Posted by Jost on September 30, 2006, at 11:30:17
In reply to Re: Redirecting, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2006, at 9:08:11
> >
>
> Sorry about disrupting things. I understand that it can hurt if a thread you've put a lot of time and energy and thought into is uprooted. But I don't mean to be critical or dismissive or to imply that it's not an important topic. It's just that the main board, for example, does focus on biological treatment (and not just medication). Is it dualistic to have meat in one section and produce in another? My idea is for Social to be the section for general discussion and support. Though I know, "Social" may not convey that best.
>
> I also understand that it's not just the topic, but also the people. But redirecting may promote interaction between people who usually don't mix. Like cross-pollination. Redirected posts should in fact get the yellow "new" markers. They may feel out of place, but people who aren't interested can just move on, and people who are can keep the thread going.
>
>
>
> BobJust to give the data on how this worked in this instance.
The topic, "the brain" had, as best I can gather, about 125 posts from at least 12 particpants between Sept. 16-Sept 25, in its original location.
After being redirected on Sept. 25, there were only 12 more posts, between Sept. 25-26, fully 7 of which simply discussed where the thread belonged, and 5 of which discussed a substantive question related to the topic.
Since Sept. 26, there have been no additional posts.
This much raises a question as to whether cross-pollination was stimulated through moving the thread.
It answers the question of whether moving the thread was beneficial to its development.
I'd say redirection of threads to a part of the board where they have questionable relevance, on the basis of this particular instance, doesn't serve anyone particularly well.
Jost
poster:Jost
thread:688978
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/690517.html