On the Origin of Spam

[WillJ]

A thought occurred to me, that perhaps forums undergo evolution. Three factors contribute to this process:

1. Peer selection of ideas: All sorts of ideas, pieces of reasoning and rhetoric, arguments, etc. are constantly being brought up. The good ones jive with the forumites and are remembered, and those who remember them bring them up in future relevant threads. The bad ones are not selected in such ways, and will most likely only continue with the posters who actually thought them up (if at all), who will eventually die out (leave). If by some chance a new poster comes along with the same bad idea, he will quickly be corrected by the learned veterans. And if a new poster comes along with a question, a veteran might be able to answer, only because he was in turn taught by a fellow poster. In short, the forumites as a population learn over time.

2. Peer selection of posters: The good posters develop good reputations and are implicitly encouraged to continue posting. The bad posters are tormented and eventually leave in frustration, or are banned. (Or perhaps they are just ignored or not encouraged as much, and post less.) Thus, over time the quality of posters improves.

3. Preservation: In a forum such as CFC, little is deleted. The good threads are remembered and are often linked to by veterans. The bad threads are forgotten. This may seem much the same as #1, but with things such as the Humor and Jokes forum, it's a force of its own.

Do you agree, or is this just crazy?

 

[nonconformist]

Sorry, what's you point here?

 

[Princeps]

Although i'm not a ''veteran''. Yes, I do agree with you but it's little crazy too...

 

[WillJ]

Sorry, what's you point here?

That over time, the quality of a forum improves.

 

[Paalikles]

1. Learning by doing ey. Sounds reasonable.
2. Difficult to say. Might be the case, but do you think the tendency is strong enough to be measurable?
3. Seems to be the case.

All three seem to suggest that time is not a relevant factor.
I think your observations would hold more or less given that time was also added as a factor though.

And by time I of course refer to different degrees of participation not regulated by interest in the available or potential topics, but time constraints related to work etc.

 

[WillJ]

2. Difficult to say. Might be the case, but do you think the tendency is strong enough to be measurable?

Yeah, I'll admit #2 probably isn't all that strong of a force. But at any rate, I doubt it's measurable no matter how strong the tendency; if there's one thing you can't quanitatively measure, it's quality.

All three seem to suggest that time is not a relevant factor.
I think your observations would hold more or less given that time was also added as a factor though.

And by time I of course refer to different degrees of participation not regulated by interest in the available or potential topics, but time constraints related to work etc.

Sorry, but I'm very confused by what you mean by "time." It seems to me like time, as I understand it, is a crucial factor.

 

[Tomoyo]

You're forgetting one big point: The immigration of younger, mostly more immature posters.

See Gaiaonline for an example. One year ago, the "General Discussion" section actually contained coherent discussion. All the spammers stayed in the Chatterbox (Spam forum). However, a recently overpopulation of spammers and a newfound evangelical spirit wishing to bring the joys of the Chatterbox to all of Gaia has invaded the General Discussion forum and spilled into the Extended Discussion forum.

 

[Paalikles]

@WillJ: I guess you are right.
My thought was that some members actually post less over time because life on other arenas does not permit them to engage in "heavy posting". That mostly affects 1 and 3.
Not all people publicly announce why they are leaving (not that I think all those who "die out" announce that they leave)...

Hm. Giving it a second thought, I agree that the dimensions of time I first referred to are already in your description

 

[Marla_Singer]

So your point WillJ is that the quality of forums such as CFC keeps on improving ? You've devellopped interesting arguments in here.

Well, there's still something you forget. The smartest forumers who devellop the best ideas tend to also be successful in life... and once you become really busy in real life, you can't post as much as before, and you can lose interest on the forum. That fact tends to counter the good evolution of the forum you've talked about.

Moreover, and to continue in your way of thinking, as you've said, some ideas are disappearing once they become marginalized by other posters. I guess that in the end, generally speaking, all forumers influence all forumers, and we tend to think more and more all the same thing. That's bad because it lacks of breathing. However, they are fortunately still today many members joining and bringing their new stuff which improves the diversity of our ideas, which is a good thing.

Overall, I don't know how a forum evolves. In a forum such as OT where news are the main material, we must also take into account outside events. When nothing happens in the news, the forum tends to repeat itself. However, when some new interesting facts are brought up, we need to think about it. That's why I believe that the double-no given by French people and Dutch people to the EU constitution will certainly improve again the quality of the forum since we will follow closely which consequences this will lead us too.

Well, that's just my 2 euro cents.

 

[Builder4]

I agree that there is an evolution of the boards. But there will alo be changes to the environment. As one poster here has said "younger, mostly more immature posters" immigrate constantly. Luckily this is true otherwise you would have a dinosaur on your hands.

Evolution ain't pretty, but it works. It has to.

I think you are onto something but the ultimate goal is allusive, because there is no ultimate goal. The boards, as life, are in constant states of flux.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Longtime posters grow bitter and elitistic, and can't be bothered to spell out arguments anymore. Ever younger and ever dafter new posters join, and the admin grows old and corrupt. Spam accumulates in the lower levels (that's here), and eventually starts to push out quality content from the higher levels. Eventually the whole forums descends into an eternal flamewar only broken by brief flashes of inside jokes and the veterans' whining about how everything's gone downhill and how much better everything was when they were young.


This was today's dystopian vision. Hurry along, kids.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Problems:
1. Many many internet forums (including this one) are based around video games. When these games die out, the forums will too. Although the OT always lasts longest.
2. Forum events such as a poster exodus will contribute in the long term to a forum's demise.

