Welcome to the new TV Forum!

I have no issues with the rota threads, they are usually mundane, but do occasionally throw up some points of more broader interest.

Given the choice of doing away or retention, I would heavily lean towards retention. They're not doing anyone any harm.

tldr: see the bit in bold

You know Asa you're right. I've actually sat here and gone through a selection of threads and rota logging isn't the issue. It's tediousness. Utterly mind-boggling tediousness on a grand scale.

What I think has happened, and this is due to the nature of generic threads, is the site has turned from a place to discuss shows, or channels, or graphics packages, into a place to discuss the inane details of things.

Worzel is a magnificent example of tediousness. I'm sure he's posted some good stuff over the years but frankly all I think when I see his name is "oh, I wonder if the screens are broken, maybe the ticker is juddering and they need to purge the temp files, maybe something utterly uninteresting has happened such as a sloppy lead into a report".

Now of course I'm sure plenty of people think "oh, here's Pete posting, no doubt he's moaning about the state of the forum like James sodding Trout used to do". Well of course, I moan and I snipe, but I also try and find out info, try and bring facts onto the forum and what not.


The broadcasting house thread for example, loads of fantastic posts and photos of the new build. Also of course tons of ultrarepetative "I think this studio is a poor choice even though I have nothing to go on except one single photo of a building site" posts posted over and over and over again over the course of two sodding years.

Now its worth mentioning there is a place for lots of things. For example there is a post in the BBC1 thread about whether silent witness's episode order is correct. Frankly that could be a post of its own. And why exactly does BBC One *need* a thread of its own?

I mean the rebrand was in 2006? Then they tweaked the idents. And a few new ones have been introduced.

The titanic threads showed exactly the poorness of this. There was a perfectly good titanic ident thread and yet stuff kept being posted in the BBC1 thread. Why? All I can think is that it is a mindset of certain members on this forum (and lets face it, this place is a notorious OCD/ Aspergers magnet) that everything must be structured and segregated into their own little silos. But then they actually cock it up, because things are not that simple.

The majority of threads in the newsroom in particular are just the same 8 threads changing position every day. It makes it boring.

Now of course its easy enough to level the same accusation at Metropol, things like the supermarket threads tend to rotate around fairly frequently. However I think its different for a few reasons. Firstly, they have slowly been separated out and tend to be pretty well defined. Secondly, the posts are far less frequent, partly because Metropol is quieter full stop but also because people don't post inane rubbish in them, it tends to be post when you have news, not "oh no, nobody has posted in this thread today". Also of course the sheer names of the threads are a very old joke aimed at the olden days of TVF with self-appointed official threads for channels.

Quite where I'm going with this post I have no idea, its nice to let off steam but I don't think anything will come of it. What I would LOVE to see is an experiment where the News 24 and BBC1 News threads were closed and people had to open news threads if they saw a new graphic, and tedious threads were closed.

I mean this is the thing, what exactly does "day to day" mean? As part of my job I sometimes have to send out press releases. As part of this I had to attend a very dull seminar on dealing with the media. The one phrase that always sticks in my head, and the reason I don't send out releases every day is "Think about it. If you don't find it interesting, neither will the paper". "Day to day activity" in Tesco is not news. The fact they rearranged a few items, or that there was not enough staff is not news. A fridge being broken is mildly interesting, but its not news. The entire shop losing power - that is news. Them relaunching the value range - that's news.

I find it amusing that people so obsessed with news channels are so utterly incapable of the most basic aspect of news reporting: "will the audience give a toss". The answer with so many posts on here is "no".

^ This.

There seems to be a fear of new threads. You know what, if I'm glancing here a couple of times a day, I'd rather see a full page of new threads, many of which may have a half life of a few hours, and make a meaningful choice about what might be worth reading. It only costs me a few seconds, I don't mind. It turns out we do this when idlely scrolling through Facebook and Twitter anyway. It's ok.

The obsession with dull megathreads simply does not succeed in containing the rota threat, it just obfuscates the occasional actually interesting titbit. As implied before, once a certain kind of member's rubbish contributions are permitted, they bring that same low calibre of discussion to every thread.

Megathreads have their place (in the regions) - I'd agree wholeheartedly with Pete on this, can we try his experiment please - something to stop certain people chatting absolute bubbles about the colour of Emily Maitlis' buttons...

