Speculations : The Rumor Mill : Kent Brewster : The Future of The Rumor Mill

Topic 13 was started on 1997-11-01. There are 1092 messages available to read.

Tell me what I need to do to make things easier around here; it may take months (or years) but it does eventually happen.

Ye Development Log:

8-14-2002: statistics are up and running; please log in first.

8-5-2002: per request I've added a show recent topics / show all topics toggle at the top line. "Recent" topics are defined as "those that have seen a post in the last 42 days." This ought to thin things out a bit.

7-31-2002: Feedback is working; please log in first, and then click the link on any message. Any message with a score of -3 or less is hidden; all feedback is public.

4-1-2002: I've hijacked the old Test Your Login topic and renamed it Trouble Logging In; if you need help getting in, please ask there, so we can keep this topic free for development chat.

Previous First

Message 1092 was left by Douglas Curt Lyons on 2002-10-04 01:32:46. Feedback: 0/0 Can We All get along? Just joking. Thought yall who remember me might find this intrusion into your salient discourse to be humorous if not somehow thought provoking. I must say this: Being at Speculations (writing responses and provacations each day) was at once the most or a most crucial and serious part of my .... I hope that you "All" will respect the ignorance of kindness and be kind to the ignorant. Speculations and speculators may be a rather elite group with advanced ideologies and such, but if you ever divorce yourselves too much from common-ness and the rest of us lowly backrunners, then surely your writing will reflect such a disdain, which may not be terribly bad... but then it might be a terrible thing anyway. I Salute Speculations in whatever form it takes. It is at once Mother's Milk and Father's stern hand. Nice to read you all again. Maybe I can come back some time? Douglas

Message 1091 was left by Lenora Rose on 2002-10-03 16:31:27. Feedback: 0/0 I think Marcie hit on the whole reason for the complaints in general and summed it up nicely. There's always been duplicate information problems - that's inevitable. But it's been getting steadily worse. Re Author topics: I do like several of the author topics, actually. But I do sometimes have a hard time remembering which ones involve conversations I care about -- all the trickier when active ones go quiet, and quiet ones get interesting -- and thus end up forced to check topics where someone put up a post just to ask the author to e-mail them. In any other section of the RM, I can reliably tell by knowing the topic whether or not it's one worth checking (Sure, sometimes an individual message in an otherwise useful topic like "General Questions about Markets" is a dud, but at least I know for a fact that I don't have to check the "Poetry" topics, since I don't write poetry. I don't know that about author topics.) There's also the fact that a topic exists for every single person who has a login and password. This practically INVITES trouble, considering. A disturbingly large number of author topics were made active by: - a troll posting an irrelevant or outright offensive message. - someone else on the mill wanting to ask that person a question and being unable to find their e-mail, because anyone who logs in gets a link to their topic, not to their e-mail. (This is also the most prevalent reason for an author topic to remain active or become active again; which wouldn't be bad if it didn't mean there are 50 author topics on the SHORT list) - the author, who then discovers they really have nothing to say that they can't say elsewhere -- but, now the topic is created, cannot put it back. At least the majority of topics on other subjects can be picked up again by others, without the original writer having to say or do anything. I don't mind casual or silly topics. I love them. I don't want to be rid of social possibilities on the RM. And I have a cable modem so I can afford the extra time to check a few more topics. I just want to know where I'm going and what I'm doing with speed and ease.

Message 1090 was left by Marcie Tentchoff on 2002-10-02 17:34:40. Feedback: 0/0 While i sympathize with the view that those of us who don't like all the ever-growing numbers of topics should feel free to ignore them, the ability to ignore,or not ignore, is not really the point. It becomes more a question of where to look when I want to know something, and the worry that i'll miss something vital because the info is becoming more and more difuse. Yes, sure, i could ignore all new topics and ony read the old ones, but if people create new topics for the same type of information, ignoring the old, I'd lose out. On the other hand, if folk keep creating new topics instead of being able to find the appropriate old one, there's a lot of duplicate info posted, and duplicate questions asked. Not good.

Message 1089 was left by Gregory Koster on 2002-10-02 17:09:33. Feedback: 0/0 For HeyTrey: Good on the exploded view. Yeah, you're right about entropy being inevitable. But I'd rather stall it along all I can. I will now stand back and let others have their say. Best regards, Gregory Koster

Message 1088 was left by HeyTrey on 2002-10-02 14:36:06. Feedback: 0/0 Ben Rosenbaum's topic has an exploded view. I dunno about your other question, Greg. I never really considered the author topics as a reference source. Some nuggets of info may bubble up (Where did Jim Van Pelt sell a story to this week? Ah, I know where to look!), but that area of the Mill is more about community than about being a reference resource, isn't it? There's always going to be nonimformative discourse on the Rumor Mill. Too many people come here primarily for that reason. So, isn't a good idea to have a place where it can go, perhaps to some extent freeing up the rest of the Mill from such trivialities? And isn't there some law about entropy being inevitable?

Message 1087 was left by Gregory Koster on 2002-10-02 14:15:51. Feedback: 0/0 For HeyTrey: Calling across the divide, could you tell me which author topic has the exploded view of the Mill? Or which one has the news of an author retreat (now concluded)? The topic may start out being about an author, but if anything of general interest is mentioned, it's likely to vanish. You are right that the author topics are amusing, but they don't seem so funny when you're trying to remember that tidbit you read a little while back and you are facing the oh-my-God-HOW-many author topics just before you faint in horror. Yet another fine example of the menace of proliferating topics is in the PUBLISHER PROBLEMS topic, messages 3 $ 5. Brand new. The answer is out there. Somewhere. Want to try to find it? Me neither. So come sit on the porch with me and we can share a can of Koster Oil (TM) ("It's GOOD for you!") and denounce entropy and its evils. Best regards, Gregory Koster still DOWNING the author topics along with Tony Blair

Message 1086 was left by HeyTrey on 2002-10-02 14:06:01. Feedback: 0/0 > Author topics do have a distinct disadvantage in that how do you tell what the topic is, and whether you're interested? Am I not understanding? The topic is that person, and anything that person or his or her friends and acquaintances want to talk about. If you know that person, then the topic is of interest to you. Even if you don't, it's a good way to get to know that person and those he or she associates with. It's a little like hanging out at con parties; you can jump in and join the conversation or go elsewhere. To each his own. I'd have to say I'm enjoying the discussions in the author topics perhaps more than anything else going on across the Mill lately. Sure some of them are chaotic and silly at times, but they can be practical and informative, too. I agree that it probably wasn't necessary to give one to nearly every person who ever posted on the Rumor Mill, but I also agree with Jed that if you don't want to see them, then don't open that folder. Easy, no? So I say, UP WITH AUTHOR TOPICS (at least all the active ones). Just one lurker's opinion.

Message 1085 was left by Terry Bramlett on 2002-10-01 23:14:19. Feedback: 0/0 Jed, I think most of us use "troll" because there is no way to select "clueless ba$+ard" in feedback mode.

Message 1084 was left by Jed Hartman on 2002-10-01 22:34:40. Feedback: 0/0 A note about feedback categories: To "troll" is to post something that's not meant seriously, but is intended to provoke outraged response from regulars. Canonical example: posting to a Star Trek discussion forum stating firmly that the "T." in "James T. Kirk" stands for "Tigger" ("I heard it from Jean Roddinbury herself!") when you know it's not true -- you're doing it just to be amused at people's "How could anyone be so stupid/clueless!?" responses. A message that doesn't have the intent to provoke outraged response isn't, technically speaking, trolling. Note that the term comes from fishing, not from fantasy novels. The person who's trolling -- the "troll," in net parlance, though not in fishing parlance -- is fishing for a certain kind of response.

