by blondie 18 Replies latest jw friends
Are people picturing 'best of' being topics on a particular subject, almost a guided-review of topics around a certain theme?
Or just a filtered view of topics where only those above a certain threshold are listed? i.e. if you're viewing "Medical, Blood and Depression" then you can press a button and filter out all but the highest rated topics (but they are then viewed as normal).
Preferences?
Personally I think that would eventually lead to an overwhelmingly long list of high-rated threads, since there wouldn't be an upper limit on the number of articles displayed. I prefer the idea of a moderator-curated forum like what I think the current Best Of forum looks like (if I could still get into it, I would refresh my memory).
Of course it would be nice to have some way to show the moderator what we think the best thread(s) is/are on a certain subject, so maybe a rating system or kudos system could be used by the moderator to hand-pick some topics. Well, that's just this newbie's two cents.
Just my .02 cents here.
BEST OF might be useful mostly to newbies, fence-sitters, curious active JW's who need concise, well-reasoned, logical writings.
Secondarily, it can be best utilized as quick reference for somebody who wants to prove a point by getting some hard-hitting fact-based rundowns.
The long-running controversial threads which may contain excellent information are marred (imho) by bad manners and flame wars which vitiates
the overall positive information.
I'd like to see not just a BEST OF, but a best of the BEST.
Problem is, it really comes down to who is building the list. They become the filter.
And now, I'm going back to my tall, whole milk latte'.
Don't forget a section telling people how to use the format, etc., features on JWN.
Is that more a F.A.Q.?
There are a few different aspects:
The last one can become a problem in that it requires some work and effort to both create it and for upkeep and if not careful can lead to bias as Terry hints at where 'someone' decides what goes on the list and what doesn't.
I think #1 is something for me to handle, #2 is something that can be covered with a stickie, #3 is where the best value will come from with least effort. I don't want to rule out #4 but it may be more of a community wiki than a discussion forum.
One thing I'd add to help with the issue of bad comments on otherwise good topics (hmmn, can I think of an example right now ... LOL) is having down-rated posts hidden or collapsed. That way, if someone has posted a load of crap then by default people don't have to read it and it's skimmed over to reduce the damage and impact but at the same time it's not been 'removed' so people can't bleat about being repressed or whatever the kids call it these days.
So, Terry, where are the FAQ topic(s) available to new posters or old posters updating their skills, in one place not all over the board? Why re-invent the wheel every time a new person drops by with a question, the same question? Why not a good central place to go or direct people to? In my original post
Can we start over with new topics such as practical ones about how to format on JWN and posting problems and solutions.
Historical posts such as those on Rutherford and Russell?
Doctrinal adjustments/changes
Reference sources
You tubes
I was thinking too about foreign language ex-jw dbs as well.
If we did have a specific FAQ section, with forum navigation and post formatting tips, it might be great to have that in a highly visible place, such as just below the username - PM box - logout area at the top of the page. This would make it accessible to visitors as well as signed-in members. A Terms of Service link would be helpful too, similarly placed.
Or a seprate library of topics which can be cut and pasted from the original threads. It would take more work but to me worth it. I'd hate to see old post deleted. Sometimes they come in handy for back up statements or info., not to mention harty debates that show leverage.
But if a seprate library were biased, isn't JWN more about exposing the WTS. At least that's how I feel about this site.
A library would help when searching for important information needed immeditaly or to enlighten a visitor in the matter of moments.
I'd like to see:
Russell's and Rutherford's beginnings as well as document court cases to show the farse.
The Conti case.
The total U.N. debacle.
Doctrinal adjustments/changes.
Bible historical.
Just a thought....