*YES*

Topics on the first ten pages of TV Home Forum started by Barney Boo: 0.
Topics on the first ten pages of The Newsroom started by Barney Boo: 0.

This goes back to threads last updated in January and according to your profile you make on average 1 post a day. If you want less mega threads and more short lived threads about specific topics don't just talk about it, do it.

Otherwise, I agree with what you have said.

I'm in 100% agreement with Pete here. The mega threads are a nightmare. I have missed so many developments I would have been interested in because of them. For instance, I didn't know until Pete's post just now that new BBC1 idents had been introduced since the 2009 update. Somehow I just haven't seen them on air and because I don't follow the BBC One mega thread, I've totally missed out.

Another example - I don't keep up with the Broadcasting House thread on a daily basis. However, I would have been interested to see the latest photos/designs as and when they've been posted. I've no chance now, because they'll be buried under piles of stuff I'm not interested in. If there'd been a nice new thread saying "New Photos of Broadcasting House!" I'd have instantly clicked on it.

A third example - I posted a load of old clips of BBC News 24 and BBC World that I captured a decade ago in one of the mega threads because I was afraid of starting a new topic and receiving a backlash. What happened? About 2 members acknowledged them before they were instantly buried by trivia again.

Asa, what I'm trying to say is that the mega threads are a barrier to people who haven't got the time to spend reading every thread every day. Clearly signposted threads - even if they only run to 3 posts in total before dying - would be much easier to deal with. I'm not saying eradicate them completely. Those who want to discuss rotas, shaky tickers and broken BARCOs can't open a new thread each time - that would be ridiculous. But, I do think members should be encouraged to start new threads for things that are important and/or unusual enough to be of widespread interest. Take Prince Charles forecasting the BBC Scotland weather yesterday. Thankfully, I saw it on the TV first, but it was only mentioned in the BBC Scotland and BBC National News mega threads. In my opinion, that really should have been in its own thread.

That's all well and good, David. I've been on this forum since the day it opened in 2001, yet you could probably count on one hand the number of new threads I've started. It's because as soon as you do you get a sarcastic comment from someone and a padlock applied shortly after. There's not an ethos here anymore which encourages new threads. Not like in the first few years when we'd start threads for anything and everything. Don't believe me? Just take a look right back in one of the main forums.

Thing is David - and I do appreciate your point - there is a cause and effect issue going on here.

If I was to spot something on News 24 that was new, this is what used to happen.

1 - ooh that's new
2 - or is it?
3 - I'll look on tvf
4 - oh, there's a thread about that two pages back. not to worry

[OR]

4 - hmm, there's no mention of it, I'll start a thread
5 - starts thread, has anyone seen this? yay or nay



What happens now however is this

1 - saw something
2 - wonder if its new
3 - oh my god, I have no idea where on earth i should look for this, I mean there are all these massive long threads
4 - posts in generic thread - post ignored because I wasn't talking about Tim sodding wilcox

[OR]

4 - posts new thread. thread gets ignored because I didn't dare post it in the generic thread

[OR]

4 - posts new thread. why is this not in the generic thread???? it was mentioned on page 256 (of 45000). thread is closed.




So as you'll note, there is a chicken and egg situation here. Unless a stop is put to the generic threads and those who post in them lording it over anyone who dares not use their Byzantine system of choosing which thread and at which moment to post in the, then we are screwed and stuck in this endless cycle of banality.

If you desire however, I'll watch N24 now and post a thread about everything I've seen that I'm not familiar with. TBH it'll be a lot of threads. BECAUSE I NEVER KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING ANYMORE BECAUSE ITS ALL HIDDEN IN ROTA TEDIUM OR IN GENERIC THREADS!!!!

ahem.

and yes, rob did put that somewhat more eloquently than me. however I do have a crisp headache at the moment and it makes me well tetchy.

Also - the Prince Charles reading the weather thing is a perfect example of this. It was PRINCE CHARLES READING THE WEATHER! Surely that deserves a thread on here?

I post much, much, much, much fewer than once a day lately. And mostly, it's because I can be 95% through writing a post before an internal dialogue of "does this justify a thread anymore? Will it silently disappear/rebirth in page 492 of a generic thread, sandwiched between two fantasy schedules of News at Ten circa 1993, or killed with the "lol we all talked about this without you in the generic thread" - none of this is conducive to participating - and is counter-productive, as it actually makes the whole forum look artificially dead by concentrating all activity in a half dozen threads.

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.