Message 1083 was left by Jed Hartman on 2002-10-01 22:27:39. Feedback: 0/0 Just to throw in a note from another angle, it seems to me that some of the proposed schemes are more complicated than they need to be. I'm inclined to try to figure out exactly what the specific problems are before embarking on schemes to solve them. Some problems people have mentioned (please correct me if I'm misrepresenting): 1. Too many topics overall. It seems to me that the breakdown into categories, and the fact that you can close a category and never have to look at its topics again, should prevent this from being too much of a problem. Also, if you never want to see a new topic again, then in your author topic's header you can create a list of the groups you want to follow, and use your author topic as an entry point instead of the Rumor Mill main page. 2. Author topics are bad. See above; if you don't like the author topics, just keep the author-topics category collapsed and you'll never see them. 3. Social topics are bad. Categories seem like they should help a lot with this too. On the other hand, there may be items that are mis-categorized; perhaps a solution to this issue could focus on properly categorizing all the topics. (Frex, I'd kinda like to see Editors' Anonymous renamed, perhaps merged with I Wish Writers Would (which I'd also like to see renamed; I think that title gives a very different tone to the proceedings, suggesting that it's a topic for/about peeves rather than constructive discussion), and moved out of rants & raves and into, oh, I dunno, maybe Market Topics? Theory? Not sure.) 4. Too many topics in each category. Mostly an issue in Networking, I think; the other categories (except the Author topics category) seem to have a relatively small number of topics in them. Perhaps Networking could be broken up into two or more sub-categories? Several of the Networking topics seem to me to be more about The Writer's Lifestyle: Living with Non-writers/readers, You think your life's crummy, Music You Can Write to, The Writing Life and Animals. Others are about conventions (and it's hard to know what to post in any given con-related topic; maybe they should be merged?). Again, it seems to me that proper categorization would solve a lot of concerns. 5. Old topics resurfacing when someone posts an off-topic post to them. I can see how this could be a problem. Kent, if a posting gets negative-feedbacked down to being hidden, is there any way that it could be ignored in calculating how recently a group's been posted to? If so, that solves the problem: someone posts off-topic in an old group, and everyone feedbacks the posting down until it disappears, and the old group drops off again. 6. New topics being created that duplicate old topics. This is kind of the opposite of #5: the ideal solution would presumably be for the people creating the new topics to find the old topics and post to them instead, thus reviving them. I have an idea for a mechanism here, but I don't know whether it would be too much work for Kent: Kent, what about an automated tool that you could run to merge two topics? It would take all of the postings from the new topic, move them into the old topic, and delete the new topic. Would that be more detailed group-management than you want to do? An even more radical thought: Kent could deputize a few members of long standing to be topic organizers, with the ability to rename topics, run the topic-merge tool, and recategorize topics. But that's pretty radical, and I don't know if it would be technically feasible even if Kent would want to go that way.

