OT Posts

[Ira Fishman]

Brian Finn objected to the OT posts about Rory McIlroy’s non-conforming driver. Simon Barrington jumped on the bandwagon. I tend to agree that they should be avoided generally even though I have started a few and am overlooking here that Simon has jumped in on Rules related threads (ok, maybe not overlooking). I post for two reasons:


1. Simon’s assertion that lurkers look to posters as more sophisticated is an insult to them. They know which posters are amateurs (me) and which are not (Simon, T. Doak, Mikes Young and Nuzzo, Robin Hiseman, Grandpa Joe, Ally, Forrest, Jim Urbina, Kyle Harris, John Emerson, Anthony Nysse, and the list goes on). All of us should say what we think and trust people to sort the fescue from the heather.


2. If a thread is marked as OT or clearly is so, no one is obligated to read it. We have a new Manager who is trying to keep traffic here going. Ran and his colleagues did a great job taking down threads/posts that did not belong here. I think we should give Andrew the latitude to do the same while he figures out what to do with the Tree House.


Thanks.


Ira

[Sam Morrow]

An OT post is no different than any other, if I'm not interested in the topic I don't click it, I'd imagine everyone else is the same.

[Greg Hohman]

From the site’s ABOUT page: “a place to dissect golf and golf architecture.”

[Chris Hughes]

An OT post is no different than any other, if I'm not interested in the topic I don't click it, I'd imagine everyone else is the same.

Paraphrasing a pundit in the space...


...many are not familiar with the scroll button.

[Michael Morandi]

Is architecture not influenced  by golf equipment/technology?

[Simon Barrington]

Hello Ira,

It's a pretty small bandwagon, if one at all...
Mine was general, not personal, comment; one you have seemingly misinterpreted.

But, I note you broadly agree.

I was not suggesting excluding all OT Threads, just that we recently have had too many, and some on-topic threads hijacked into becoming far OT. There are other forums available for such OT opinions to be expressed.
It's an opinion, which I (respectfully) acknowledged others may not share.

(BTW Are you stalking me? I have indeed responded to some OT posts, as a former Professional Rules Official long ago sometimes its hard to simply drive-by)


Re. 1. I did not assert that.
"We also need to be aware a significant number of non-Posters view this forum for insight & informed (respectful) debate.
The discourse can, and should, be relevant and focused on GCA."

This does not question or infer any lack of sophistication in anyone outside; simply that information, and polite debate to reveal the same, occurs on here. I learn things from all places, regardless of how sophisticated or not the source is. This is a niche site, some information is highly informed, some less so (including some of my own).
I simply don't care from where it comes, if it is new information to me it is both helpful and welcome.
This DB is certainly not, nor should it be IMHO, an ivory tower.

If that is hard to understand then my apologies, I have failed to communicate as well I would like to; there was no offence intended nor to be taken (obh of others, by others). The term "lurkers" is not one I would use, it infers your view of others outside might be even less generous than you suggest mine is. I believe that not to be true in all regards.

Re.2 - Not all OT Threads are so marked, and several on-topic threads are marked as OT.

“Traffic” is not the goal, unless Drew tells us that is the plan/desire.
Passion, information, debate, sharing the joys of GCA (and otherwise) is; so we need to focus IMHO on quality insights, and respectful differentiated debate. Not on click-bait for “traffic” on generic OT matters, leave that to other places.

Only Drew can share how it is going (in terms of metrics etc.), he knows I want nothing but success for this place.

It is, somewhat down to the success of this DB in raising profile of GCA as a subject, an increasingly competitive environment. I am simply and politely just trying to contribute here.

[Tim Martin]

I’m not interested in debating the effect/value of off topic threads but would only say that there has never been any negative connotation assigned to being a “lurker” which is someone that reads GCA without a sign on and doesn’t actively participate in the discourse. There are way more “lurkers” than active participants.

[Brian Finn]

Brian Finn objected to the OT posts about Rory McIlroy’s non-conforming driver. Simon Barrington jumped on the bandwagon. I tend to agree that they should be avoided generally even though I have started a few and am overlooking here that Simon has jumped in on Rules related threads (ok, maybe not overlooking). I post for two reasons:

1. Simon’s assertion that lurkers look to posters as more sophisticated is an insult to them. They know which posters are amateurs (me) and which are not (Simon, T. Doak, Mikes Young and Nuzzo, Robin Hiseman, Grandpa Joe, Ally, Forrest, Jim Urbina, Kyle Harris, John Emerson, Anthony Nysse, and the list goes on). All of us should say what we think and trust people to sort the fescue from the heather.

2. If a thread is marked as OT or clearly is so, no one is obligated to read it. We have a new Manager who is trying to keep traffic here going. Ran and his colleagues did a great job taking down threads/posts that did not belong here. I think we should give Andrew the latitude to do the same while he figures out what to do with the Tree House.

Thanks.

Ira

I objected to the prevalence of OT posts on the board.  Of course we can skip/ignore/scroll.  You all can do the same on my posts.  There are surely plenty of people that post regularly who I skip over, including a couple on this thread.

[Kyle Harris]

When OT threads take up server space, bandwidth, and also dilute the on-topic content threads on the first page we have a problem.

It does happen from time to time.

Placing the onus to "scroll past" on the viewer is lazy and contrary to the point of a focused discussion group.

