The Great Jude2 Experiment

[EagerBeaver]

One massive request, and I'll give $10 if this can be done to whomever accomplishes the feat.

PLEASE find a way to put the resurrected (gee thanks Rambo, we knew we could always count on you pal) word association, three word story and hijack this thread posts onto the BOTTOM of the page at all times?

The forum is perfect if it weren't for those scourges on an otherwise good board.

They are "scourges" in your opinion, and perhaps the opinion of a few others. However, may I point out that they have generated more post, and views than anything that you have ever authored. That would indicate a fairly high level of interest, at least to my way thinking.


TW

Because there's no thought required and the posts are MEANT to continue on.

Of course I could start my own thread where everyone posts one word unrelated to anything, and just keep that going.

[TW]

All right Chris, let's take a look at the numbers. At the point where PG locked the Forums the Word Association thread had 12,108 post with 315,842 views, a ratio of 26.08+ views per post. That would indicate to me that there is a great deal of interest in the thread. The trend continues with the Hijack This Thread with 2,630 post and 122,051 views (46.40+ views per post), and the Three Word Story thread with 3,764 post and 121,524 views (32.28+ views per post). The ratio of views to post is staggering, very few topics posted anywhere else on the board come close. That tells me that people are enjoying reading the threads.


TW

[Shellie]

Eager Beaver wrote:

PLEASE find a way to put the resurrected (gee thanks Rambo, we knew we could always count on you pal) word association, three word story and hijack this thread posts onto the BOTTOM of the page at all times?

Nope...defeats the purpose of "all in one" forum. The ones that participate in those one word posts may feel the same way about sports, doctrine, and etc. So, who gets "moved" to the bottom i.e. the same thing as another forum?

It's all or nothing.

[MacUser]

Whatever Pastor Gary wants is fine with me. It's his virtual church and leadership decisions.


If you don't like it.. go start your own.

[DaJudge]

If you don't like it.. go start your own.

Thank God for FaceBook

[Pastor Gary]

If you don't like it.. go start your own.

Thank God for FaceBook

Except on Facebook we know exactly who we are interacting with.

[MacUser]

If you don't like it.. go start your own.

Thank God for FaceBook

I deleted two facebook invite emails just today. It was great.

[DaJudge]

If you don't like it.. go start your own.

Thank God for FaceBook

Except on Facebook we know exactly who we are interacting with.

Yes we do.

[EagerBeaver]

All right Chris, let's take a look at the numbers. At the point where PG locked the Forums the Word Association thread had 12,108 post with 315,842 views, a ratio of 26.08+ views per post. That would indicate to me that there is a great deal of interest in the thread. The trend continues with the Hijack This Thread with 2,630 post and 122,051 views (46.40+ views per post), and the Three Word Story thread with 3,764 post and 121,524 views (32.28+ views per post). The ratio of views to post is staggering, very few topics posted anywhere else on the board come close. That tells me that people are enjoying reading the threads.


TW

Good, may God bless all five of those people who account for all those page views and posts.

Look, I do online video for a newspaper and I can play the numbers game too. Believe me, it looks AWESOME when a video I have gets 1,000 views...but when I find out that maybe only 250 unique visits were paid to it, that tells me the same people wanted to view it three or four times.

Same thing here with those J2 threads. Reason they got so many page views too was the fact you simply post one word (similar to "bump" in a post people want others to see) and it floats to the top. There are those of us who would rather look at posts that people take time to create and pour some intellect into, rather than have these Word Games posts take up the top billing on our Most Recently Posted items.

What if someone has a prayer request and it gets buried beneath somebody posting three inane words? Yes you have to dig a little deeper but it's a major annoyance.

Playing the numbers game is not a good rationalization for keeping some pretty useless threads, IMHO.

[RamboPreacher]

but I thought you liked the new way, since it is like it used to be? change your mind?

[TW]

Chris,

Your comment that five people are responsible for all of the post and views in those three threads (18,502 post and 559,417 views) is as childish and irritating as your continued whining because you aren't getting your way. You can also drop the "IMHO" because your opinion is far from humble. If you don't want to see the threads, fine, don't look! But don't tell me what threads I can or can't participate in. Only PG and Shellie have that right.


TW

[EagerBeaver]

Chris,

Your comment that five people are responsible for all of the post and views in those three threads (18,502 post and 559,417 views) is as childish and irritating as your continued whining because you aren't getting your way. You can also drop the "IMHO" because your opinion is far from humble...

TW

I may have been off a number or two but it was a true statement, sorry you perceive it as whining. If it were solely about me getting my way I'd have shut up long before now and walked away, IMHO.

I'm positive there are a few others that feel the same way I do, but they're just not as vocal about it.

If you don't want to see the threads, fine, don't look!

Ok then, abide by that and ignore what I type as well.

End of it from me, I'll shut up now. Peace.

[Poimen]

Alright ... Can things PLEASE go back to normal (the way the were) now!?!?

[RamboPreacher]

Alright ... Can things PLEASE go back to normal (the way the were) now!?!?

why? works well as is.

[Poimen]

why? works well as is.

You're entitled to your opinion -- even if it is wrong.

Seriously though, has a verdict been delivered yet? A determination made?