Message 1082 was left by Lenora Rose on 2002-10-01 14:56:40. Feedback: 0/0 Author topics do have a distinct disadvantage in that how do you tell what the topic is, and whether you're interested? AND I think people were overzealous in opening them. (I never wanted my own topic, and though when it appeared I tried to find a use for it. But since I lack, say, Charlie Finlay's social grace/chaos or Ben Rosenbaum's thoughtful turn, it's sat there like a useless lump most of the time.) As a note, Gregory, IIRC, Frank T's Cyberspace bar and Grill was created before the author topics came into existance. Thus, while it has now drowned under the banter involved in the author topics, and become redundant, it was not, originally, a topic that reproduced anything existing. I don't actually think "What are YOU reading?" is really a duplicate, I think it's badly misplaced. It should be down in Lit Crit with "Really Good" and "Bad books" (Of course, I also think that Lit Crit should change its name to "reviews" or some such and include the music and film topics, as they don't seem to fit where they've currently been wedged in). But I have found some comments suit that topic better, and some suit good or bad books better. The thing I am noticing causing the strain is far less the new topics, though some of those have cause problems (See author topics comments above) but old topics that were long dead before Kent's first major rehaul of the mill. At the time, I was calling for many topics in the archives to be killed off. But, because in those days the archvies didn't suddenly pop up on the main page and get in the way of current posters if an aimless wanderer found the topic, I believe the consensus was that it was too much hassle, plus, the same question now in hand: "How do you judge which ones to cut?" Because, on thast matte,r there is noteable disagreement. One man's "it gets in my way" is another's "it's my favourite". I think one solution would be something like the feedback link, attached to each topic currently in existance -- and with both positive and negative notes. A score of negative five, or perhaps negative seven (Three's too few, ten seems excessive), would cause that topic to be hidden (Or outright deleted?), not to appear on the "Recent topics" page again - even if found and posted in by a weirdo (Can you say Johnny Wizard?). If outright deleted, I would suggest making the score still lower (negative ten no longer seems excessive...), as there'd be no way to find the topic and bring it back with positive feedback. A score of positive five would bring a topic not posted in for some time onto the "Recent topics only" page at the BOTTOM of that section's list -- thus making it available for the people searching for the topic or considering creating one just like it (thoguh it would vanish again in the 42 days back to its usual place if it is acutally left unposted-in (a good reason to respond to the topic's arrival with feedback, not by putting a message saying "Why is this here?"). (I imagine this latter part will rarely be used, just as positive feedback is rarely used, and thus not be as potentially detrimental as Gregory is no doubt imagining.) This causes: A) The ability to remove topics on which there is unanimous opinion or a very loud request. B) Yet allows people to defend topics they like for overhasty destruction by putting in positive feedback. C) Allows a way to bring up old topics when people are proposing a "New" topic on the same theme. D) Without getting directly in the way of the most active recent topics (at the top of their subsection), if this old topic proves NOT to become active on its reappearance.

Message 1081 was left by Thomas Ecclestone on 2002-10-01 12:11:52. Feedback: 0/0 The writers g*r*a*n*t*s topic would be high on my list to go.

Message 1080 was left by Dave Kuzminski on 2002-10-01 12:05:28. Feedback: 0/0 Quite frankly, some of the topics need to be deleted. Also, I know Kent has stated that there's a reason for the author topics. However, I think those could be separated into another bulletin board for socializing. That would permit those seeking information to find it in a leaner, more productive environment. It would also help if some of the topics were re-evaluated as to what category those truly belong within. Some are not intuitively obvious or properly placed.

Message 1079 was left by Gregory Koster on 2002-10-01 11:34:04. Feedback: 0/0 For Kent: Gee, my turn to have been gone. Proceeding: Redundant topics? Adding to Terry's list: 1. TOP 5. Letterman knockoff, could be in SHARE A SMILE... 2. THE DREAM CATCHER. Has been started not just once but twice, in Modest Proposals, and Networking) 3. FINDING OBSCURE BOOKS. Duplicated in LOOKING FOR A STORY and HELP ME FIND A STORY. 4. PRO-ONLY. Duplicated in NEW MARKETS. To be sure, it was a laudable attempt to collect a specific type of info in one spot, but it has gone off topic already. 5. SEMI-PRO SCENE See #4 6. WHAT ARE you READING? Duplicated in REALLY GOOD and REALLY BAD BOOKS 7. JASON WITTMAN'S OTHER TOPIC. This topic was created because JW could not find "his" topic in the Author Topics section. 8. FRANK T'S CYBERSPACE BAR AND GRILL Duplicated by the Author topics. 9. RUMOR MILL RECEPTION AREA. See #8 10. EDITORS ANONYMOUS. Duplicated by I WISH WRITERS WOULD... (a fine topic that has been buried alive.) 11. WHAT'S THE POINT? / THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT... These are not duplicated topics, but examples of topics that defeat themselves. What do they mean? I better haul up here. I also do not think these topics are being caused only by newbies. There are plenty created by Mill regulars. I cast no aspersions on their motives. But we are drowning under the weight of topics. I repeat: If you are looking for an exploded view of the Mill, which topic is it under? Or: which topic has the announcement of a writer's retreat (now concluded)? Care to try finding these using the search tool? Good luck. This is my objection to your fine notion of a "What's Where Topic Map in someone's topic header. Think such a tool should exist, and should also be put in the Important Stuff folder. Being doomed, let me blow the trumpet and yell DOWN WITH ALL THE AUTHOR TOPICS!!!! The agents of entropy smirk when they contemplate the chaos these topics cause. Worse, trying to keep up with them is a time sink if ever there was one. To my librarian's mind, the frustration of trying to find things in this swamp far outweighs the huge amounts of fun these topics generate. (Remember, as a Librarian, I can either go around the Mill saying "SHHHHH!" using a megaphone, or, more appropriately, strapping offenders to the table, ramming the tube connected to the funnel down their gullets, even while I pour into the funnel from a bottle labeled---what else---Koster Oil, smirking and saying "This is for your own good.") What's to be done? 1. I still like my proposal that new topics need a net vote of +5 to break through the shell. 2. I like Jim Hines's idea in his 1074. 3. I do not think your notion of a NEW TOPICS topic will help enough. The difficulty is that many perfectly worthy old topics have sunk to the bottom of the archives, and aren't readily found or worse CAN'T BE RECOGNIZED BECAUSE THE HEADER ISN'T DESCRIPTIVE. 4. I don't think the 24 hour "cooling off" period is necessary. Most of the topics do not seem to be products of frenzy, just an urge to communicate. But this urge is leading to cacophony, as the Mill attempts to outdo the Tower of Babel. By this time, the printing presses are rolling off flysheets with me as Public Villain #1. Well, I couldn't blame too many folks if they were sore. I myself have contributed to the problems I denounce, and will suffer for it not only in Hell, but here on Terra. My one consolation is that there will be lots of fine company. Trouble is, we won't be able to hear each other over all the noise. I want this Mill to be a tool, with the clubhouse aspect being far to the rear. This Mill has helped me sell stuff. I would never have been able to do so without it. I want to continue to be able to get good advice and tips from the Mill. Entropy will break this Mill just as surely as a denial-of-service attack. This would be a big loss for us all. Pass me that bottle of Koster Oil. I need a dose, after gargling all this peanut butter. Best regards, Gregory Koster"

Message 1078 was left by Karen R. on 2002-09-29 05:21:34. Feedback: 0/0 What about just a short instruction at the very top (below Speculations and above "Important Stuff") which says, "Before creating a new topic, please do the following ..." Then a little hint on how to find/search for older topics. Here you could also direct folks to the "New Topic" topic (a la Jim), which might work for the more patient souls.

Message 1077 was left by Terry Hickman on 2002-09-28 23:27:35. Feedback: 0/0 Living with Non-writers/readers - Topic 1214 was started on 2002-09-19. (Original topic: Significant Others and writing - Topic 208 was started on 1998-10-24.) Starting and Running a Magazine - Topic 1185 was started on 2002-09-10. (I Want To Start A Magazine - Topic 249 was started on 1999-02-24. It only has 36 messages in it, many of them off-topiv, so I don't know if this counts or not.) Disclaimer: This in no way means I think the people who started the newer topics are rotten, wicked, or stupid, or that there shouldn't be a topic on that subject. A better "road map" might be helpful, Kent. The logistics of arriving at one seem daunting, to me. Lord save us, do we need a separate topic for people to post their own contrivances (in the good or neutral sense of the word) on for others to comment on?

