Appreciate it... generic examples like the F1 thread are fine.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Obsession with starting monthly threads.
- Thread starter Apple fanboy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- monthly threads
- Sort by reaction score
This prior thread has a lot of discussion of the effects of competitive thread creation and the (then current?) rules about timing:
I suppose if this person was called out and mods were alerted and still nothing changed, this should be stated more clearly somewhere. Just not into over-policing, this example seemed trivial to me (couple of hours early, not even days...).
Coming in late to this thread, so much of what I would've written had I been here earlier has now been said, and I agree with what has been expressed here. This particular situation seems to be part of a pattern which can feel disruptive and/or annoying to other members, especially to those who have been participating in some periodic (monthly, annual) threads over a long period of time and have quite amicably worked out a system which seems to suit everyone.
However, IMHO this issue goes beyond who has started a monthly thread. I have noticed that this disturbing pattern of behavior is reflected not only in competition or periodic threads, but others throughout MR.
As has been mentioned, the outcome of certain behaviors can then indeed result in other members ceasing to participate any further in a thread or series of threads which had always been interesting and meaningful to them. I can't think that this would be desirable or beneficial to anyone.
However, IMHO this issue goes beyond who has started a monthly thread. I have noticed that this disturbing pattern of behavior is reflected not only in competition or periodic threads, but others throughout MR.
As has been mentioned, the outcome of certain behaviors can then indeed result in other members ceasing to participate any further in a thread or series of threads which had always been interesting and meaningful to them. I can't think that this would be desirable or beneficial to anyone.
Last edited:
Not sure of what thread the op is referring to but…
Ah yes one of a handful of Macrumors landmark threads. I am against starting all encompassing threads that doesn’t leave room for other threads that may benefit from a smaller or more nuanced discussion footprint.
But if some want to start time based threads let the thread at least get started in the proper time frame.
I suspect that this very thread is an attempt to do just that.
The problem - or issue, or concern - is not that this is a sole, single, solitary case of someone starting a thread early (and this in a long-running series of threads, each of which are started on the first day of the given month) - that would only have been a momentary annoyance and could have been, and would have been, excused as something brought about by excessive eagerness or enthusiasm, and would - quite rightly - have been viewed as "trivial" to use your own term - but, rather, that it is part of an escalating, and repeated, pattern of competitive thread creation (nicely expressed @KaliYoni, hats off) on the part of an individual poster.
Last edited:
You are wrong about the accusation of early posting, assuming you are thinking of the same person I believe you to be talking about, also, are you just jealous since you used to "own" that same thread title
As the threads/user being alluded to are quite unknown to me, I have no dog in this 'fight'. If I did, I'd know exactly what's being discussed.
But as a 'thread owner' myself, I'd just mention that the biggest tool to stop this sort of behavior is not posting in that user's threads. I say I'm a 'thread-owner' not because I believe I 'own' certain threads I've started or the 'content' of those threads, but simply because I started them and continue to post in them. That neither makes me special, nor original, nor does it confer any ownership or give me any right to 'eject' other users I don't like from the thread.
But peer pressure goes a long way on a forum. There are several threads I 'own' that have long since died for starvation of any discussion. Users passed them up because they either didn't care about the subject (or me) or it was plainly a dumb topic on my part.
The forum software has several 'Ignore' buttons. Ignore subforum, ignore thread, and most conveniently 'Ignore user'. This is my go to for anything that offends me but not the mods or admin. It keeps all that stuff I don't want to see off my forum/thread list.
We've all started threads that got ignored. Did you go back to the ones you started that were routinely ignored? The kind of behavior being spoken of demands patronization. Without it, that user starves.
But as a 'thread owner' myself, I'd just mention that the biggest tool to stop this sort of behavior is not posting in that user's threads. I say I'm a 'thread-owner' not because I believe I 'own' certain threads I've started or the 'content' of those threads, but simply because I started them and continue to post in them. That neither makes me special, nor original, nor does it confer any ownership or give me any right to 'eject' other users I don't like from the thread.
But peer pressure goes a long way on a forum. There are several threads I 'own' that have long since died for starvation of any discussion. Users passed them up because they either didn't care about the subject (or me) or it was plainly a dumb topic on my part.
The forum software has several 'Ignore' buttons. Ignore subforum, ignore thread, and most conveniently 'Ignore user'. This is my go to for anything that offends me but not the mods or admin. It keeps all that stuff I don't want to see off my forum/thread list.
We've all started threads that got ignored. Did you go back to the ones you started that were routinely ignored? The kind of behavior being spoken of demands patronization. Without it, that user starves.
Also you know asking is a thing, right? If they say yes, you can start the thread. And if not, no means no.
