Posted by Jost on September 25, 2006, at 11:29:46
In reply to Re: Redirect: the other two levels » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on September 25, 2006, at 7:43:17
My impression was that thread was a serious discussion that drew in a fair number of people as it evolved.
When a thread gets redirected, doesn't it tend to shortcircuit the discussion? Not by necessity, but possibly some kind of signalling, that this discussion isn't so important? That could be unconscious, and my sense of it could be an accident of where threads tend to be redirected (and my personal interests, which have often not been in those areas). I"m not sure.
But when threads are redirected, unless I frequent the page that they're redirected to, or I'm much more than usually interested in the topic. I tend to stick to the pages I stick to. Which means I move on past that discussion to other discussions.
The structure of the board is for discussions to crop up and then die down, of themselves, but frequently because they've slightly fizzled, and something else grabs one's attention. The subject may well reemerge, with many of the same discussants, later. So the structure of moving-on tends to get ingrained, and one easily just moves on, if the topic isn't planted where it was before, and doesn't have any bright yellow "new" markers in it.
Where does the topic under discussion fit, exactly?
To me, the Main Board is the best fit. It does address the interactions of biological and psychological treatments and explanations (as I understood--I admittedly wasn't reading it--although I had begun to get interested).
The "Social" Board isn't so much "everything else" in equal measure, as it is odds and ends, thises and thats-- tv shows (Grey's Anatomy), the vicissitudes of one's pets' health, ones' hair style, the bad (or great) weather, hiking trips, jokes you want to share etc. That discussion is out of place with the mood and content of the Social board.
Like Scott, I could see it on Psychology. But I'm at a loss to think of another board. One could call those matters of Belief or Theory-- but not belief as used on the Faith board or theory in any really Political sense-- so those wouldn't work.
Of equal importance is that people, in general, inhabit certain boards. There are regulars, often people who visit only selected areas, and concentrate their energies there. They interact with one another and with others who are looking for something specific on a day or week or occasionally. They provide continuity, and inform many discussions. So each is invested in topics, but also their regular interlocutors.
In that sense, it's the participants who are the core "content" of discussions. One (as a psychobabbler) looks for people whose ideas and knowledge interest one, and tends to read and engage with them. (At least I do-- not entirely, of course, but it is one element of how I read.) So one is invested as much in people as in topics--especially because of the episodic, moving energy of the discussion.That's why the topic, beyond fit, even more belongs on the Main Board. If the discussion had some particular fit to another board (if it were about omega-3) you might enhance it by moving it. In this case, even if it doesn't fit the Main Board perfectly, there's no other perfect fit to justify the discontinuity imposed.
People on the Social or Psychology Board will not have been aware of the discussion. It will simply be a long, unfamiliar thread, of matters already, visually and psychologically settled (no yellow "new" markers). Therefore "old news." So you've ended the discussion among the originators and replanted it in new ground--where it may very well appear as dormant, and remain so.
Anyway, having run out of things to say (although not I'm afraid quickly enough), I do think it would be a boon to put it back on the Main Board.
Jost
poster:Jost
thread:688978
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/689063.html