Message 1076 was left by Kent Brewster on 2002-09-28 22:11:21. Feedback: 0/0 Sorry, folks, been Away again. Can I please have some examples of new topics that have been started in the last 30 days by new users who should have looked harder? Until I see some numbers that indicate we have a serious problem, I'm going to keep believing that the cost of entry to people who want to create new topics is sufficiently high. Forcing users to register and log in seems to have drastically reduced the number of casual idjits that created a new topic instead of asking in the right one. Some other possibilities--some helpful to all, some just attempts at bozo filtration--include: - a new topic called New Topics, which would have all new topic headers automatically posted as messages. Don't go start this one; I need to rig it myself. - a Rumor Mill For Newbies topic. This would go under Important Stuff. - a 24-hour "cooling-off" period between registration and having the power to create new topics. - a better road map, hopefully created by Youse Guys, posted as a What's Where On The Rumor Mill guide. This could be done in somebody's topic header, he said, hinting. Comments, please?

Message 1075 was left by T. Rex on 2002-09-24 19:05:11. Feedback: 0/0 Jim Hines's idea is a good one. Especially if the "New Topic Proposals - Check Here First" topic is the very first one listed under "Important Stuff". T.

Message 1074 was left by Jim C. Hines on 2002-09-24 16:28:27. Feedback: 0/0 This may seem counterintuitive, but what about creating a topic in which folks could propose new topic ideas? This would give the regulars and the old-timers a chance to point out that said topic exists already in three different places throughout the Mill. It wouldn't solve everything - many people would probably ignore it and create their new topics anyway. But it might slow the explosion down a bit...

Message 1073 was left by Terry Bramlett on 2002-09-24 16:01:59. Feedback: 0/0 Gregory: Excellent post and I understand exactly what you are talking about. I was speaking from my personal usage of the RM, which is probably minimal compared to others. The topics I want are always visible. Kent would have to answer the question -- an unstated question I have -- of "administrative headache" involved in setting up a procedure that requires approval from other RMers for creating topics. there's probably a way to automate the process which would cut down on administration costs, but I don't know. Not my area of expertise. The only problem I see, other than administration, is the fact that most everyone in the RM could find five people to approve creating a topic, which leaves the status quo in the topic explosion area of concern. The trolls I mentioned simply appear at random in random topics. One way to slow the trolls, or get rid of them entirely, is to make this a forum that is not reproduced for the search engines. I can find every post I have ever made on the Rumor Mill, but not one post I have made on sff.net shows up at google. We might be back to the admistrative costs issue on that though. As for the beginning of your post, I am "an Agent of Satan, a Black Hearted Rotter Motivated by the Darkest Forces of eee--VILLE, with horns erupting from your forehead, and pants of asbestos lest your tail burn a hole in the seat." Tagged correctly by Mr. Koster, as usual.

Message 1072 was left by Terry on 2002-09-24 13:01:54. Feedback: 0/0 [irrelevancy alert] "They'd just need five other Millers to peck their way through the eggshell." I *love* that, Gregory! [/irrelevancy alert]

