Why have Forum Categories?

Why have forum categories if we aren't going to seed them under the most relevant or appropriate category?  

Newsvine is dying as it should be. The nations are a terrible example of how a site should be structured. See chart of historical traffic to site. 

rank2traffic

It was somewhat flat there for a while but has been on a downward spiral after I left. I drew a lot of traffic to that site. 

I find the nations make the site not worth using anymore. It takes 8 mouse clicks to do what you should be able to do with one. 

I would also offer that another element contributing to NV flailing may be the lack of diversity in opinion.  It's becoming an echo chamber where one political leaning has taken over; running off moderates and right leaning members.  A lesson that NT members may want to heed.   

One of the main reasons I brought the issue of categories up is because I believe if we take more care on where articles should be seeded it will help moderate tension.  I've seen a number of articles presented in a category in which other members found questionable eliciting more discussion around whether the article is what it is rather than discussing the topic being seeded.

Newsvine is dying as it should be. The nations are a terrible example of how a site should be structured. See chart of historical traffic to site. 

There are many reasons why NV is in trouble. Calling groups "Nations" is not any help for them. But, limiting the numbers of 'Nations' you can belong to (15) is a more serious negative. Also, taking away the NV Friends List was another major negative. 

Perrie, a very popular NV member when she was there, understands the problem NV has created with their 'Nation' structure, and she is not changing NT to resemble anything like what they have done. She is simply giving our groups a more visible and accessible structure so we can make better use of them.

However, this is not a NT vs NV issue we have going on here. I simply mentioned how NV deals with group (nation) protocol violations.

I just checked my groups and it appears the group administrator has the ability to delete articles from the group. So there is the solution to mis-posted articles or article spamming.   

It was somewhat flat there for a while but has been on a downward spiral after I left. I drew a lot of traffic to that site. 

Give me a break Dean, I'm sure the traffic quantity of NV is little effected by the membership of one member. According to the link you provided, NV latest statistics, as low as they are, still amount to 370 Thousand visits per month.

A heavy contributor getting an average of 50 comments per article is not going to make a dent in the comments generated by 370 Thousand visits. 

-

There is no justice/legal/law category here.

Aeon,

Noted. I am just wondering how much would it be used. But I am open to putting it up. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but in a category that is explicitly named law/justice, one could ask that any remarks be limited to the law or aspects of the law itself.  Take Roe V Wade; first and foremost, is a legal decision. I hate talking or arguing about abortion, but an fascinated with discussing the dynamics of the law.

I put up a topic recently in "History" because it seemed the closest there was to law/legal/justice., but it really didn't fit there either.

Thanks

You make a very valid point, Aeon. I will add the category. 

"You make a very valid point, Aeon. I will add the category." 

If it is made as a forum category it could be pushed off the Home Page (Front Page?) within an hour and not be seen. It seems to me that a Law and Justice category would be better placed as a group. Aeon seems to want it to be restricted to those topics and I think it would be a more esoteric topic in any event. I would certainly join such a group.

Being aware of legal technicalities, I was concerned with using the "purple" for a quotation by a person qualified to use purple on this site, as I should not be entitled to use purple. Could it be a CoC violation?  Would that be the type of discussion that could be topical on such a group? LOL

Buzz,

You surely know that, whether as a topic or as a group, "Law" and "Justice" cannot be combined.  "Law can be clearly defined.  Either the law was broken or it was not.  The determination of which is correct is based on whether the elements of a crime are achieved.  Those elements are clearly (usually) defined and easily recognizable (something of a misnomer, if they were really clearly defined, we wouldn't need attorneys).  They do not, however, have anything at all to do with an emotional response.   Compared to "justice", the law is very clear.  Justice is indefinable (remember; that which can't be defined can't be legislated).  It isn't undefinable because no one can find a definition but because EVERYONE can find a definition .....all different.  Justice usually means "when my side wins and your side loses".

Granted that Law may be defineable and specific, and Justice may be variable, they do both flow down the same stream, and it could be difficult to comment on one without reference to the other.  Equity would stand between the two, because what it really means is "fairness", whereas the Law is strict and Justice is undefineable.  IMO Law, Equity and Justice should be considered together in a group setting.

 Equity would stand between the two, because what it really means is "fairness", whereas the Law is strict and Justice is undefineable.

Of course, but, "fairness" is also indefinable. You can see, my friend, where rational checking of the law can get pretty complex.  I tend to follow the rules that a police officer would follow.  "The law is the law and I'm required to enforce it, whether or not I had a hand in passing it.  (not that I couldn't have done it better than those stupid lawyers)" The attorneys have the job of figuring out exceptions, and curse out the cops for interpreting everything so literally, and bringing cases to court that are simply a waste of their time.  That is the entire dilemma of the police and the courts (or between the theoretical and  the practical).  This is the problem that the criminal (legal or justice) system has been grappling with for decades.  I can't foresee the outcome, but I can clearly see that Perrie might have a problem with deciding which to put into what category.  That's something that has stymied legal experts for centuries.  The only insight I can offer is that you cannot make good law based on emotional responses.  The law must always be based on logical thought, or it will be bad law.

I'm not going to get myself involved in any semantical quibbling about a category's name.  So long as a topic is reasonably related to a category, it works for me.

I am just wondering how much would it be used.

I think it will be used. There are many articles that relate to SCOTUS and other courts involving their decisions and judgments. There are also stories about various court rulings that seem to out of line with public opinion.  

There is no justice/legal/law category here.

Great idea. 

People who remember the old NT format will recall that there were separate tabs at the top of the page for each category , News and Politics, Food, History, Science, etc.   The fact that there always so many people concerned with what was on the "front page" conclusively indicated that people did not use the subject tabs, and mainly or only used the "front page" array. 

IF people used the subforums it could conceivably make concerns about the nature of the front page less urgent to people. The 'slams' are mainly on the news and politics articles, if people properly designated non politics articles to a subforum and people used the subforums to search for content , it might alleviate some of the distress over the front page. 

Perhaps I've been gone too long but I don't understand what "front page" means. I like reading peoples thoughts, whether I agree with them or not. In this forum, I'm relatively young. I also visit forums that consider me old...like the ones my younger daughters go to...still, they accept me.

Age is weird.

If you recall the old format there was a scroll type layout where the latest comment made to any of the topics was at the top . I think that layout showed the most recent 50 comments or something like that. To see something else you had to go to one of the subforums. That 50 comment layout was what people referred to as the "front page" at that time.

In the new format the home page/front page is where the two scroll arrays are shown - one is General Forums , which shows the latest comments, and the other is Latest Activity which shows any latest activity on the site. 

I think that is correct, if not may someone elaborate. 

Personally , I don't use the front page. I click on the tab at the top that reads "Forums" and choose from what shows up then. 

John, you get it.  Well said.  The earth stands still a moment while stunned we agree on something.  

I could post some personal nudes here, enough to get me kicked off but why the hell would I do that?  Mariah Carey claims to be 46. But she is the last of the Prima Donna singers from that era. Who cares?  Life is fluid and always unpredictable.

Having never seeded an article, I never thought about the categories. I don't look for categories. I just look through the posts to see if something catches my eye and sounds interesting.