The issue here is that the particular threads under discussion are threads that, by their very nature, are recurring monthly threads, and thus, are started (or, should be started) on the first of the month in question.
I fully understand - and concur with - what you have written about the sense of "ownership" - or investment - that one may have with regard to particular threads that one has, or may have, started.
As it happens, those threads are usually started because one has an interest in a particular topic, or subject matter, and others may contribute, partake, participate, - or not, - as they choose.
Thus, they are subject specific - for time is irrelevant, even if some of the threads in question (and here, I will make reference to the coffee thread, for example) may have run for well over a decade.
However, the threads under discussion in this specific thread are - by their very nature - recurring and repeating threads and are time specific.
In practice, this means that they run for a month, and are started at the beginning of each month, which, in turn, means that stepping away from them, and possibly hoping that they may wither on the proverbial vine, isn't really an option, not if one retains an interest in a subject, which is why many of those who post in such threads have participated in the first place.
The real issue here is the assumed consent of others - which is not a given, not in a collective space which has had a welcoming, pleasant, collegial atmosphere until now - not when one individual takes a pre-emptive, unilateral action (such as starting a regular, recurring, monthly thread, a day or so early) without consultation (and having achieved agreement) with other regular participants in advance.
Raising this here may be deemed to be trivial, and frivolous - and I don't entirely disagree with the use of those adjectives, for, of course, we face many challenges and pressing problems that are considerably worse - but it is also inconsiderate, arrogant, and deeply discourteous behaviour to arrogate to oneself the presumed "right" to (deliberately and repeatedly) start a monthly, repeating, and regularly recurring, thread, a day or so early.
Last edited:
I see.
If this was anything I was engaged in, here would be my response. The regulars (the regular posters) are known. Start a message involving them to nail down the details of the new monthly thread. Pick someone to start it and when, regardless of what the other poster starts. Then engage in that thread.
It's possible the mods might merge the two (or not), but said user may not like that if it happens.
I have long seen the inner workings of power struggles between certain posters and their groups of followers in this forum and in others. I choose not to pick sides or become involved for a few reasons. But I see how it works.
To be blunt and graphic…you want a user gone or to just stop posting? Ostracize them.
I have started that monthly thread. but I really don’t care one way or the other. Look at my post count and then how many threads I start. I probably have one of the lowest thread starts to post rates on here.
I don’t want to mention the poster, but it was definitely April where they live when they started the thread. It was still April where I live and we are about 8 hours ahead.
Hint
As a new member of the forum I wasn't really aware of the whole "thread ownership" thing until now. Especially these that are of the semi-official recurring nightmare type (just kidding!).
Color me naive I guess, that it even is a thing. What's that phrase... there's nowt so queer as folk? Just that people in general can be, well, people. Both here and in real life. You'd think I'd know better (be less naive) by now.
@eyoungren makes good suggestions, if it really has to get to serious diplomacy or whatnot. Best of luck to all involved.
As a new member of the forum I wasn't really aware of the whole "thread ownership" thing until now. Especially these that are of the semi-official recurring nightmare type (just kidding!).
Color me naive I guess, that it even is a thing. What's that phrase... there's nowt so queer as folk? Just that people in general can be, well, people. Both here and in real life. You'd think I'd know better (be less naive) by now.
@eyoungren makes good suggestions, if it really has to get to serious diplomacy or whatnot. Best of luck to all involved.
Last edited:
"Jealousy" is not the issue.
Rather, the issue is starting a regular monthly, recurring, repeating thread before the first day of the month in question.
Yes, time zones do differ, which is why one starts such a thread whenever the first of the month occurs in whatever timezone you are currently residing in.
Thus, for example, I'm in the British Isles; therefore, GMT, (and I have actually stood - awestruck - on that meridian) would define how I define, reckon, and record time.
Similarly, for someone who lives in the western states of the US, I would imagine that the first of the month would arrive whenever Pacific Time Zone says it does, irrespective of what time my (old school) timepiece, or watch - which is defined by GMT - says it is, just then.
Last edited:
That makes sense and is fair.
Indeed.
Not a pretty sight.
Neither.
I would like to see their online behaviour change to show greater consideration for others.
To be honest, invoking the 'ignore' option did occur to me.
However, I prefer not to have to consider this option.
Indeed, at present, I think I have only one person on 'ignore', although I know that some on the forum swear by the peace of mind that this possibility allows them; nevertheless, this runs the risk of not noticing a thread that one may have an interest in, if it has been started by someone you have consigned to what some deem the blissful limbo of the "ignore" option.
Last edited:
I am late to this thread (Thanks @Apple fanboy for starting!).
This odd behavior has been going on for several months (the issue has been discussed several times within those threads over that time period) and in the most recent thread I stated that because of this "oddity" I will no longer participate.
there are many different people here on MR, different viewpoints etc and in most cases that is a good thing. And in the not so good ones I have the choice of "ignoring" members which is a great feature!
I am not sure that "policing" is the right answer to the problem at hand, just when people's reaction and ignorance of one's concerns do not yield in any change, well, that is a shame.
The same discussion is going on right now in the thread at subject, with no reaction of the OP to make any change. That is of course their "right" though the consequences are people dropping out ,and in threads that have been going on for years, that's just a shame, but so be it.
And Thank You @Scepticalscribe to describe the issue so well and also for your inputs in the previous threads
This odd behavior has been going on for several months (the issue has been discussed several times within those threads over that time period) and in the most recent thread I stated that because of this "oddity" I will no longer participate.
there are many different people here on MR, different viewpoints etc and in most cases that is a good thing. And in the not so good ones I have the choice of "ignoring" members which is a great feature!
I am not sure that "policing" is the right answer to the problem at hand, just when people's reaction and ignorance of one's concerns do not yield in any change, well, that is a shame.
The same discussion is going on right now in the thread at subject, with no reaction of the OP to make any change. That is of course their "right" though the consequences are people dropping out ,and in threads that have been going on for years, that's just a shame, but so be it.
And Thank You @Scepticalscribe to describe the issue so well and also for your inputs in the previous threads
I'll be the first to admit I don't usually jump into these debates, but I too, am a bit confused by the behavior I've seen in the threads being discussed. I normally partake in these threads, but I've been wondering if I want to continue as well. Let me try to explain how I see it with another example.
Mind you, in this example I am using a real thread, but not the one being discussed above (I wanted a real example to add weight to the topic).
Picture of Your Beer. If this was a monthly thread, it would be called Month Year Picture of Your Beer. The whole idea is to share a picture of a recently drank beer and possibly a brief description. Every once in a while people ask/answer questions about your/their posted beer, but the main theme is "pictures of beer." Everyone enjoys and posts their beer!
Now, I pre draft my intro to the next Month Year Picture of Your Beer. I post it a day early to get my pre drafted response first. Why, no clue, but I do. People start posting photos of their beer, but I respond to almost all of them with questions, answers, suggestions, and critiques. Overtime it stops being a thread about pictures of beer and turns into "iAssimilated's Discussions About Beers" (especially if I continue to pre draft and pre release the monthly thread). People stop posting because the thread lost its original purpose.
I know we should not over police the forum, but it seems a bit sad to me that a once enjoyable thread was hijacked.
EDITED: Typos
Mind you, in this example I am using a real thread, but not the one being discussed above (I wanted a real example to add weight to the topic).
Picture of Your Beer. If this was a monthly thread, it would be called Month Year Picture of Your Beer. The whole idea is to share a picture of a recently drank beer and possibly a brief description. Every once in a while people ask/answer questions about your/their posted beer, but the main theme is "pictures of beer." Everyone enjoys and posts their beer!
Now, I pre draft my intro to the next Month Year Picture of Your Beer. I post it a day early to get my pre drafted response first. Why, no clue, but I do. People start posting photos of their beer, but I respond to almost all of them with questions, answers, suggestions, and critiques. Overtime it stops being a thread about pictures of beer and turns into "iAssimilated's Discussions About Beers" (especially if I continue to pre draft and pre release the monthly thread). People stop posting because the thread lost its original purpose.
I know we should not over police the forum, but it seems a bit sad to me that a once enjoyable thread was hijacked.
EDITED: Typos
Last edited:
That of course would be the better resolution. But IMHO, unlikely to occur.
Last edited:
There's no specific rule against starting a monthly-themed thread at a particular time, but we recognize that forum members can become annoyed when others start threads before the month in question, as if there's a race to be the "owner" of a thread. When that produces more comments about the thread timing than about the subject of the thread, that's a problem that affects everyone interested in the topic.
Based on the rule against regularly annoying other members, such threads should be started only after the start of the month (in the UTC time zone, technically). When we learn about a thread that doesn't follow this guideline, we will discuss it with the forum member involved and/or remove the thread. But we'd rather not see it happen in the first place.
We ask that users not race to start threads.
Based on the rule against regularly annoying other members, such threads should be started only after the start of the month (in the UTC time zone, technically). When we learn about a thread that doesn't follow this guideline, we will discuss it with the forum member involved and/or remove the thread. But we'd rather not see it happen in the first place.
We ask that users not race to start threads.
I've read every post in this thread and I not only don't understand the actual problem, but also don't understand why it would be a problem (if I actually understood it correctly). 😵💫
So in the interest of understanding, am I to believe that:
If I start a thread on May 1st at 12:01 in the morning titled "May Sunset Photos" (for example), people would be upset because some places in the world it's still April 30th – so I should wait until May 2nd to post the thread? Am I understanding this correctly? I really don't see the problem with posting it on May 1st, and can't imagine why anyone would be so upset about it.