Message 1071 was left by Gregory Koster on 2002-09-24 10:29:59. Feedback: 0/0 Having thought about it, I am opposed to Tom Ecclestone's notion, for the reason John sez. That damned Patriot Act could cause troubles later on. For Terry: Well, what can I say? I suppose I could denounce you as an Agent of Satan, a Black Hearted Rotter Motivated by the Darkest Forces of eee--VILLE, with horns erupting from your forehead, and pants of asbestos lest your tail burn a hole in the seat. Trouble is, if I do that Atty. Genl Ashcroft will complain to Geo. W. Bush that I am hogging all the prosecutorial glory, and it's off to the battlefront with all the other liberals for me. So I guess I better try to answer the points you raise. I do not want to suppress posting on the Mill. I want people to be able to find posts they can use. The more topics there are, the more confusion. At present, the Mill is like a public library and telling folks they could put items back wherever they thought would work best. You can get away with that when you have ten books, but once the collection grows chaos, frustration,and ineffectiveness follow. The analogy is not perfect, but it illuminates my point. There is nothing worse than not being able to find what you are looking for, unless it is asking for help, and getting dead silence. The question that brought my annoyance to a boil wasn't terribly difficult to answer, it was just in a topic I almost never check. Result: dead silence, a lot of discouragement on the poster's part, and another triumph for entropy, the AoS, the BHRMbtDFoe-V....whew, almost went up into the air again. When you see a topic titled "Behavioral Science" what do you think it means? When you realize it is in the "Networking" folder, does that change your first opinion? Another question: What topic contains the exploded view of the entire Mill? Do you think "the internet" will answer this question? Yeah, me too. I hope to make the Mill a place where people can work, get and give advice, and find answers. Millers could still create new topics. They'd just need five other Millers to peck their way through the eggshell. What I would hope my notion would do is this: someone would propose a topic. With any luck at all, if it had been created already, another Miller could point it out, and it could be brought to the surface, and the march of progress could resume. If not, five others would have to agree with the need. Would this reduce spontaneity? It would. But it would also reduce the confusion and annoyance when a lot of searching failed to bring the topic you want to the surface. It's true, the requirement would force many folks to think a bit and even read some of the topics. A fate worse than death, proving my villainy along with Saddam Hussein, Bill Clinton or Wm H. Gates III. Things could be worse. They could also be better. Why not try it? If I am wrong, the Mill could always return to the old way. Best regards, Gregory Koster

Message 1070 was left by Floyd on 2002-09-23 17:46:21. Feedback: 0/0 Dave: Well stated. We are fortunate Kent has given us so much opportunity here.

Message 1069 was left by Dave Kuzminski on 2002-09-23 14:20:31. Feedback: 0/0 Let's keep in mind that free speech is not guaranteed within the private press. Commercial endeavors are entitled to block out what they don't want to publish. Free speech is only guaranteed by the government. It doesn't mean you automatically have a right to be heard in any specific venue. It's up to the "speaker" to find a willing venue. That could be anything from a soapbox in a public park to the finest publication available.

Message 1068 was left by Terry Bramlett on 2002-09-23 13:15:10. Feedback: 0/0 Okay, there is an explosion of topics, I agree. Okay, a troll or three gets into the system, I agree. Such is the nature of the internet and free speech. Overall, I find the RM to be as informative as ever, and the problems are much less than they could be.

Message 1067 was left by S.N.Arly on 2002-09-23 12:01:56. Feedback: 0/0 I agree that there's unneccessary proliferation, but I'm with John. I rarely login, even when I post. It's an extra step and I'm both lazy and short on time. I also don't post unless I really have something to say. Perhaps "in good standing" could mean you've been a registered Rumor Miller for a minimum of a month or something like that.

Message 1066 was left by John Savage on 2002-09-23 09:02:48. Feedback: 0/0 I have to advise against the "40 logins" as a measurement, due to the wacko provisions of the Patriot Act. Kent really doesn't want to be keeping such a database showing how many times, when, and for how long particular individuals logged in.

Message 1065 was left by Thomas Ecclestone on 2002-09-23 03:49:55. Feedback: 0/0 OK. People who have logged into the RM at least 40 times can vote; what I want to prevent is people who only found the RM yesterday from adding new topics.

Message 1064 was left by Connie Wilkins on 2002-09-22 23:52:06. Feedback: 0/0 Hey, don't we laconic types get any credit for just logging on more or less daily? We also serve who only sit and read.

Message 1063 was left by Thomas Ecclestone on 2002-09-22 08:38:07. Feedback: 0/0 I would go further: require that in order to vote for / against starting a topic, the person must be an existing author in good standing at the RM. I would define "in good standing" as having a karma of at least 10 (Karma being measured as the aggregate of feedback to posts), or a minimum of 50 posts.

Message 1062 was left by DaveK on 2002-09-20 16:00:47. Feedback: 0/0 I have to agree with Gregory on the proliferation problem. He even offers what appears to be a viable solution. Also, I thank everyone again, and Toiya specifically, for nuking those remarks.

