Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

Fuck Topic Abstract

Page: (1)2

22:50 / 06.12.02

Goddamned Barbelith police.

Wrecks City-Zen

22:57 / 06.12.02

...ooooh...

Murray Hamhandler

23:48 / 06.12.02

Topic abstracts assist in searches. Searches cut down on double threads. A lack of double threads make for a tidier 'Lith. It's one of the very few rules here and there's absolutely no good reason to not follow it. Tom requests that topic abstract be written for every thread, so just do it and stop acting like an infant, for christ's sake.

23:54 / 06.12.02

Oh, I see. Cuts down on double threads? Makes sense, I guess. Just seemed that people getting all pompous about not having a topic abstract was akin to pointing out a typo. And don't call me an infant.

23:56 / 06.12.02

Gonna move this to Policy & Help...

ONLY NICE THINGS

00:01 / 07.12.02

Plan. Denfield being overtaxed by typing is hardly a head shop topic.

Still, good to that the intensively inquisitive genii of Barbelith checked out what topic abstracts are for before they decided to scream and scream and mess their pants.

Infant.

00:13 / 07.12.02

and who was it who started a thread without an abstract, and which in fact started off with the main post as the abstract before it was conveniently changed?

ONLY NICE THINGS

00:22 / 07.12.02

Yep. I double posted by mistake. If I was a moderator in the Conversation, I wpudl have moved to delete the thread as a double post. I am not, so I could not.

I don't remember saying that I was infallible. I do remember mentioning that Denfield was behaving like an infant, by deliberately spamming the Head Shop. Can't imagine where he might find a little chum to play in the guaranteed swallow-proof balls of the playzone, though.

00:34 / 07.12.02

Head Shop aside, don't consider that it might have kicked the hypocrisy meter up a notch, failing to follow your own rules?

ONLY NICE THINGS

00:52 / 07.12.02

Normally at this point I woudl explain what the word you have just misused actually means. In the case, I might, off the top off my head, talk about the etymology of the verb hupocrinesthai, and demonstrate why you have misused the English noun. But, to be honest, the combination of ignorance and self-regard functioning here is such that it is already revealed as unprofitable.

Mocking you is easy 'cos you're beautiful, basically.

If I had deliberately started posting threads with no topic abstract, having decided without understanding why they are useful that I was somehow being oppressed by requests to post one, you would of course be correct in stating that I was a hypocrite. Since I have admitted that I acted in error, both here and in the thread itself (that's what Homer nodding means. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear enough), and asked the moderators of the Conversation to delete it, as opposed to, say, crapping in my nappies and hurling it at another forum, I fear that I am correct in stating that, whatever you are seeking to achieve here, it is not fair play or honesty that you are championing. I can see how it's probably a bit tricky to understand the distinction. Why not try here? It might help.

God, I must be drunk. I'm actually taking the time to respond to this Pyrenean whimsy.

00:58 / 07.12.02

Oh, please.

I assume that you are drunk, sometimes I forget the time difference. I also forget that the Haus suit is not the same as the *** person, on occasion.

ONLY NICE THINGS

01:07 / 07.12.02

Well, no offence, but you seem so intent on playing to the gallery that it's not exactly a bang-on incentive to drop the guard.

I like topic abstracts. I approve of their use. They make life easier, both an sich and in conjunction with people searching for topics before posting new ones. As a moderator, I have been asked by the administrators of this board to remind people to use topic abstracts. As a moderator of the Head Shop, I have also been charged with voting on the removal of irrelevant threads form the Head Shop, such as a topic devoted to complaining about the fascist tyranny of the topic absteact, which was rightly moved to the Policy. As a member, I find this sort of adolescent fight-the-power carping very dull indeed.

Now, you could explain why exactly you were justified in accusing me of being a hypocrite, given the request to *delete the thread without a topic abstract* that is plain for those who have advanced past Mr. Roger's neighbourhood. Or you could accept that you were wrong - ceasing to carp would do - and we can say no more about it. Your shout.

If anyone has a good argument against topic abstracts, I would be agog to hear it. Alternatively, this thread could be left to die. Again, your shout.

02:01 / 07.12.02

Ak. Real life intervenes. Will come back with suitably sarcastic post.

02:24 / 07.12.02

Tomorrow.

Sorry, not in a state for this right now.

03:19 / 07.12.02

Or ever, to be frank. I cannot for the life of me think why I am arguing about why Haus has, or has not, been hypocritical in not posting a topic abstract.

I might have had a good reason at the time, but looking at it more objectively, I am quite glad that I now have no desire at all to continue. Frankly, it is bullshit of no importance to anything at all and of no importance in itself.

I hereby apologise for getting involved in it in the first place and grant moral victory to anyone, including Haus, who wishes to claim it. You're right. I'm wrong.

period

05:53 / 07.12.02

I AM THE MORAL VICTOR!

10:06 / 07.12.02

Topic abstracts are not the simplest or clearest thing that I've ever suggested be put on Barbelith, but they are at the moment the only searchable aspect and they can be profoundly useful - for example we can (although we haven't yet), put them as description meta tags on each page.

They're also profoundly useful for people who use applications (as I do) like NetNewsWire (see here for more details) or any RSS feed thingy.

There's more to come on that stuff. For the first time in ages, I'm going to have two or three weeks off on the trot this Christmas, so hoepfully I can finish the articles I have to finish, reassemble the barbelith spec and finally direct it cal-wards...

10:07 / 07.12.02

Oops. None of that was the point of me posting. The point was that YES I'D LIKE EVERYONE TO DO THEM, but that at the same time if you make a mistake then the rest of us have to all be forgiving. OK?

02:34 / 08.12.02

Um, maybe its just my opinion, but hasn't everyone wanked at some time?
Topic abstract..whats sooo damn offensive about taking 2 minutes to write one???

14:29 / 08.12.02

Is it "Summary" or is it "Abstract"? I think referring to it as a 'Summary' makes it a little more clearer. It would also help if the reasons for their use stated on this thread were incorporated into the description when posting a New Topic.

I've mentioned this before, but I think Barbelith could benefit from a Help section which explains this along with details on posting links, images, formatting etc.

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:31 / 08.12.02

Dude, we completely need an FAQ. But who is to write it? I seem to recall there was such a project underway...

19:48 / 08.12.02

Is it really necessary to have them in Conversation? Or, for example, if you title a topic in 'Comics' - "X-Statix #6, by Peter Milligan and Mike Allred", what else is there to be said? I assume the search engine looks at topic titles, too. Haus's lengthy Head Shop titles, likewise.

And really if you have a problem with someone's post, just pm them rather than going 'mmm. Abstract please.' or whatever on the thread. It's really getting unbearable to read this pedantry. I made a few mistakes initially, and was pm'd, politely, on the matter - that's fine. That's nice actually.

Simple, innit?

19:59 / 08.12.02

No one's blaming anyone. No one's pointing at anyone. There's a lot of stuff that needs to be done to make this place even better and more organised, but it's probably not going to happen, cos I'm really disorganised. SO in the meantime, come to the Policy and ask a question and trust the very old guard to explain the point of things...

ONLY NICE THINGS

20:24 / 08.12.02

Ok - let's assume that in X-Statix 8 Guy Smith is killed. So, we have a thread called "X-Statix 6 - Milligan and Alldred" (although you might notice that titles in 'Comic Books' are rarely this accurate or succinct. So, somebody searching for "X-Statix" or "Milligan" will find that thread. However, if somebody takes the time, in the abstract, to mention Guy Smith, then somebidy searching for "Guy Smith" who does not want to read general X-Statix threads will be able to pick this up as a thread mentioning Guy Smith by searching for "Guy Smith" in "Topics and Abstracts".

The topic abstract is also useful for keeping discussions on topic, which is important to varying degrees in different fora. Also, as has been mentioned, Tom, who as set the board up and runs it for us, would *like* us to add summaries. It makes Barbelith a more searchable and more useful place. If you feel that your liberties are being infringed by this tyrany, then fine. Exercise your right not to start threads. Or accept that, if you keep failing to provide topic abstracts (and I would hazard a guess that it is people who have frequently been "politely reminded" and continue to forget or ignore who get the snarky comments) you will probably end up pissing off moderators who then have to clean up after you. Understand, however, that if you post a thread without a topic abstract you are creating work for the moderators, who are generally incined to try to maintain the very very few rules of Barbelith, and communicating that you don't care about what is, as Deric says, almost the only stipulation of posting on Barbelith.

If you feel this is "unbearable pedantry", then I'm terribly sorry for your pain. But that's what you feel, not what the world is. This distinction is pretty much the beginning of consensus as a concept.

Lord, nobody complains about being forced to use titles when they start a thread, do they?

22:59 / 08.12.02

Calm down, Haus.

Your issue is not with me. And I also always use the abstracts - this is not a personal issue at all for me.

I do, however, not always read them. I'm just a bit fed up of seeing "write an abstract", often couched far less civilly, and then with an attendant debate, at the start of a discussion. Here, at least, the attendant debate is the topic.

Perhaps those who get 'snarky comments' are as guilty as you say. Perhaps not - I don't know.

The Comics forum, my preferred destination here, is often simply used for single issue discussion. There's a lot to discuss in an issue, the conversation (can and, hopefully, will) veer all over, so the title serves as all the abstract necessary. I think.

But, as I say, I'm obeying the rules. On the other hand, I quite like the conversational aspect of messageboarding, which is a fairly new hobby of mine, and would prefer a little laxity as opposed to 'enforcement' and 'organisation', something I'm surprised that Barbelith is so keen on. But Tom is the site's owner, and I do and will continue to respect his wishes, as I find coming here a generally positive and informative experience.

Okay?

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:26 / 08.12.02

Ah, well, time was when we had no enforcement or organisation - but that's a topic for the FAQ.

23:31 / 08.12.02

Cool. I'm interested in the history of messageboards, being something of a 'newbie' to them, so I'd be interested to read that.

18:21 / 09.12.02

It's not really about rules as much as it is about it being the way that people have gradually come to operate because it's the simplest way of organising things and pisses the least people off.

18:48 / 09.12.02

There's quite a few topics that have caught my attention due to people posting up seemingly vague references to the early days of Barbelith. Using the 'search' function it's easy to open a window on the early days of this messageboard and see how things have developed over time.

I'm now more clued up on certain events enough to avoid dragging them up by name in a posting and I'd certainly advise people who are unclear on some issues to do the same.

An FAQ as well as a Help section is still a good idea. Without a guide, it's going to be difficult for new posters to work out the appropriate tags for links, formatting etc.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

19:20 / 09.12.02

"Okay. When I'm marvelling at the immaturity..."

First off: could we take a break from playing the Facists vs Morons game? It's less fun than Ninjas vs Pirates and I'm having a harder and harder time telling the sides apart.

Second off: the topic abstract doesn't need much thought, or a lot of extra writing. It doesn't even need to be coherent sentence, really. Three or four important keywords might do at a pinch.

Wrecks City-Zen

19:28 / 09.12.02

[THREADROT]

Dude, we completely need an FAQ

I can't believe HAUS said Dude...

Dude!

[/THREADROT]

21:15 / 09.12.02

It's also worth bearing in mind that Barbelith has been around now for well over three years but that many earlier posts have been lost forever. THere's a LOT of back story to all of this, which might be quite good to stick into the Wiki...

07:59 / 03.01.03

Okay, the whole 'but why should I include an abstract, and why do people point this out' to-and-froing is ratcheting up again in the Conversation (I'm looking at you, Mr Denfeld). Would it be possible to tweak the system so that either a) thread originators have to include an abstract before their New Topic can be accepted, or b) we return to abstractlessness?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

09:38 / 03.01.03

Ummm... whatever the relative merits or otherwise of having them, doesn't the fact that Tom (whose house we are partying in, and who doesn't ask us for much) would like us to use them carry one fuck of a lot of weight?

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:34 / 03.01.03

I would say so. I'd also suggest that Ganesh's suggestion elsewhere that the originators of threads should be able to moderate the summary section is a good one, as it means mods can just PM< the originators asking for them to put in a summary, rather than trying to puzzle out a summary themselves, which is time-consuming and may lead to summaries not in tune with the original aims of the thread.

In the meantime, might I suggest just putting in the summary section "Because (name of thread starter) is too stupid to negotiate a very simple process, this topic abstract has been created by a moderator, who will subsequently also go and wipe hir arse for hir", then a rough approximation of the suitable summary, until a mod is PMed with an alternative?

Page: (1)2