Author Topic: New Topic Framing w.r.t. NSF's Goals and Member's Style of Following the Forums  (Read 45911 times)

Online AC in NC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2484
  • Raleigh NC
  • Liked: 3628
  • Likes Given: 1950
I think I've observed (correct me if I'm wrong) a desire from the mods for Topics to be framed in such a way that they provide valuable, long-lived threads that spawn interesting discussions.   

That works well for me because I like to stay "fully read" on all recent topics rather than ignoring some which keep popping to the top of the topics or click into them simply to mark them read.  A proliferation of one-off questions that are better raised in other threads would be tedious.  We seem to get topics from time-to-time that are just badly framed, yes-or-no type questions, or topics that just aren't conducive to much discussion.

So my question is this:

Is the observation of "Good Topic Framing" accurate?  And if so do you want a "Report to Mod" in such cases even though Topic Framing isn't a typical TOS type issue? 

There's a natural desire to want to encourage posters to frame topics well but it seems like inappropriate meta-discussion and the best alternative is a quick "Report to Mod" and Merge (if that is in fact what NSF wants).  What say ye, PTB (powers that be)?
« Last Edit: 09/12/2022 04:24 pm by AC in NC »


Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography