worthwhile forum from a worthless one is largely whether it is moderated or not, and even moreso, it depends on the quality of the moderation.

Posted by leavesoftrees (here)
I think there should be a limit on how many posts a person can post a day. When one person posts so much they completely dominate a thread and those posts are simply copy and pasting tweets with no or minimal comment from the poster, it's time for some moderation from the moderators.

Posted by Valknut3301 (here)
I agree with Jack and Onawah, I've had the same thoughts many times, but I also feel that there is truth in lies and it only takes time and a large amount of discernment to ferret it out. Especially when discussing something like wartime propaganda it can be very difficult - if not nearly impossible - to find the truth of things. Each 'side' has an agenda, and neither is entirely correct or innocent in their motivations. It can take years to discover the truth because the people pulling the strings aren't telling us what's really going on, which is why I take everything with a mountain sized grain of salt.

There's good information here and bad information, in equal measure, and they both have value because the truth lies somewhere in between. Bill and the mods do a very good job, the best they can while fulfilling their mission statement, but no one's perfect and it's inevitably up to us to figure out what aligns with our view of the truth. Personally, I think the best thing Avalon can do is let it all hang out while we make our own decisions.

True, it's not easy keeping the quality of the forum high, but quantity over quality is definitely not the way.
When it is just "all hanging out" is when the quality has become abysmal, or perhaps more accurately like so much these days, it's just barely hanging on.
Or perhaps, to add a little levity to a depressing situation I should say "hanging by a thread"...

[Tintin]

Posted by onawah (here)
I absolutely agree and am sending a note to the Mods so they won't miss this post.
What separates a worthwhile forum from a worthless one is largely whether it is moderated or not, and even moreso, it depends on the quality of the moderation.

Posted by leavesoftrees (here)
I think there should be a limit on how many posts a person can post a day. When one person posts so much they completely dominate a thread and those posts are simply copy and pasting tweets with no or minimal comment from the poster, it's time for some moderation from the moderators.

Posted by Valknut3301 (here)
I agree with Jack and Onawah, I've had the same thoughts many times, but I also feel that there is truth in lies and it only takes time and a large amount of discernment to ferret it out. Especially when discussing something like wartime propaganda it can be very difficult - if not nearly impossible - to find the truth of things. Each 'side' has an agenda, and neither is entirely correct or innocent in their motivations. It can take years to discover the truth because the people pulling the strings aren't telling us what's really going on, which is why I take everything with a mountain sized grain of salt.

There's good information here and bad information, in equal measure, and they both have value because the truth lies somewhere in between. Bill and the mods do a very good job, the best they can while fulfilling their mission statement, but no one's perfect and it's inevitably up to us to figure out what aligns with our view of the truth. Personally, I think the best thing Avalon can do is let it all hang out while we make our own decisions.

True, it's not easy keeping the quality of the forum high, but when it is just "all hanging out" is when the quality has become abysmal, or perhaps more accurately, like so much these days, it's just barely hanging on...
Or perhaps, to add a little levity to a depressing situation I should say "hanging by a thread"...

Please see this latest poll created by Bill yesterday and voice any concerns or suggestions you may have there as well. Many thanks.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...Avalon-content

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by leavesoftrees (here)
I think there should be a limit on how many posts a person can post a day. When one person posts so much they completely dominate a thread and those posts are simply copy and pasting tweets with no or minimal comment from the poster, it's time for some moderation from the moderators

Many thanks for the suggestion, and it's a very fair one. We actually have explored this in the past, but so far we've failed technically to find a way to make it work.

[onawah]

What seemed to work in the past when members were not complying to forum rules was that the noncompliant were put on Sabbatical.
It wasn't foolproof, but it was fairly effective.
Why is that not being done now in these cases?

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by leavesoftrees (here)
I think there should be a limit on how many posts a person can post a day. When one person posts so much they completely dominate a thread and those posts are simply copy and pasting tweets with no or minimal comment from the poster, it's time for some moderation from the moderators

Many thanks for the suggestion, and it's a very fair one. We actually have explored this in the past, but so far we've failed technically to find a way to make it work.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by leavesoftrees (here)
I think there should be a limit on how many posts a person can post a day.

I notice that embedded Youtube clips slow the loading of Avalon pages ... I'd like to do something about that, but anyone waiting on me for that had best consider some of the fine health care advice on this forum, in hopes they might still be alive when I get that far down my "todo" list. (P.S. -- Don't directly embed Youtube video's, which is rather intrusive and makes forum pages expensive to download. Rather display a local image copy of the video's thumbnail, where one can either click on the thumbnail to view the video embedded, or click on the displayed link to Youtube to view it over there.)

I also have started dreaming of a variation of the "poster blocking" feature: In this variation, one could select another Avalon member's posts on the thread one was viewing, and cause their posts on that thread, as viewed by the one collapsing them, to appear collapsed to a single line with a little information, such as who posted, when, and some metric of what percentage of that post's views were collapsed, or how many "thumbs up" it had. One could with single clicks expand and collapse back any of these collapsed posts, without effecting your setting to collapse that member's posts on that thread in general. As above, don't hold your breath waiting for me to code this. Poster's could view what percentage of their posts other members had collapsed, but not who had collapsed them, perhaps tallied by month, to motivate posters to minimize how often other posters collapsed their posts. Such a collapse method would perhaps allow even fairly divisive topics to be discussed in a single thread, whereby either side could collapse the posts they found too annoying to read.

[JackMcThorn]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)

Posted by leavesoftrees (here)
I think there should be a limit on how many posts a person can post a day.

I notice that embedded Youtube clips slow the loading of Avalon pages ... I'd like to do something about that, but anyone waiting on me for that had best consider some of the fine health care advice on this forum, in hopes they might still be alive when I get that far down my "todo" list. (P.S. -- Don't directly embed Youtube video's, which is rather intrusive and makes forum pages expensive to download. Rather display a local image copy of the video's thumbnail, where one can either click on the thumbnail to view the video embedded, or click on the displayed link to Youtube to view it over there.)

I also have started dreaming of a variation of the "poster blocking" feature: In this variation, one could select another Avalon member's posts on the thread one was viewing, and cause their posts on that thread, as viewed by the one collapsing them, to appear collapsed to a single line with a little information, such as who posted, when, and some metric of what percentage of that post's views were collapsed, or how many "thumbs up" it had. One could with single clicks expand and collapse back any of these collapsed posts, without effecting your setting to collapse that member's posts on that thread in general. As above, don't hold your breath waiting for me to code this. Poster's could view what percentage of their posts other members had collapsed, but not who had collapsed them, perhaps tallied by month, to motivate posters to minimize how often other posters collapsed their posts. Such a collapse method would perhaps allow even fairly divisive topics to be discussed in a single thread, whereby either side could collapse the posts they found too annoying to read.

You are too technical to solve these kinds of problems. [and I am sure the problems you do solve are quite complicated.]

All the leadership needs to do is indicate that links would be preferred over embedded videos and adjust the community for reasons of overhead, speed, and efficiency.

A soft cap of 12 posts per day, kind of an unwritten rule posture but repeat offenders documenting endless streams of social media would face sabbatical for more than a couple days.

We need leadership and a little bit of moderation. At present, leadership's best quality is the example it sets for how to post. But moderation is a mystery so self contained behind closed doors it doesn't look like it does anything. [Aside from Mark SM overhaul of the organization of the site topics.] So moderation is a bit thank-less because it is invisible. We cannot appreciate what we cannot see.

You guys are going to have to crack a few eggs to make this omelette. That is part of leadership.

And if it is my egg that gets cracked then I will carry on smartly with your results.

[Sue (Ayt)]

Posted by JackMcThorn (here)
We need leadership and a little bit of moderation. At present, leadership's best quality is the example it sets for how to post. But moderation is a mystery so self contained behind closed doors it doesn't look like it does anything.

Much of the moderation consists of reaching out to individual members privately via pm concerning member's questions, misunderstandings, and sometime infractions.
Usually a friendly reminder is all that is required.

Also much time is spent in mod discussion of just how to handle some of these things.
A lot of time is also spent on non-interesting stuff like correcting formats, moving posts or threads to better categories, consolidating threads, deciding on membership applications, and general chores.

We do consider most all of our members to be upper-scale folks, in terms of integrity, intelligence, and empathy, so actually, most do self-monitor and pick up on subtle cues. When things do get a bit out of hand, we prefer not to publicly scold or humiliate anyone.

Also - jackbooting everyone with more rules(laws?) for the infringement of a very small minority - well, we all know how that goes with more and more impinging of our freedoms.
Encouraging the kinds of posts you really enjoy by hitting the "thanks" button helps loads through positive reinforcement. Funny to observe how some posts get few or 0 "thanks". Makes things kind of obvious, I think.

Bill's thread "Record of Moderator Actions" generally records steps taken in a factual manner.