Am I also to believe that because I started the thread and have an enormous ego which convinces me that I somehow OWN the thread (having no special admin privileges) that is a problem? It seems to me that if I believe that, that's a ME problem and, again, I'm not sure why anyone else would be upset. If anything I would have guessed everyone would have a good laugh about it if I referred to it in a way that implied ownership - as if I was committing a digital land-grab.
Now if the next 20 posts in that thread are people complaining about the fact that the thread was created and posted before May 1st in some parts of the world – and they're upset that they didn't get to create the thread themselves simply due to their geographic location, I see that as THEIR problem, not mine, and would be on board with an admin deleting all those complaint posts – because as some of you have stated, we all get those notifications of the complaint posts which have no relation to the actual subject of the thread (in this case, photos of Sunsets taken in the month of May).
Can someone please explain (confirm or deny) if I'm understanding this problem with my (admittedly over-simplified) example?
I see that everyone appears to be tippy-toeing around names and actual threads here as an example, but that lack of context is the reason I guess I'm not sure I understand the problem. Perhaps I'm over-simplifying it?
So in the interest of understanding, am I to believe that:
If I start a thread on May 1st at 12:01 in the morning titled "May Sunset Photos" (for example), people would be upset because some places in the world it's still April 30th – so I should wait until May 2nd to post the thread? Am I understanding this correctly? I really don't see the problem with posting it on May 1st, and can't imagine why anyone would be so upset about it.
Am I also to believe that because I started the thread and have an enormous ego which convinces me that I somehow OWN the thread (having no special admin privileges) that is a problem? It seems to me that if I believe that, that's a ME problem and, again, I'm not sure why anyone else would be upset. If anything I would have guessed everyone would have a good laugh about it if I referred to it in a way that implied ownership - as if I was committing a digital land-grab.
Now if the next 20 posts in that thread are people complaining about the fact that the thread was created and posted before May 1st in some parts of the world – and they're upset that they didn't get to create the thread themselves simply due to their geographic location, I see that as THEIR problem, not mine, and would be on board with an admin deleting all those complaint posts – because as some of you have stated, we all get those notifications of the complaint posts which have no relation to the actual subject of the thread (in this case, photos of Sunsets taken in the month of May).
Can someone please explain (confirm or deny) if I'm understanding this problem with my (admittedly over-simplified) example?
I see that everyone appears to be tippy-toeing around names and actual threads here as an example, but that lack of context is the reason I guess I'm not sure I understand the problem. Perhaps I'm over-simplifying it?
i read the thread in discussion every month. i enjoy it very much. have posted sometimes but not very often.
for the month in question, the original poster posted before the time when he actually could have the "thing".
but a close reading of what s/he posted would have indicated that the original poster did not ever indicate that s/he had the "thing".
s/he was just gushing that s/he looked forward to the "thing" this month, and asked what others thought about the "thing".
almost immediately the original poster was really v-i-c-i-o-u-s-l-y attacked.
a moderator handled it in the way the same moderator posted several years back about a similar kind of pre-posting to an event that hasn't taken place yet.
the moderator wrote at that time:
quote
...It is an internal policy decision discussed and developed among staff over the years.
For that reason it is not something we would formally send a rule violation reminder over. We just close the thread and send the member a note letting them know about the policy.
endquote
that was how it should have been handled, and that is how it was handled.
this thread shows that the mere disappearance of that thread is not enough for some.
they want blood.
for the month in question, the original poster posted before the time when he actually could have the "thing".
but a close reading of what s/he posted would have indicated that the original poster did not ever indicate that s/he had the "thing".
s/he was just gushing that s/he looked forward to the "thing" this month, and asked what others thought about the "thing".
almost immediately the original poster was really v-i-c-i-o-u-s-l-y attacked.
a moderator handled it in the way the same moderator posted several years back about a similar kind of pre-posting to an event that hasn't taken place yet.
the moderator wrote at that time:
quote
...It is an internal policy decision discussed and developed among staff over the years.
For that reason it is not something we would formally send a rule violation reminder over. We just close the thread and send the member a note letting them know about the policy.
endquote
that was how it should have been handled, and that is how it was handled.
this thread shows that the mere disappearance of that thread is not enough for some.
they want blood.
Last edited:
Doctor Q mentioned in the post above start a monthly thread based on UTC time. As far as I know the thread owner doesn’t “own” the thread but sets the direction for the on-topic discussions that follow.
There have been past threads in SF&F where community members complained of the very same thing.
Complaints about the thread are not on topic.