Call for abolition of sections Education and Economics

[JJM 777]

I call for the abolition of forum sections Education and Economics, Business and Finance. By merging them with the nearest other topic.

Gardener's reasoning: Better cut the withering leaves off, so the rest of the bush will grow more beautiful and strong.

 

[theprestige]

Nearest other topic on the list?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[JJM 777]

Actually yes.

The section Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology could be Science, Mathematics, Medicine, Technology, Education, Economics, Business and Finance.

 

[JJM 777]

Conjuror's Corner is not very useful either, though it stands as a tribute to you-know-who. I still type forums.randi.org in my web browser to get here.

 

[theprestige]

Actually yes.

The section Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology could be Science, Mathematics, Medicine, Technology, Education, Economics, Business and Finance.

It has a sort of perverse charm.

 

[The Atheist]

I call for the abolition of forum sections Education and Economics, Business and Finance. By merging them with the nearest other topic.

Makes good sense, but rather than merge with Science, Arts would seem a better fit.

 

[JJM 777]

Arts would seem a better fit

Anything goes that optimizes (and preferably also balances) the ratios of active-threads-per-forum-section.

 

[quadraginta]

I call for the abolition of forum sections Education and Economics, Business and Finance. By merging them with the nearest other topic.

Gardener's reasoning: Better cut the withering leaves off, so the rest of the bush will grow more beautiful and strong.

I don't really understand what the problem is.

The forum is not a bush. Graphic representations of the sub-fora structure notwithstanding. It's more like a library. Books are grouped topically for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it makes it easier for people who aren't looking for any one specific book to browse in an area of similar interest.

Somehow I don't think moving all the finance books into physics is going to increase the enjoyment of either one.

 

[quadraginta]

Anything goes that optimizes (and preferably also balances) the ratios of active-threads-per-forum-section.

Why does it matter at all? What is the negative impact of having some sub-fora which are visited less than others?

Go to any library. There are more people browsing the mystery or romance sections than there are in history or biography, but that doesn't mean they need to be lumped together.

Resource allocation isn't a problem. There's plenty of processing and storage capacity, although simply moving things into another sub-forum wouldn't impact that anyway.

There is no significant impact that I can see which would be improved by simply reducing the number of sub-fora.

I can understand a concern about having too many subdivisions of topic, but we are nowhere near to approaching that.

 

[JJM 777]

Why does it matter at all? What is the negative impact of having some sub-fora which are visited less than others?

So it is possible to like the small sub-fora. But I don't. Taste vs. taste, may the more numerous side win, whichever it is.

 

[quadraginta]

So it is possible to like the small sub-fora. But I don't. Taste vs. taste, may the more numerous side win, whichever it is.

I don't see it as a matter of liking them or not liking them. It's a matter of whether or not they serve a function and whether or not they are somehow detrimental to the operation of the forum.

Taste has nothing to do with it. At least not as far as I am concerned.

 

[JJM 777]

It's a matter of whether or not they serve a function ... Taste has nothing to do with it.

I think taste has a lot to do with how websites do, and should, look like.

 

[quadraginta]

I think taste has a lot to do with how websites do, and should, look like.

To some degree, sure. As far as overall style and layout, and how they affect ease of use are concerned.

It isn't clear how a couple of extra sub-fora in a structure that will be essentially the same regardless of their presence or absence will qualitatively make or break the general presentation of a message board.

 

[JJM 777]

how a couple of extra sub-fora ... will qualitatively make or break the general presentation of a message board.

=>

they affect ease of use

We might need to add 1000 sub-fora, before you admit that it is a bit boring to find the sub-fora number 237 and 836 which are your favourites. The number of sections affects the ease of checking out what is going on everywhere. This is my feeling, which motivated me to open this thread.

 

[quadraginta]

... a couple of extra sub-fora ...

... 1000 sub-fora ...

I note a small discrepancy here.

Are you proposing a slippery slope argument? Or are you suggesting that "a couple" and "1000" are fundamentally equivalent?

Your argument in your OP was aimed at a couple (as in two) sub-fora.

I responded to that.

If you want to discuss 1,000, then I suggest that that is a different proposition.

 

[JJM 777]

I note a small discrepancy here.

Are you proposing a slippery slope argument?

No, I just clarified what my point is, and that you basically agree that the number of sub-fora affects the comfortability of use, you just have a different view on how few or many sub-fora you feel comfortable with.

 

[quadraginta]

No, I just clarified what my point is, and that you basically agree that the number of sub-fora affects the comfortability of use, you just have a different view on how few or many sub-fora you feel comfortable with.

Ahh. Sophomoric pedantry.

My mistake. I thought you were engaging in this discussion in good faith.

I see there is no need to waste my time on you anymore.

 

[JJM 777]

Ahh. Sophomoric pedantry.

Merely the notion that in my opinion, two less would be more comfortable, while your range of comfortability is a bit wider.

 

[arthwollipot]

Here's the thing. I have the Business and Finance forum on Ignore. That way, topics that are posted in that sub - which I'm not interested in - do not show up on my list of unread threads. I do not have Science Mathematics etc on ignore, because there are threads in that subforum that I am interested in.

By having what I consider to be the boring threads sequestered into their own section, I don't even need to acknowledge their existence, and my overall experience on the forum is enhanced.

Don't get rid of the subforum. Arthwollipot 2017.

 

[quadraginta]

Merely the notion that in my opinion, two less would be more comfortable, while your range of comfortability is a bit wider.

Because the difference between two and a thousand is just "a bit"?

Yeah. Sure.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Actually yes.

The section Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology could be Science, Mathematics, Medicine, Technology, Education, Economics, Business and Finance.

Better,

Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology could be Science, Mathematics, Medicine, Technology, Education, Economics, Business, Finance, Lost & Found.

This signature is intended to irrogate people