I'm disappointed - in you !

You could make a new thread every week and everyone can post there nomination in the thread and there will be a winner every week.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Apart from the sticky, what part of that requires a moderator? I would be willing to bet that if started and participated in, the moderator (or moderators?) would be tickled pink to work with it.

 

Pretty much the way it used to be except there is just no handy button to automatically do the vote... but much much better than the private message option in my opinion. I avoid private messages on this forum as I'm only allowed to have 500 of them and I'm almost at the max. I've already deleted a bunch but I keep getting close to 500, sort of a pain as there are many that i'd like to keep. Just easier to send less of them

 

Doug,

As soon as I posted the idea, three members supported it. We have only one member on record claiming that TOTW was a popularity contest. I was heavily involved in the TOTW and rarely ever felt as if it was a popularity contest. The only time I felt that way was Spock's Mickey Mouse thread that got a whole bunch of votes simply because people liked Spock.

If you want no parts of trying to find an alternative solution, I assume you won't mind if the members find a solution on our own?

 

I think a way to breathe new life and interest into various forums here would be to have people from other disciplines be invited to submit creative and provocative threads that no one has submitted before. Maybe the internet is creating a sort of consciousness revolution, while leaving the dedicated bloggers who have been at this a long, long time with burned out neurons and dull sensibilities--sort of like those addicted to drugs who need more powerful stimulents to get the desired effect. In trying to escape from lonliness, we seek to connect with others with a keyboard and screen. But this leaves many senses unutilized--no tactile, olfactory, or taste response here--and the ability to hear or see things is a little like Plato's allegory of the cave--reality a few times removed.

Scientific American has had many writers and scientists submit work from their particular disciplines without being paid much--the professional recognition was worth it for them.

I think a largely unexplored area here is cross-discipline submissions--like numismatics and psychological theories of neurosis; or the place of coins in a particular Chinese, Mesopotamian or Egyptian dynasty; or what was the value of the gold and silver coins that were showered on the chess board of a particularly notable brilliancy between grandmasters?

In college I wrote a term paper on "Oriental Philosophy in Thoreau's Walden". I was able to submit it to both the course in Oriental Philosophy and American Literature (1820-1865) course. That's the idea of cross discipline submissions. Here is another topic: the function of gold and other hard assets in Aristotle's essential writings. But that is probably too large an idea for this site.

The "Topics" forums have a "report abuse" option to give feedback on posts. There is no positive counterpart, like "report goodness". You could do something like that.

 

he basically said that he's invested as much into this as he's going to and any further examination or solving of this alleged "issue" is not worth his time.

At least that's what I got from it.

I agree with this Paul, recognition is a good thing, but by whom and for what is where philosophically we part company.

When something is left to the masses it becomes a popularity contest. Some people wish that we'd elect politicians based on who is the best candidate, but unfortunately it is a popularity contest. By definition anything supported by a group of people is in a way, popular.

Just MHO. And I wasn't meaning to be discouteous to Doug, but merely trying to be straightforward as Doug likes.

 

And THAT'S why Doug is The Man!

 

I'll nominate rlm's cents for submitting all those references to possible posts that require niminations for whatever it is we are talking about. Not sure what good it would ever do though since if there is no place to put them, they just fade away into the obis of the internet.
I'm just old I guess since I really get lost when posts drag on and on and on about so little to do with coins. Possibly discussing a discussion that is relavant to a coin discussion is what we are doing here, so must have something to do with coins after all. :goofer:
Not really sure but if a post is really worth keeping and someone wants to nominate that for keeping or whatever, then what? Should we have a sub forum for intelligent posts? A sub forum for interesting posts? Educational posts? And if there was such a place, would the original post alone be there or all the replies also? (HMMM, is it replies or replys?)
Without a place to put the posts we are possibly discussing, I'm not sure of the purpose of discussing posts that will just fade away.

 

Carl,

If I may say, the original idea was to reward the people that make CT great. To show some small form of cyber-appreciation and recognition to people who have provided information, insight, help and tutelage. Many of these attempts have failed for one reason or another, but that was the basic idea.

Personally I think that it's a good one because there are some people here like Clinker, Lehigh, Doug, Frank, Mark Feld and many many others who are here day after day answering questions of beginners and long-time collectors alike. They have offered information, opinions, reference and guidance to more than a few people over the years.

In effect, they have been CT. They have made CT the place where people come to discuss coins in an advertising-free relatively (language) censored forum where people are treated with respect. They have given CT the reputation that brings so many new people here every day with confidence. Some stay, so move on, but everyone is somewhat enriched for the time that they have spent here on the whole.

A forum is no better than its members. This forum has some members that not only share a wealth of expertise, but do so very unpretentiously and without any real motivation beyond helping their fellow collector.

It is nice to shine a spotlight on those people from time to time. It makes the place even better because you then have people competing to be one of the noted which creates more quality of posts and information, etc.

This is all just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

 

My nomination for post of the week, would be one where someone who knows how to use search or just go back to the beginning and have a compendium of old posts on a specific subject, such as 1909-SVDB identification, how to use or not use acetone, how do I tell my coin is cleaned, will it kill my dog if he eats zinc lincolns, do I have a small date cent, etc.

There is so much knowledge on this site that most have never seen, because they only look at posts since they joined. I suspect the "search button" is one of the least used functions for many. I know several like RLM use it constantly judging from them being included in their posts, but not very many.

I really haven't found many posts to be "TOTW", as if you search , you often find it is something others may have done better in the past. JMHO.

And although Doug and I do disagree on a few things coin related, I support 100% his handling of the moderator position. Having been one before in a different area, I know how hard it is to maintain a board, and mine was not anonymus ID like this one, so I could call them up and talk to them. Glad to have a sheriff in town. IMO.
Jim

 

Doug: Two PMs sent. Thanks, TC

 

Please explain further? How can the technology of the site be going backwards?

I've never nominated a post for a clinker award. My complaint was that we no longer have TOTW which was a nice feature for finding the good threads. (Ones that were well worth the time spent reading.) They were nominated by the click of a button.

That's all I wanted back but if the software no longer supports what it could a couple of years ago, then I'll let it go. (Again.)

 

It's not the technology going backwards, it's the existing tech (The click to nominate, I shall assume, since this was before my time...) that was never adapted to work with the new tech.

 

Then that begs the questions:

-What was gained by the updated version?
-Did the end justify the means for what was lost?
-Is it worth it for anyone to spend any time coming up with any new, interesting feature again that will be lost with the next version/upgrade?
-Does the site really need new tech?

 

Then maybe the makers of the software could explain why this technological 'marvel' had to disappear? It seemed like a very simple function to me for 21st century technology.

I was over it really. Until I read this thread. People are used to technology getting easier. Not going the other way. I used to have a cell phone with a non-querty keyboard for typing text messages. It took 3 presses to get to the 'C'. That lasted for a few years. I'll never get another one.

People don't like formerly easy tasks becoming harder no matter the shortness of time. It's nothing to get upset about. Just human nature now.

 

Well - I don't think I complained. I did vote once or twice when it was a simple click away. Let's see - I have friends, but have yet to invite anyone. I guess that is where the buddy list comes from since I know I did not set any up. So yes "Doug" I am lazy (not unfriendly) and will not use the PM method, but I won't complain about it either. I mean I do not even rate the threads that are excellent and that is one simple click away. Does anybody else even rate the threads? So when I see a really good post I recognize them with - "Nice post". Good 'nough for me.

Sometimes no matter what you do someone will complain. Of course you could change the report a post - then all you moderators could see the nominations in the moderators forum. Of course you would have to read them to see which were real reported posts and which were totw nominations. But hey - I probably would forget about it also.

 

I agree with you 100%. Just makes it easier for all members. This way, Doug doesn't have to start another thread "complaining" about the complainers :kewl: