Media Websites

Welcome to the new TV Forum!

(March 2009)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
BA
bilky asko
Spot on again, Pete. I'm so glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. Maybe it's because we're both long-standing members who have a long memory of what TV Forum has been like over the years. A lot of newer members don't know any different than posting solely in generic mega threads. But we've seen the before and after and I for one know what was better. I've loved visiting TV Forum almost every day for 11 years but I'm getting to the point where I'm questioning why I bother. Like I said a moment ago, if you don't read every thread every day, you're out of the loop. I find that nowadays I learn very little from my visits here, other than how many shifts Tim Willcox has done today. I really never thought I'd get to the point where I don't look forward to visiting here. But, it is happening, and I'm not just being dramatic to make a point.


The simple fact I'm visiting the Media Websites board is telling (for me) that I'm not finding enough things to read in the main two boards.

One major problem for the megathreads is the similarity in their names - it really is annoying having to click through all of the BBC News threads when I'm only really interested in some of it.

I have no idea if its possible or easy to implement, but could new threads have the option to be labelled under a channel or broadcaster, so it's easier to see what a thread concerns, yet have distinct enough thread titles for ease of navigation? Everything would still be in TV Home Forum, The Newsroom, etc., but it could be sorted or filtered. It would certainly end the need for megathreads - you could click on all the threads with the BBC One logo. for example. Categories could be used for less-frequented channels.
PE
Pete Founding member
I rather like that idea actually
AN
Ant
I still think there's a place for generic threads on here, but only for minor observations and the like. There really needs to be a general consensus on what warrants a new thread and I think that, for example, the new BBC Sport site should have had its own thread instead of being buried within the bbc.co.uk one along with other less important developments.

A fine example of the problem lies with this particular thread, funnily enough. Originally it was created to discuss the new look of the board (and still carries that title), yet we're here talking about something largely separate.
JO
Joe
Asa posted:
I think there's too much crossover between programmes and pres on this site to do it - most of the programme specific threads discuss a behind the scenes/presentation element as opposed to the standard tv chat so all I think you end up doing is forcing users to have to check another page. I'm always dubious of sites that have lots of forums and few topics spread thinly. Splitting to create The Newsroom was enough of a debate!


I've thought about it, and you're right. I suppose what I really wanted ties in with what those above me have said - more focussed threads are needed, and I thought that separating out programmes and pres would help. But what everyone else is saying should happen. And maybe the mods could help by splitting topics? Incidentally, I feel moderation has been very absent lately.

Thank you for replying, by the way - I appreciate it.
PT
Put The Telly On
Hate to come at this from a different angle of sorts here but I remember around the time I joined this site in 2004, people were complaining there were too many threads about similar topics (ala Digital Spew) and that's when over the years everything started becoming more generic. Obviously it's gone too far now and I agree with the above.
JO
Jonny
^That would appear to be the danger, that you could end up with a Newsroom bursting with presenter portmanteaus and shirt/trouser observations. Although I agree everything is far too "MUST BE POSTED HERE" conscious.

I think the idea about categorising threads by channel (pres) or 'other' with a little logo marker next to them and the ability to show those threads only could potentially be quite brilliant; sort of like a polite 'ignore' function.
JA
james
Jonny posted:
sort of like a polite 'ignore' function.


I still think a user ignore feature would be fab. Help to cut down on the tripe that some people post.
RO
rob Founding member
james posted:
Jonny posted:
sort of like a polite 'ignore' function.


I still think a user ignore feature would be fab. Help to cut down on the tripe that some people post.


I'd like to second this feature please.
CR
Critique
rob posted:
james posted:
Jonny posted:
sort of like a polite 'ignore' function.


I still think a user ignore feature would be fab. Help to cut down on the tripe that some people post.


I'd like to second this feature please.


I mentioned this long ago, but then, as someone pointed out at the time, if said user posts something relevant, you won't see it, and if they're quotes, you'll see what they're writing, anyway.
JA
james
rob posted:
james posted:
Jonny posted:
sort of like a polite 'ignore' function.


I still think a user ignore feature would be fab. Help to cut down on the tripe that some people post.


I'd like to second this feature please.


I mentioned this long ago, but then, as someone pointed out at the time, if said user posts something relevant, you won't see it, and if they're quotes, you'll see what they're writing, anyway.


To be fair when have the likes of JK08, Daniel K and Daybreak posted anything that useful? I mean for a start Daybreak simply grovels for the ITV Breakfast tracks.... which he will (hopefully) never get.
DO
dosxuk
Eugh! http://www.tvforum.co.uk/forums/post753740#post-753740
PE
Pete Founding member


Doesn't this belong in the TV Watch thread on metro Wink

I did notice said member attempting to generate a rota thread in Birdsong. A swift end was put to that (note without banning, rudeness or anything)

Newer posts