Actually, as I'm typing this, I've suddenly realised that these factors will reduce the scale of a forum, but as long as enough relics of the past (threads + posters) stay around, the theory of yours holds true.

 

[Marla_Singer]

1. Many many internet forums (including this one) are based around video games. When these games die out, the forums will too. Although the OT always lasts longest.

That's true. However Civilization is a video game serie. And we are right now in the lower period of interests for it. Indeed, Civ3 is getting old and we still lack of information on Civ4. Despite this, the OT forum is still very well alive. I don't see why CFC would die on tomorrow.

2. Forum events such as a poster exodus will contribute in the long term to a forum's demise.

Well, some posters leave, and not only the worst one as I've explained in my earlier post, but you shouldn't forget that new posters are coming too. I'm impressed to still see people joining this forum right now, when Civ3 is aging.

What would be interesting will be the evolution of the OT forum if it holds strong untill Civ4 is coming out. You'll see OT veterans facing a wave of younger rookies. Maybe a clash ?

 

[Paalikles]

hehe@TLC
you might be onto something in regards to "can't be bothered to spell out arguments anymore", at least I feel that it very much applies to how I post. Let me elaborate:

I usually post about economically related subjects, since I am somewhat knowledgeable in this field. I already know that some people consider economics to be flawed, and that is a great disincentive towards spelling out my arguments. So I tend to either not explain every part of my post or refer to an economics textbook.

Expanding a tad on Marla's post:

There are those who form their own communities, having a strong member base originating from their own origin (example: Civ3duelzone)

The clearest case of elitism is reflected in the Civ3 and civ4 general discussions fora of course. Over time more and more references to already existing threads have to be made, and veteran posters will grow tired of having to refer to earlier discussion of topics.

So you have migration patterns - some would say that is why we are here, others would say "huh? I came here for this particular subforum"


I also wonder about the following:
-over time, are people less likely to actually read what other people post?
-does degree of participation have anything to do with length of a thread (topic) that a poster is interested in?


Edit: crossposted with corsair and marla who covered the poster exodus I am talking about

 

[Rambuchan]

@ WillJ ~ This is an interesting thread. All the processes you describe, and those which Tomoyo and Marla mention, do take place. However, I would say it's the result that I differ with. I do not believe these processes necessarily lead to an improvement in the forum.

Marla's point is the most pertinent here. Those with the most (practical advice) to teach other posters are typically those who post little and only engage in a peripheral sense, eventually dying off, leaving, to succeed in real life rather than post counts. This means that the forum gene pool stays in a perpetual state of intellectual immaturity, never evolving to the most useful level. The influx of younger, more bullish and deliberately obstinate posters also limits the progress of a forum's intellectual levels. Often these posters glibly use the entrenched arguments of the forum (quite water tight and laid down by the wiser veterans), and do so en masse to drive out more 'enlightened' or diverse thinking. I've seen this happen on many forums, it just happens and there's no denying that the quality of content diminishes accordingly.

About the communal spirit: The dynamics you describe are true again but I would say, as a relatively new entrant into OT, that there is a peer pressure which works against lines of thinking which I find are quite current and acceptable in educated circles all around the world. I find that a certain gruffness towards Politically Correct or Relativist clearly apparent here, yet I don't know many people in my everyday life who would so openly use those 'labels' in derrogatory terms, as they do here. Just one example which takes place in this forum. This is the unspoken consent given between veteran users. It's a form of inbreeding I guess. (Of course I see the flip side of this on a personal basis - it's good to meet people willing to explain and argue their opposition to views I take for granted.)

 

[cgannon64]

Often these posters glibly use the entrenched arguments of the forum (quite water tight and laid down by the wiser veterans), and do so en masse to drive out more 'enlightened' or diverse thinking. I've seen this happen on many forums, it just happens and there's no denying that the quality of content diminishes accordingly.

Well, if this new 'quality' comment can't defeat the stock watertight arguments, it isn't very good, is it?

Personally, I don't think that forums improve in quality overall. I do think that posters improve as they gain experience - I know I have - but this is greatly overwhelmed by the influx of new people, as well as the old flamers who have never matured, only grown more zealous.

I also think that, similar to what Marla said, the greatest posters always leave. At a certain height of mental powers, this place would be unbearable. Even many posters who stay complain about how this forum can become insipid and dull. No doubt the brightest leave.

 

[Rambuchan]

Well, if this new 'quality' comment can't defeat the stock watertight arguments, it isn't very good, is it?

That's the Darwinian Evolutionary trap forums fall into. Forum users live in an enclosed intellectual ecosystem, which lacks stimuli everyday normal life benefits from. It gets magnified because those who don't engage with real life a lot usually dominate forums and influence the dominant patterns of thinking. And I just think that those with the best things to say don't see the point in persuading some obstinate forum vultures. Better things to do, they'd say.

 

[ummmm........]

I am a very very bad poster.

 

[The Last Conformist]

That's the Darwinian Evolutionary trap forums fall into. Forum users live in an enclosed intellectual ecosystem, which lacks stimuli everyday normal life benefits from. It gets magnified because those who don't engage with real life a lot usually dominate forums and influence the dominant patterns of thinking. And I just think that those with the best things to say don't see the point in persuading some obstinate forum vultures. Better things to do, they'd say.

I think you're overestimating the degree of consensus here. Even sticking to veteran regulars, there's a wide selection of standpoints on most issues.

 

[Rambuchan]

I think you're overestimating the degree of consensus here. Even sticking to veteran regulars, there's a wide selection of standpoints on most issues.

I accept that is the case here. Not the case in forums as a general rule. Reason why I don't mind hanging out here .