3 ms·

"Microblogging" (or "social media") has life in it, as long as people like to blather on, but forums are dead. Why are they dead? Because their lifespans were l

"Microblogging" (or "social media") has life in it, as long as people like to blather on, but forums are dead. Why are they dead? Because their lifespans were limited. The Death of Discussion by icycalm explains how that happened with videogames forums: https://www.patreon.com/posts/end-of-20685789 https://www.patreon.com/posts/end-of-20685789 (paywall'd) The deeper discussion-worthiness of each forum's respective subject matter was exhausted. All that's left is rehashing the same old topics ad nauseum, or scholarish cataloguing work, or reacting to news.

julianlam 5y ago
I disagree with this wholeheartedly. To think that a discussion is meritless simple because it has already been discussed is so short-sighted! Even on HN, multiple times monthly a link will make the front page whose content was originally posted years (even decades) ago. Does that mean the follow-up discussion is pointless? No.
- aethertron 5y ago
  Sure, some re-hashing is meritorious. But there are diminishing returns.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    > But there are diminishing returns. Why? Just because some topic was discussed on some site once doesn't mean all possible ideas were expressed on that topic. Unless the users of a site are static and unchanging there's going to be new members seeing that old topic for the first time. It's ok to talk about old things. I like that HN allows reposts (within reason) and people typically link to previous discussions in the new discussion. You can see the old points made about a topic but then take a look at the new ones. A lot of forums have similar policies on thread necromancy. And it encourages discussion and even just revisiting interesting topics. The social media All New All the Time content treadmill leads to shallow discussion.
    - aethertron 5y ago
      > Why? Just because some topic was discussed on some site once doesn't mean all possible ideas were expressed on that topic. Not 'all possible ideas' are worth being expressed. Of the subset that are, it gets boring discussing the same old stuff over and over. When people are bored of your forum, they quit. > Unless the users of a site are static and unchanging there's going to be new members seeing that old topic for the first time. Newbies should read the old threads. On a well-run forum (admittedly rare) there would be one thread per topic, and members shouldn't reply until they've read the whole thing (and this is only reasonable to demand on a well-run forum, otherwise threads are full of crap not worth reading.) > I like that HN allows reposts (within reason) and people typically link to previous discussions in the new discussion. You can see the old points made about a topic but then take a look at the new ones. A lot of forums have similar policies on thread necromancy. HN's reposts are necessary because of its old-thread-suppressing algorithm. Replying here doesn't bump threads to the top. The system works reasonably well. But it's optimised for news. The "necroposting" taboo doesn't apply to well-run forums. When the quality level of discussion is high, historical context always relevant when something new pops up, even if it goes back years. There's nothing wrong with bumping that. It's only when forum operators allow threads to accumulate crap that it's better to frequently restart with a blank slate. (Social media, where the operators don't care in the slightest about what people post, being the ultimate example of this approach to running an online 'community'.)
_solr 5y ago
It's sad the article is paywalled because I have developed this theory as well. (this is the copy paste of a recent HN commment) > I call it the paradox of discussions on the internet. When it comes to some topic (eg language learning) everything has already been said somewhere by someone very clever. So in the grand scheme of life the value of my contribution to a conversation is 0. Now, if instead of wasting my (and everyone's) time in a pointless discussion I write an in depth blog post or make some creation of some sort that expresses my thought in a deep way and share it then I become a spammer. Whereas a one liner written by a newb or a comment that is posted everyday with a slightly different wording is a 'contribution'.

julianlam 5y ago

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. To think that a discussion is meritless simple because it has already been discussed is so short-sighted! Even on HN, multiple times monthly a link will make the front page whose content was originally posted years (even decades) ago. Does that mean the follow-up discussion is pointless? No.

aethertron 5y ago
Sure, some re-hashing is meritorious. But there are diminishing returns.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  > But there are diminishing returns. Why? Just because some topic was discussed on some site once doesn't mean all possible ideas were expressed on that topic. Unless the users of a site are static and unchanging there's going to be new members seeing that old topic for the first time. It's ok to talk about old things. I like that HN allows reposts (within reason) and people typically link to previous discussions in the new discussion. You can see the old points made about a topic but then take a look at the new ones. A lot of forums have similar policies on thread necromancy. And it encourages discussion and even just revisiting interesting topics. The social media All New All the Time content treadmill leads to shallow discussion.
  - aethertron 5y ago
    > Why? Just because some topic was discussed on some site once doesn't mean all possible ideas were expressed on that topic. Not 'all possible ideas' are worth being expressed. Of the subset that are, it gets boring discussing the same old stuff over and over. When people are bored of your forum, they quit. > Unless the users of a site are static and unchanging there's going to be new members seeing that old topic for the first time. Newbies should read the old threads. On a well-run forum (admittedly rare) there would be one thread per topic, and members shouldn't reply until they've read the whole thing (and this is only reasonable to demand on a well-run forum, otherwise threads are full of crap not worth reading.) > I like that HN allows reposts (within reason) and people typically link to previous discussions in the new discussion. You can see the old points made about a topic but then take a look at the new ones. A lot of forums have similar policies on thread necromancy. HN's reposts are necessary because of its old-thread-suppressing algorithm. Replying here doesn't bump threads to the top. The system works reasonably well. But it's optimised for news. The "necroposting" taboo doesn't apply to well-run forums. When the quality level of discussion is high, historical context always relevant when something new pops up, even if it goes back years. There's nothing wrong with bumping that. It's only when forum operators allow threads to accumulate crap that it's better to frequently restart with a blank slate. (Social media, where the operators don't care in the slightest about what people post, being the ultimate example of this approach to running an online 'community'.)

_solr 5y ago

It's sad the article is paywalled because I have developed this theory as well. (this is the copy paste of a recent HN commment) > I call it the paradox of discussions on the internet. When it comes to some topic (eg language learning) everything has already been said somewhere by someone very clever. So in the grand scheme of life the value of my contribution to a conversation is 0. Now, if instead of wasting my (and everyone's) time in a pointless discussion I write an in depth blog post or make some creation of some sort that expresses my thought in a deep way and share it then I become a spammer. Whereas a one liner written by a newb or a comment that is posted everyday with a slightly different wording is a 'contribution'.