Shopsmith Forums

As mainly a longtime lurker here , I too have noticed a change in the tone of the Forum. Overall this is a great Forum, free from some of the chaos that pervades many other specialty forums. I have always been amazed at the knowledge, generosity and patience of the members.

Due to other commitments, I have very limited shop time,this Forum has been my touchstone to Shopsmith,the way the classes at the stores or Nick Engler's Sawdust Sessions were. It would be greatly missed if it went away.

I think caution should be excercised at the changes suggested. This should not be changed to a general woodworking forum with Shopsmith content nor should the heritage machines be relegated out.

As others have suggested, to focus posts and tighten up the administration is really what is required. The Communality section is named that for a reason, members here feel a part of the community and in turn feel comfortable seeking off topic advice from other members. That's a good thing.Its only when it creeps out into other sections that it becomes a distraction or problematic. If losing the Community section is what is required to refocus this Forum, I can accept it,but I hope it doesn't come to that.

I hope that when I have the time to become more active in my shop and in turn, here on the Forum, its still active and vibrant. Well that's my two cents for what its worth. I'm glad Dusty is giving it a second chance

For the first time this morning I clicked "New Posts". I had never used that feature before.

My opinion. In the past I have seen posts and wonder where did that come from or what is this guy talking about. I think I now know what is causing that. I believe the use of New Posts is where high percentage of the problems many of us are feed up with is coming from. If a thread is 2 or 3 pages long and there 1-2 new posts to look at how can any of us older guys depend on our memories to keep us on track to what has already been said in the thread?

When I come to the forum I open a new tab for each forum that has been updated. I then read through that forum and see if there is a subject that interests me. If so I read the whole thread or at least back to where I posted in it last. That way I know I have read every new input in order and the response that went with it. I never post anything to the thread until I have read to the end of the thread to make sure I am not simply repeating what someone else has already said.

Again I think 90% of the problems people are complaining about is because the posters are reading less and posting more.

Ed in Tampa wrote:For the first time this morning I clicked "New Posts". I had never used that feature before.

My opinion. In the past I have seen posts and wonder where did that come from or what is this guy talking about. I think I now know what is causing that. I believe the use of New Posts is where high percentage of the problems many of us are feed up with is coming from. If a thread is 2 or 3 pages long and there 1-2 new posts to look at how can any of us older guys depend on our memories to keep us on track to what has already been said in the thread?

When I come to the forum I open a new tab for each forum that has been updated. I then read through that forum and see if there is a subject that interests me. If so I read the whole thread or at least back to where I posted in it last. That way I know I have read every new input in order and the response that went with it. I never post anything to the thread until I have read to the end of the thread to make sure I am not simply repeating what someone else has already said.

Again I think 90% of the problems people are complaining about is because the posters are reading less and posting more.

Try 'this'. Click on the thread title. When the top post appears, click on 'view first unread'.

I agree that staying on topic is key to any post in any forum. I personally don't want to see anyone leave the forum, you are guite possibly the one that has the answer I'm looking for when I pose my question.

Thank you ALL!

[quote="algale"]db5: Most of that thread hijacking and tangents that folks have complained of has got nothing to do with expressing points of view contrary to the original thread]

Hm, methinks this is a complex subject.
I can think of at least half a dozen reasons that it's a good idea, and as many bad. (Perhaps that's why tho I voted yes a few minutes ago I am already having second thoughts.)
But a balance of sorts may be possible, imhso, if the "tool that allows the person who..." permitted him to alert the Admin in lieu of doing the wrist slapping hisownself.

If individuals do the deleting, who will know why or even IF there were deletions? (This facet is itself a complex topic.)

And on the topic of "Reply to Thread", may I query "what thread?"?
If a reader responds, for example, to the squirrel dilemma, he is responding to the thread he's reading, no? Is it his fault the squirrel invaded the debate? After all, this could be Post #47 (46 away from the original thought), and those pesky tangents can be so, well, tangential.

Ed in Tampa wrote:......
But there is another problem here I don't think people read the whole thread. I have often find a problem defined and then later in the thread resolved and then 6 posts later someone gives the same solution. It is like they read the problem discounted everyone's input and then inputted their opinion. If you aren't reading the whole thread you are wasting your time and everyone else's...

Oh, what to do. If I were reading a problem query- post #4 of a 59 post "thread"- and have a constructive opinion to offer in response and only a couply minutes left in which to post it before leaving, what.

I know, set a thread count limit!

Would a change be to disallow any responses until the last post in the thread were read? That might work. And it would 'save time', I'm sure- by eliminating a large percentage of possible posts (and maybe even posters).
Dunno. Another complex issue.

{EDIT} I guess what I was trying to get at is that a thread may contain connected messages but they are not all submitted or connected at once. A thread is not a conversation. If a person read a thread from beginning to end in a 25 post thread, he would have read the whole thread. Then let's say he composes his own opinion reply. And wants to go check some detail before actually posting, like a part number. Then let's say that when he returns, a WEEK later (or even a Year) he finishes his reply and sends it. (there are a million variations possible)
He's read the thread. All of it. UP TO the point at which he replied. He knew an answer to someone's question, and provided it. But in the {future} interim (and there ARE interims in online communications) someone else also posted an answer. Maybe even the same one. Whose time was wasted? (emphasis on "time")

I'm not trying to be contentious, just pointing out that this is a complex matter.

From my perspective, the SS Forum is just fine. I know that at times people will get out-of-line, be rude, or violate the rules, but that is human nature. I can defend myself if attacked (only once comes to my mind), argue rationally (I hope), speak to experience, and ignore or drop a thread if need be.

I was a chaplain in the military for 30+ years. On many days military members would come to my office and the topic would be, "The sky-is-falling", or "Ain't-it-awful". I would listen to them and try to reassure them that the sky isn't falling and it's seldom as bad as they might believe. In psycho-babble it's called "re-framing". I always like that woodworking term. I am not a Polly Anna, at times it was bad, like on 9/11. I am also aware that institutions change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for worse.

When I look at the Forum I don't think the sky-is-falling, nor do I think it is awful. In fact, I enjoy logging in of a morning looking for threads that interest me and I can contribute something to. I wasn't here in the beginning, so can't speak to how the Forum has changed over time, but it seems fine to me and I like it.

keakap wrote: If a reader responds, for example, to the squirrel dilemma, he is responding to the thread he's reading, no? Is it his fault the squirrel invaded the debate?

"SQUIRREL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"





.

robinson46176 wrote:"SQUIRREL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"





.

Wonder how many 'understand'. 'the dilemna'? (or delemma if you be convinced of that).

Sorry Algale, I just could not help myself. Move over Farmer. Hope the dog house is big.

First, you gotta understand that there is a dilemma

Then you gotta concince everyone else that there is no dilemma

Then you gotta convince yourself that you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Then you have to convince yourself that is is OK for others to have an opinion without being put down for their thoughts.

Of course there are a few that are never wrong about anything and that brings up another dilemma.

I think someone needs to build a bigger dog house. With a SS of course.