The "Published" threads at RDF are awful.

[Pappa]

Previously on RD.net, the front page was getting around 350 comments per day, and the forum was getting around 2000 per day particularly on reason and science topics - so you'd expect the two arenas combined in their new form would be heading towards about 2300 comments per day, perhaps heading upwards from there, given how exciting the new format is...

Well, the past few days they've hardly scraped the other side of 200 submitted comments - less than the front page ALONE was getting before the "refurbishment", and the front page itself was only seeing a fraction of the input in the first place. I needn't add that traffic stats are headed mainly in the southerly direction. Of course, it may be a case of the site taking a good few steps backwards that will ultimately rebound into their great leap forward - but I still have my doubts there.

I'm pretty sure it was there intention to try to focus on quality, not quantity. Whether they'll succeed....

Yes, but even still, they made the decision against the forum in almost total ignorance of what was actually happening there. I seriously doubt they knew enough about the level of quality in the first place to have a proper gauge of what they felt should be changed and why, and what difference they hoped to achieve. And there also comes a point where a decrease in quantity (of traffic or active input) does put a dampener on the quality. People don't hang around as much, don't engage in as much proper intellectual discussion...

And I still don't see anything on the site indicative of an overall increase in quality over the old site, either in the technical aspects of the interface or in user input.

I agree completely. But I'm sure RD and co. had no intention of being there to support a forum that was pretty much a self-sufficient living entity (sans-tech-admins). To them it was probably more like a cancer, and certainly not central to the Foundation's aims.

[Clinton Huxley]

I hope Dawkins sprains his ankle slightly.

[Mysturji]

Previously on RD.net, the front page was getting around 350 comments per day, and the forum was getting around 2000 per day particularly on reason and science topics - so you'd expect the two arenas combined in their new form would be heading towards about 2300 comments per day, perhaps heading upwards from there, given how exciting the new format is...

Well, the past few days they've hardly scraped the other side of 200 submitted comments - less than the front page ALONE was getting before the "refurbishment", and the front page itself was only seeing a fraction of the input in the first place. I needn't add that traffic stats are headed mainly in the southerly direction. Of course, it may be a case of the site taking a good few steps backwards that will ultimately rebound into their great leap forward - but I still have my doubts there.

I'm pretty sure it was there intention to try to focus on quality, not quantity. Whether they'll succeed....

Yes, but even still, they made the decision against the forum in almost total ignorance of what was actually happening there. I seriously doubt they knew enough about the level of quality in the first place to have a proper gauge of what they felt should be changed and why, and what difference they hoped to achieve. And there also comes a point where a decrease in quantity (of traffic or active input) does put a dampener on the quality. People don't hang around as much, don't engage in as much proper intellectual discussion...

And I still don't see anything on the site indicative of an overall increase in quality over the old site, either in the technical aspects of the interface or in user input.

But at least they got rid of all the childish smut.

[Bella Fortuna]

...which explains the dramatic drop in posts...

[Ayaan]

Previously on RD.net, the front page was getting around 350 comments per day, and the forum was getting around 2000 per day particularly on reason and science topics - so you'd expect the two arenas combined in their new form would be heading towards about 2300 comments per day, perhaps heading upwards from there, given how exciting the new format is...

Well, the past few days they've hardly scraped the other side of 200 submitted comments - less than the front page ALONE was getting before the "refurbishment", and the front page itself was only seeing a fraction of the input in the first place. I needn't add that traffic stats are headed mainly in the southerly direction. Of course, it may be a case of the site taking a good few steps backwards that will ultimately rebound into their great leap forward - but I still have my doubts there.

I'm pretty sure it was there intention to try to focus on quality, not quantity. Whether they'll succeed....

Yes, but even still, they made the decision against the forum in almost total ignorance of what was actually happening there. I seriously doubt they knew enough about the level of quality in the first place to have a proper gauge of what they felt should be changed and why, and what difference they hoped to achieve. And there also comes a point where a decrease in quantity (of traffic or active input) does put a dampener on the quality. People don't hang around as much, don't engage in as much proper intellectual discussion...

And I still don't see anything on the site indicative of an overall increase in quality over the old site, either in the technical aspects of the interface or in user input.

I agree completely. But I'm sure RD and co. had no intention of being there to support a forum that was pretty much a self-sufficient living entity (sans-tech-admins). To them it was probably more like a cancer, and certainly not central to the Foundation's aims.

I've been wondering if part of the problem was that forum was getting so much more activity than Josh's favored front page - so when he couldn't kill the forum with neglect, he hatched the plan that led to that useless discussion area they have now.

[Feck]

I hope Dawkins sprains his ankle slightly.

I hope TImmmmeh ! gets an anal fissure and dysentery .

[Robert_S]

I've looked at the stuff over there and... it just doesn't move me. It could have something to do with what went down a while ago or that I already have my forum needs met, but it's probably actually boring.

I would like to actually give a fuck about that place. I'd like to love it or hate it or feel anything but I just can't keep interested, except to point out how surprisingly uninterested I am now that it's up.

[JQisAwesome]

The useless "discussion area" is starting to get a few more hits. But the fact that an individual has to pick each topic at a time will always make it limited. Especially at odd hours or holidays. In fact it virtually guarantees that there would be no new discussions at night, when the moderator isn't there to select threads. It's just an awful idea. They gutted a community. It's awful.

[JQisAwesome]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/4 ... 6-year-old

It's a post from a 16 year old converted atheist, who introduces himself with 3 pages of backstory. I have no desire whatsoever to read or respond to threads like this and yet they are one of a very limited number of options. They have absolutely MURDERED that forum.

I won't be visiting there - or here- or rationalskeptic - or anywhere! (Since there does not seem to be a genuine RDF Forum replacement, anywhere.)

[macdoc]

The Recently Deceased Forum.

[Trolldor]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/4 ... 6-year-old

It's a post from a 16 year old converted atheist, who introduces himself with 3 pages of backstory. I have no desire whatsoever to read or respond to threads like this and yet they are one of a very limited number of options. They have absolutely MURDERED that forum.

I won't be visiting there - or here- or rationalskeptic - or anywhere! (Since there does not seem to be a genuine RDF Forum replacement, anywhere.)

Oh wow... so basically it's the forum without the hilarity and only the whining?

[CJ]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/4 ... 6-year-old

It's a post from a 16 year old converted atheist, who introduces himself with 3 pages of backstory. I have no desire whatsoever to read or respond to threads like this and yet they are one of a very limited number of options. They have absolutely MURDERED that forum.

I won't be visiting there - or here- or rationalskeptic - or anywhere! (Since there does not seem to be a genuine RDF Forum replacement, anywhere.)

Oh wow... so basically it's the forum without the hilarity and only the whining?

You should be quite at home there

[charlou]

They have absolutely MURDERED that forum.

I won't be visiting there - or here- or rationalskeptic - or anywhere! (Since there does not seem to be a genuine RDF Forum replacement, anywhere.)

It's just an awful idea. They gutted a community. It's awful.

Yes, it really is. Many of us know how you feel, having been through it in an earlier RDF upheaval. We moved on as a community and eventually settled here. You're welcome to join us (as many others have) while you recover from your feelings of loss, and I mean that sincerely, JQ. If nothing else, our lighthearted approach may cheer you up a bit and help you move on. If not, all the best anyway.

[lordpasternack]

So nothing about the taste of semen then, seriously?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/humanbody/truth ... aste.shtml

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 605576.ece

I dare someone…

[Geoff]

So nothing about the taste of semen then, seriously?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/humanbody/truth ... aste.shtml

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 605576.ece

I dare someone…

OOOh the temptation...

(that second link has to be a windup, though, surely?)