The World Forgotten: A Quarterly Review

[Nessus]

No, I think there's a shortage of good posts/threads, but that was expected as long as we didn't get new members, which we're not getting, partly because the blog isn't getting that much material. It's one thing to diagnose a problem and quite another to provide some realistic solutions.

And you reckon new members would make for worthwhile discussion?

[Loki]

And you reckon new members would make for worthwhile discussion?

Assuming the new members actually came here for worthwhile discussion, I don't see why not. That's why it's important to have threads and blog posts that would attract such people. We're not trying to attract DBZers here. Plus, as has been stated numerous times in the past, a large part of the reason for the lack of new threads is that people already know what everyone else will say. If there's significant new blood, then things will becoming more interesting, and even oldbies will have an added incentive to contribute.

The only short-term solutions I can think of is for people here to start decent threads and make blog posts. Once that occurs, we can try promoting the site somehow. I'm somewhat tempted to have some kind of a reputation system, not to show people who's popular, but to show people who's really, really unpopular (i.e. people who are idiots or trolls), so new people can save themselves the trouble of reading their posts and don't assume that everyone is like those people.

[Nessus]

Assuming the new members actually came here for worthwhile discussion, I don't see why not. That's why it's important to have threads and blog posts that would attract such people. We're not trying to attract DBZers here. Plus, as has been stated numerous times in the past, a large part of the reason for the lack of new threads is that people already know what everyone else will say. If there's significant new blood, then things will becoming more interesting, and even oldbies will have an added incentive to contribute.

The only short-term solutions I can think of is for people here to start decent threads and make blog posts. Once that occurs, we can try promoting the site somehow. I'm somewhat tempted to have some kind of a reputation system, not to show people who's popular, but to show people who's really, really unpopular (i.e. people who are idiots or trolls), so new people can save themselves the trouble of reading their posts and don't assume that everyone is like those people.

Again, that kind of system would lead to people rating people by their views, not objective intellectual merit.

[Loki]

Again, that kind of system would lead to people rating people by their views, not objective intellectual merit.

I've seen this system elsewhere. People who have the highest reputation are those with the most friends and refuse to say anything controversial, but people with the lowest reputation are idiots and trolls. So it doesn't work on the higher end, but does work on the lower end. I think one way of solving this is capping the positive reputation at a pretty low level, so everyone who's not an idiot or a troll would quickly reach the maximum. If we only allow negative reputation, then the people who post the most would get the worst reputation.

[Nessus]

I've seen this system elsewhere. People who have the highest reputation are those with the most friends and refuse to say anything controversial, but people with the lowest reputation are idiots and trolls. So it doesn't work on the higher end, but does work on the lower end. I think one way of solving this is capping the positive reputation at a pretty low level, so everyone who's not an idiot or a troll would quickly reach the maximum. If we only allow negative reputation, then the people who post the most would get the worst reputation.

Well, this is your sandbox, let's do that, I can see how it'll work already but you seem far more idealistic