For a drearier, scarier, better ‘downs.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by JennyHallu

And yet, when's the last time you took serious, committed part in a Books discussion, Fea?

Lord of the Bible. Twenty-nine posts. Mostly asking questions. I don't know enough about the Bible to do more than posit ideas, but I know how to ask questions and learn from them.

Before that, apart from the occasional quick post, my lengthier involvements were probably Fordim's Calling All Women, which is nearing a year ago, and an attempt at discussion on the parallels of Dante's Inferno with LotR in Lush's Descent into Hell!!! Rarrr! Well, sort of... a bit more recently. It would appear I stuck my head in on Is Eru God? for a time.

So you're right... it's been about a year since I've involved myself in Books with any sort of depth. But it was a conscious decision to devote what 'Downs time I have to fiction writing and the occasional werewolf game. If I see a topic that catches my eye, I'll post to it. But in general, I had to choose what I have time for.

However, my point was not "Look at me! I post there all the time!"

It was "Don't be afraid to post if you want to."

[JennyHallu]

I think my point has also been mostly missed.

I'm not saying that people should or should'nt be afraid of posting in the Books forum.

I'm saying that they are.

And, face it, as much as you or anyone tells me I shouldn't be intimidated doesn't change the fact that I am. And it's difficult to start a new thread when, let's face it, it's all been said. Coming back to find my question ignored except for a "refer to..." isn't encouraging.

And seriously, how often is such a referral actually a catalyst for further discussion in that old thread?

Clearly something isn't working.

It's all well and good you saying that there shouldn't be a problem. But it's not productive, nor will it help in finding a solution. I'd like to find something less drastic, however, than Mac's solution of a new forum.

[JennyHallu]

I'm double posting, because, naturally, I thought of what I really wanted to say right after I hit "submit"

My main problem with the current policy of closing repeat threads regardless of the time since the topic was discussed is that I feel it gives the wrong impression to a new poster.

Instead of saying "We'd be happy to discuss this, just do it over here", I think it more gives the impression, "We've already talked this over, solved this problem, come to a conclusion, and you're welcome to read it if you like, but we don't want to talk about it again."

Seriously, if a thread hasn't been touched in a year, what's the harm in archiving that and starting anew? Will someone please respond to the actual proposal?

[Kuruharan]

...but we do already have an archive forum.

Haudh-en-Ndengin

Admittedly, it appears that the most recent thread there is two years old. Perhaps it is time for another gathering of prominent threads of the past into that forum? Say if it was an important thread of over a year ago (defined by having multiple pages of responses) perhaps it should be put there for ease of access.

Just a suggestion…

[JennyHallu]

Thank you, Kuru.

I know that the archive forum exists, I merely suggest putting some things into it. It seems largely neglected, and perhaps what we really need are some more predictable guidelines of what is archived and when.

That way searching for an old thread is easier, and it would be a simple matter for a neophyte poster to see what had been recently discussed, without being squelched on the basis of a six-year-old discussion.

Completely off topic:

Isn't the word squelch delightful? Almost as good as defenestrate...

[Lalwendë]

Jenny, I really don't think anyone's doing anything nasty by closing repeat threads, as there's the need to keep things tidy. But I use our local forum which runs on the same software and on there they combine rather than close threads (e.g. if there has been big fire someone will start a thread "What's The Big Fire At Hillsborough?" and someone else might then start one "There's A Big Fire At Hillsborough!", so they combine the threads) - don't know if that would work here? Depends if people would get precious about it.

As to joining in, my first posts were a load of rubbish, but I didn't care. I just watched what was going on and gradually eased myself in. Got totally ignored at first, but I erm...ignored it. And for Farael, funnily enough, it was indeed davem himself who was the first to bother to talk to me!

If you aint read all the subsidiary books it's no problem, and indeed you might find most of them quoted anyway not just here bit all over the net, so a bit of googling might find what you want. And if you've not read them then now's the time to start because you don't know what you're missing.

If you think something might've been done before (and it usually has), search for it and add to that thread. And there is no need for anyone to run out of new things to discuss about Tolkien.

[Kuruharan]

I merely suggest putting some things into it. It seems largely neglected, and perhaps what we really need are some more predictable guidelines of what is archived and when.

That way searching for an old thread is easier, and it would be a simple matter for a neophyte poster to see what had been recently discussed, without being squelched on the basis of a six-year-old discussion.

Of course, the problem is getting people to use the resource once it is made available. I'm not entirely sure what could be done in that regard. I'm not sure an annoucement would completely have the desired effect. For one thing, it is an inherent quality of Sticked threads across the Internet that the "Sticky" tag has a magical ability to flip the "Ignore" switch in peoples' brains. I freely admit that I do that sometimes, and sadly I can't come up with a rational explanation as to why...it just sort of happens...

But all that being said, probably the best way would be a dedicated campaign of patient encouragement of its use.