RichardInSF

There is no certainty in life, but the TB could redefine the charter of the forum in a way that TRIES to solve the problem. We have good mods, they'd act on that in good faith, I am sure. If it didn't work, then you could go back to the old way or try something else.

bhatnasx

Do you have any specific suggestions? Personally, I don't feel comfortable with a post-count limit before having the ability to start a new thread. I think that most newbies post for the first time threads that they have started. I don't, however, know how many people's first threads were in TravelBuzz rather than more specific forums.

RichardInSF

Two possible suggestions, based on the general direction of the discussion thus far:

If the approach was to be in the area of thread starting, I'd suggest limiting the number of threads a new member could start for the first six months to, say, one every three days.

If the approach was to better define TravelBuzz, I'd suggest starting with a slightly reworded version of GUWonder's definition: A forum dedicated to improving the travel experience, resolving travel problems, and closing gaps in travel knowledge.

The former can be quanitatively enforced (if the BB software allows!) and might even slow down spammers a bit without discouraging new members; the latter relies on interpretation by the mods and hence would likely handle unusual cases and exceptions better.

Jenbel

No, I don't think we can. I, as I said during the elections, am uncomfortable with attempts to try and 'manage' moderation like this - moderation is moderation and TB is distinct from moderation. There would be absolutely no guarantee that us changing a board's definition would have any effect whatsoever on how it is moderated - and as such, I'm personally not prepared to go down that route.

Ok, so we limit new members to posting only every few days - how do we know that this doesn't just increase the number of handles registered?

RichardInSF

I suppose we do that the same way we stop multiple handles (a violation of the TOS) right now -- for starters, by checking the IP address for those with static addresses. This is a technical issue that I hope has been largely resolved for many years!

GUWonder

TB is distinct from moderation, but is it so removed that TB doesn't/can't provide advice about TOS/TOS policy (i.e., distint from specific moderator action) and/or about forum description?

Given that TB votes in new forums, is TB's supplying/amending descriptions of FT forums, descriptions of which are used by moderators to determine appropriateness of threads/posts, really beyond the TB realm?

(I'm strongly opposed to numerical limits on the ability of new members to post in existing threads; and I'm not confident that limiting the ability of new members to start threads will accomplish any good once duplicate handles and copycats are taken into consideration.)

Jenbel

No it's not so removed. But it would (for me) depend what areas are being discussed - there are some areas, where as I've said previously, TB don't have the experience which the Mods do, and where it makes more sense to talk to Mods than TB as they will be living slightly more in the real world on some issues, dealing with them on a daily basis. Other areas, it would be perfectly appropriate for TB to be involved. IMHO, you use the tools best suited for the job in hand.

GUWonder

Thanks for your thoughts on this issue.

Given TB's current composition, with a majority of the TB members having Moderator roles/backgrounds (if I am not mistaken), I'm curious if the current TB has considered, does consider, or will consider proposing/amending/removing specific FT TOS. It would seem that given

1. that more TB members now -- than before the recent election -- have Moderator roles/backgrounds; and

2. the background about why this forum is being proposed now,

this kind of thing may come up for consideration, if it hasn't already.

RichardInSF

Based on the discussion here and in the other thread about "moderators being elected to talk board," it sounds like there is agreement that it would be entirely within the remit of the TB to propose a change in the definition of a forum, even if that affects how moderators do their job, because this is not one of the forbidden areas.

So, I suggest once again that the definition of Travel Buzz be clarified by talk board as proposed above to provide guidance that would have the potential to limit the number of useless threads therein.

magiciansampras

I like it.

I wonder if a new thread should be created for the proposal, as this is no longer related to a New Forum.

RichardInSF

It's now pretty clear even to me that no action is going to be taken on Travel Buzz. My personal solution is simply to avoid this forum most of the time, since it pretty much has become "Travel-related Omni." I presume this is good for the visit count (and hence the advertising revenue) of FT and I certainly am not opposed to actions which help keep the site financially healthy.

magiciansampras

Please see http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...65338&posted=1

People have started complaining in Travelbuzz about the survey-type of threads that are proliferating. RichardInSF isn't the only one who has noticed this...

grouse

Great proposal by the OP. I think there is a real problem on TravelBuzz as well. My solution was a technical one--allow us to ignore threads created by certain users.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=634735

I'd prefer it if a new forum were started for travel surveys though.

As far as what some of the best threads on TravelBuzz are, here are a few recent classics:

• Why do so many people hide adult-oriented magazines behind drawers in hotel rooms?
• Justr Fell Victim to a Scam in Istanbul -- God Do I feel Like an Idiot!
• Best Travel Tips for 2004 (win $500)
• "Did you smoke marijuana in Amsterdam?" US Customs question
• I am mad - Teacher's assignment interferes with planned family trip
• "Cheater," she hissed at me across the security line rope.
• Deported from Costa Rica

Stories and advice. Discussion questions, not surveys.