Also, if I were in charge, my first rule would be if you feel the need to say "delete if not allowed" in a post you shouldn't post it. And if you do, you are banned for a month.

Not every thought you have about golf needs a venue here.

Show some self-control!

[Simon Barrington]

I’m not interested in debating the effect/value of off topic threads but would only say that there has never been any negative connotation assigned to being a “lurker” which is someone that reads GCA without a sign on and doesn’t actively participate in the discourse. There are way more “lurkers” than active participants.

Ref. Wikipedia:
The term "lurk" can be traced back to when it was first used during the 14th century. The word referred to someone who would hide in concealment, often for an evil purpose.
In the mid-1980s, the word started to be applied to the Internet when bulletin board systems became popular.

Given I live in the past (with my head in old Golf books mostly) I naturally took the term to be derogatory. 

It's great when old-fashioned words, and even more so classic GCA fundamentals & features, come back full circle and are re-used/purposed!

[Carl Johnson]

From the site’s ABOUT page: “a place to dissect golf and golf architecture.”

I assumed that this post would end the discussion.  I was wrong.

[Ira Fishman]

Hello Ira,

It's a pretty small bandwagon, if one at all...
Mine was general, not personal, comment; one you have seemingly misinterpreted.

But, I note you broadly agree.

I was not suggesting excluding all OT Threads, just that we recently have had too many, and some on-topic threads hijacked into becoming far OT. There are other forums available for such OT opinions to be expressed.
It's an opinion, which I (respectfully) acknowledged others may not share.

(BTW Are you stalking me? I have indeed responded to some OT posts, as a former Professional Rules Official long ago sometimes its hard to simply drive-by)


Re. 1. I did not assert that.
"We also need to be aware a significant number of non-Posters view this forum for insight & informed (respectful) debate.
The discourse can, and should, be relevant and focused on GCA."

This does not question or infer any lack of sophistication in anyone outside; simply that information, and polite debate to reveal the same, occurs on here. I learn things from all places, regardless of how sophisticated or not the source is. This is a niche site, some information is highly informed, some less so (including some of my own).
I simply don't care from where it comes, if it is new information to me it is both helpful and welcome.
This DB is certainly not, nor should it be IMHO, an ivory tower.

If that is hard to understand then my apologies, I have failed to communicate as well I would like to; there was no offence intended nor to be taken (obh of others, by others). The term "lurkers" is not one I would use, it infers your view of others outside might be even less generous than you suggest mine is. I believe that not to be true in all regards.

Re.2 - Not all OT Threads are so marked, and several on-topic threads are marked as OT.

“Traffic” is not the goal, unless Drew tells us that is the plan/desire.
Passion, information, debate, sharing the joys of GCA (and otherwise) is; so we need to focus IMHO on quality insights, and respectful differentiated debate. Not on click-bait for “traffic” on generic OT matters, leave that to other places.

Only Drew can share how it is going (in terms of metrics etc.), he knows I want nothing but success for this place.

It is, somewhat down to the success of this DB in raising profile of GCA as a subject, an increasingly competitive environment. I am simply and politely just trying to contribute here.

Simon,


I did not take your comment personally. Your post just prompted some thoughts I have for a bit. Nor, lol, am I stalking you. You are very informed so I tend to make a point of reading your posts.


My overall suggestion is to trust Andrew and his team to “police” the OTs. There may be too many, but some are quite interesting (rules, history of game, memories of great players and writers as examples). If one or more of them prompt more people to read the architecture threads, all the better. If there are too many or some go off the rails, I trust Andrew to intervene.


Thanks.


Ira

[Tim Martin]

Show some self-control!

 

[Simon Barrington]

Simon,
I did not take your comment personally. Your post just prompted some thoughts I have for a bit. Nor, lol, am I stalking you. You are very informed so I tend to make a point of reading your posts.
My overall suggestion is to trust Andrew and his team to “police” the OTs. There may be too many, but some are quite interesting (rules, history of game, memories of great players and writers as examples). If one or more of them prompt more people to read the architecture threads, all the better. If there are too many or some go off the rails, I trust Andrew to intervene.
Thanks.
Ira

 
 
Simon

[Kalen Braley]

Is architecture not influenced  by golf equipment/technology?

I think an argument could be made that equipment, (aka how far the ball is being hit especially by very good players), has had a far bigger impact on golf architecture in the last two decades than anything else.  Between building new courses with Tiger tees, retrofitting existing ones, bunker placement, and deploying other features to offset the distance onslaught, it would certainly seem this is the case.

[BHoover]

There are surely plenty of people that post regularly who I skip over, including a couple on this thread.



This, 100%

[Michael Morandi]

Is architecture not influenced  by golf equipment/technology?

I think an argument could be made that equipment, (aka how far the ball is being hit especially by very good players), has had a far bigger impact on golf architecture in the last two decades than anything else.  Between building new courses with Tiger tees, retrofitting existing ones, bunker placement, and deploying other features to offset the distance onslaught, it would certainly seem this is the case.

Exactly.  But it seems that some here think it is OT and should be deleted.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Those of us on this site long enough know a lurker known affectionately as "The lurker"; the much respected and greatly missed TEPaul.

[Tim Martin]

Those of us on this site long enough know a lurker known affectionately as "The lunker"; the much respected and greatly missed TEPaul.

+1

[Tags:]

Tags: