The "Published" threads at RDF are awful.

[JQisAwesome]

So, everyone knows by now - at RDF's new forum - you can't make new threads. All you can do is reply to pre-existing threads that THEY CHOOSE.

And the posts they choose to publish are awful. Don't get me wrong, there's a few decent ones. But there are 3 or 4 by the same guy, "Ranting Socrates" (Sorry to step on any toes if he's a popular guy here.) But this guy posts these really personal, emotional, wishy-washy posts about his own atheism and how great it is. All of the replies are stuff like, "Yeah! You go girl! Me too!" He's preaching to the converted. Everyone is in agreement and nothing is being discussed.

Where are all the trolls and creationists? Where's the debates, the arguments, the fights? Where's the drama? Where's THE FUCKING FUN?!?!?!

[CJ]

Hi JQ

Not surprised really, disappointed yes, surprised no.

[colubridae]

So, everyone knows by now - at RDF's new forum - you can't make new threads. All you can do is reply to pre-existing threads that THEY CHOOSE.

And the posts they choose to publish are awful. Don't get me wrong, there's a few decent ones. But there are 3 or 4 by the same guy, "Ranting Socrates" (Sorry to step on any toes if he's a popular guy here.) But this guy posts these really personal, emotional, wishy-washy posts about his own atheism and how great it is. All of the replies are stuff like, "Yeah! You go girl! Me too!" He's preaching to the converted. Everyone is in agreement and nothing is being discussed.

Where are all the trolls and creationists? Where's the debates, the arguments, the fights? Where's the drama? Where's THE FUCKING FUN?!?!?!

I give you http://www.rationalia.com/forum/memberl ... ile&u=1507

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What's the RDF you speak of?

[virphen]

I wonder if they have actually rejected any articles that are not explicitly critical of the dog's breakfast that is the new RDF blog. (it's not a site, it's a mildly sophisticated joint blog)

[Feck]

We have a few arguments and fights here ...but mostly silly fun .

I'm very excited by my Atheism Btw.

[AshtonBlack]

What's the RDF you speak of?

Didn't they used to have a decent forum?

[CJ]

What's the RDF you speak of?

Didn't they used to have a decent forum?

I think it was the indecent bit that was the best

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What's the RDF you speak of?

Didn't they used to have a decent forum?

Oh, I thought he meant The Recently Deceased Forum.

[Pappa]

So, everyone knows by now - at RDF's new forum - you can't make new threads. All you can do is reply to pre-existing threads that THEY CHOOSE.

And the posts they choose to publish are awful. Don't get me wrong, there's a few decent ones. But there are 3 or 4 by the same guy, "Ranting Socrates" (Sorry to step on any toes if he's a popular guy here.) But this guy posts these really personal, emotional, wishy-washy posts about his own atheism and how great it is. All of the replies are stuff like, "Yeah! You go girl! Me too!" He's preaching to the converted. Everyone is in agreement and nothing is being discussed.

Where are all the trolls and creationists? Where's the debates, the arguments, the fights? Where's the drama? Where's THE FUCKING FUN?!?!?!

I think you mean "forum".

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So nothing about the taste of semen then, seriously?

[Boyle]

So nothing about the taste of semen then, seriously?

I hear it can be sweet with the proper influx of pineapples.

[lordpasternack]

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.

[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....

[lordpasternack]

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.