Message 1061 was left by Gregory Koster on 2002-09-20 00:14:38. Feedback: 1/1 For Kent: I just found a topic ("Finding Obscure Books") that had an unanswered question in it. Question wasn't difficult, it was just in a topic I don't usually look at. The new structure of the Mill helps, but the proliferating topic problem still exists. I think it is time to put a chokehold on creating new topics. Would suggest that a proposed new topic have to get the backing of say, five registered Mill users before any messages can post to it. I'd also let people vote "no" on any proposed new topics, with a net "plus five" rating being required to break through. Each individual topic is showing less activity than I remember from even two years ago, and I'm convinced that it's becuase the proliferating topics are drowning out conversations. Worse, people forget what topics they were watching and can't find a thread again. The search engine is helpful, but not a solution. I cannot understand this manic urge to create new topics. Finally the best point of all: sooner or later the "William Adamses" and "Johnny Wizards" are going to figure out how to create new topics, and then there will be a fine mess. Best regards, Gregory Koster

Message 1060 was left by Toiya K. Finley on 2002-09-16 08:36:38. Feedback: 0/0 Never mind... I figured it out. (I'm a bright bunny!)

Message 1059 was left by Toiya K. Finley on 2002-09-16 08:31:33. Feedback: 0/0 Well, one of the crazies has molested DaveK's topic. I think our resident nefarious genius deserves better than that. Help me nuke the spammer. Also, what happened to the little boxes for "Name" and "E-mail" (or whatever that box is now)? TKF

Message 1058 was left by Noelle on 2002-09-15 07:10:42. Feedback: 0/0 an easier to navigate message board might make my visits more frequent...

Message 1057 was left by Lenora Rose on 2002-09-15 03:46:41. Feedback: 0/0 Well, I have to recant a LITTLE as there's a discussion going on there now... but it would just as likely have begun elsewhere if there weren't also a resistance to allowing JW to dominate.

Message 1056 was left by Terry Hickman on 2002-09-14 22:59:22. Feedback: 0/0 Given that history, Lenora, I vote with you. There's no purpose in keeping that topic if it's just a dead end alley of oblivious ranters. Off-topic ranters, to boot.

Message 1055 was left by Lenora Rose on 2002-09-14 19:11:45. Feedback: 0/0 Back when it was in the archives, I made a point of posting a message there answering a lot of the people who had left messages there - ending with a pointed comment that this was the archives, and the live topics were elsewhere. A couple of months later, I went back, and more people had posted the same kinds of messages. I left a message syaing nothing but that ths was the archivesa, and how to get to the live topics. A few months later; more messages. Left another similar message. Rinse, repeat, with my messages telling people how to get to the main Rumor Mill and talk to live people getting terser and terser, and nobody noticing, because they did not read the previous messages at all. Then Johnny Wizard showed up. When the Mill changed format and the topic started reappearing on the main page when Johnny posted, a couple of people, myself included, tried to talk novel. But no real conversation has started there. For serious newcomers and serious long-time psters, there are better topics for market and submission advice, better topics for actual writing advice, and better topics for generalized rants. I strongly suspect that Johnny Wizard has the topic bookmarked from back when it was in the archives, and hasn't seen the rest of the site. Has he ever made a foray to another part of the Mill? If he hasn't, nuking the topic might simply cause him to disappear from here for good.

Message 1054 was left by T. Rex on 2002-09-14 10:15:47. Feedback: 0/0 Lenora: But where will he post if this topic is taken away? ;-) The topic can go as far as I'm concerned, but as only a casual visitor (at this time) it's not really my place to vote on the matter. T.

Message 1053 was left by Lenora Rose on 2002-09-14 05:24:47. Feedback: 0/0 I'm beginning to want to nuke the topic, T. Nobody has posted anything productive there for some time, and Johnny Wizard keeps coming back.

Message 1052 was left by T. Rex on 2002-09-13 18:18:45. Feedback: 0/0 Some members please go to the "So You've Written a Novel" topic and nuke message 148. Please? T.