It's Happening.

[Null]

I am splitting Articles & Happenings into Articles and Happenings.

1. This board does not need an article to start it. Tweets, images, videos, etc work fine in their stead.
2. If an article is supplied, it should not have its contents copied over. Excerpts are OK.
3. For it to be a happening, there must be a serious, inevitable, or already-come-to-pass risk of death.
4. Sufficiently massive happenings with their own Happenings may break off into multiple threads.

Continue posting news articles in Articles. I will be changing the top rules to reflect this new concept. This board used to be for mass shootings only.

 

[Mr. Manchester]

I just drunk post on them anyway, do what you gotta do boss

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

So for example, generic political discussion on the Primaries would go .... here? Deep thots? Based on an article in Articles?

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

There goes the chance of Articles getting a 1000 page thread. Not so sure a Happenings forum is a good move since it will be spammed to death by trivial shit.

 

[Null]

So for example, generic political discussion on the Primaries would go .... here? Deep thots? Based on an article in Articles?

I actually don't know. I'm not sure how I want to do this but people want a space to shit up with a dozen Coronavirus threads. Let me think. I liked the hard and fast rule of "one death or imminent risk of death" but that's not going to work for the elections.

 

[Dr. Geronimo]

Whats the plan on the chinkflu forum?


E: kinda cougared?

 

[TV's Adam West]

Wow. A board just for mister metokur? How sweet Null.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

I actually don't know. I'm not sure how I want to do this but people want a space to shit up with a dozen Coronavirus threads. Let me think. I liked the hard and fast rule of "one death or imminent risk of death" but that's not going to work for the elections.

You're optimistic!

 

[Null]

I could separate it based solely on content aggregation versus longform discussion to allow discussions on the election in public. It's a really hard task for organization and I don't want to spread either board too thin.

It'd also suck to have to make everything in this board private.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

Is there an example of what you have in mind?

 

[Null]

Is there an example of what you have in mind?

All threads in this board are valid examples of what I have in mind.

I'm debating on the line. Someone pointed out this already sounds like Salt Mine v3 and that's kinda accurate I guess.

I don't know, I just want people to be able to talk about shit and keep it organized, but I guess that's been the core problem to every UX question ever asked.

 

[A Welsh Cake]

Disappointed. Nothing actually happening, just bureaucracy on my funny green bird site.

 

[Suburban Bastard]

I guess so long as there is a good enforcer(s) it should (hopefully) work.

 

[IrishGuy088]

I just want to make sure I understand the setup here.

So if I wanted to post an article into a thread, a text excerpt is acceptable. But not full-text so we don't fuck up SEO, correct? I imagine screenshots of articles and archive links will also be valid? Or can the Google spiders also read images and flag the SEO that way?

Also thank you.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

It sounds perhaps the rules should be more "content-based" - i.e., if it's an article to make fun of and archive, it goes to Articles; if you want a longer discussion it would go to Happenings - but it wouldn't be full-quote articles then. Jacobellis v. Ohio basically.

Is the main issue being able to open the page to Google without tanking the site?

 

[Null]

I just want to make sure I understand the setup here.

So if I wanted to post an article into a thread, a text excerpt is acceptable. But not full-text so we don't fuck up SEO, correct? I imagine screenshots of articles and archive links will also be valid? Or can the Google spiders also read images and flag the SEO that way?

Also thank you.

A paragraph or two is fine, a larger screenshot is also always fine.

We could just separate it on if the discussion is predicated on a single article or not, but frequently a large discussion will come a thread with a single article and then more articles that are on the same topic. It's very frustrating.

I could just merge the boards back together but then really important threads we need public, like Bianca Devins and the Chch thread, will be hidden.

 

[Ira the Weatherman]

I kinda liked the fact that mass shooters had their own board singling them out for mockery. I found the reasoning behind that to be quite convincing and noble.

Having said that, I can definitely understand grouping all this stuff together, and seperating the more serious and important stories from the 'lets all laugh at hacks and weird news' element of A&H, both for categorising purposes and to benefit SEO. It's certainly worth a try.

 

[IrishGuy088]

It's definitely worth trying for now. Only a total idiot is going to have trouble following the "no full articles" rule. And they can just be sidelined from the section if it becomes an issue.

This is a good move. This site and others like it have an excellent capacity and capability to find and catalog important information as news is breaking. I'm sure it could be used against the site in some fashion, but the "public service" aspect of it far outweighs any potential negatives I can think of.

 

[Slav Power]

So, if there is a happening where there is no risk of death, like elections, it should be posted in Articles, yes?

 

[Providence Backing_21]

So basically behave properly with the happenings and list pertinent information. To see if a splitting of A&H will help SEO and keep things visible. I like it.