A thought regarding posting whistle reviews and questions

[Loren]

In recent weeks there has been a trend towards multiple people starting different Review threads on the same whistle(s) In at least one case we have a half dozen or so reviews of a given whistle in as many different threads, over the course of just a couple of weeks or so.

While there's nothing "wrong" with this per se, I'd like to suggest that when an "active" thread is available with regards to reviews on a given whistle, that folks consider posting their reviews in the existing review thread. This also applies to the very common questions we have here like "Which Low D should I buy" etc.

Why you ask? Mainly because we've seen, over the years, that it's easier for those who are seeking info on a whistle to find the information they are looking for this way - less threads to search through, etc when using the search function. Also, it helps keep other pertinent topics from being pushed off the first page or two too quickly, and finally, it makes searching for topics of interest (when scrolling though item by item, page by page) much quicker. These last two items may not, on the surface, appear to be of any real significance to those of us who visit the board on a daily or nearly daily basis, however many C&F readers only check in once a week or once a month, and having many threads on the same or very similar topics, pushes other topics way back in page count, and adds many more topics to sort through, for those who visit here semi-regularly.

With this in mind, I hope folks will consider looking down the current page, as well as looking over the previous few pages to see if there is perhaps a relevant existing thread to post to, before adding additional reviews, questions, or other "frequent" topics.

Thanks,

Loren

[Doc Jones]

Good idea Loren.

By the way, don't anyone ask Loren what's the best low-D to buy!

His answer to me years ago has caused me no end of trouble.


Doc

[PhilO]

Good idea Loren. I think a good time to start a new thread, for example, is when a current thread has some offshoot idea at some point (we do that a lot I think, which is only one of the many reasons why we're such an interesting group) that you really want to address, but that gets lost in the thread because it's really a different topic.

Philo

[dDave]

Howdy,

I think it's a good idea but...

Between the three of you (Loren, Doc Jones and PhilO), you have almost 10,000 posts worth of experience on this board. I have doubts even you guys can manage to bring order to a internet forum and eliminate redundant posting at the same time

One of the primary values of creating a new post (since I write reviews from time to time) is control over the subject line. A subject line like "Review: solid gold low D with lead fipple" is easy to pick out of search results. If my review is tagged onto a post called "my new whisle", it may get overlooked, no matter how informative that post eventually ends up. This could be solved by moderators who "correct" the subject line, but changes in subject line leads to confusion in my opinion.

A different strategy to consider would be nominations for "hall of fame" posts where sound advice and or reviews could be easily archived. Create a seperate, locked forum called "Seek answers to your newbie or redundant questions here" where nominated posts could be copied.

Just fodder for thought, since my post count is only about 100, I have about 1/100th the credibility of you folk

Best,

Dave

[Nanohedron]

We needn't look to post counts as a gauge of credibility where good sense is concerned. Take me, for example.

[Denny]

We needn't look to post counts as a gauge of credibility where good sense is concerned. Take me, for example.

true enough...it does provide a history...

[Nanohedron]

We needn't look to post counts as a gauge of credibility where good sense is concerned. Take me, for example.

true enough...it does provide a history...

Okay, Space Cadet.

[Denny]

We needn't look to post counts as a gauge of credibility where good sense is concerned. Take me, for example.

true enough...it does provide a history...

Okay, Space Cadet.

which is not always a good thing...

[Loren]

Howdy,

I think it's a good idea but...

Between the three of you (Loren, Doc Jones and PhilO), you have almost 10,000 posts worth of experience on this board. I have doubts even you guys can manage to bring order to a internet forum and eliminate redundant posting at the same time

It was simply a suggestion.

One of the primary values of creating a new post (since I write reviews from time to time) is control over the subject line. A subject line like "Review: solid gold low D with lead fipple" is easy to pick out of search results. If my review is tagged onto a post called "my new whisle", it may get overlooked, no matter how informative that post eventually ends up.

No one is suggesting such classifications, merely that if there is already a post entitled "My new Johnny Rocket Low D whistle" or "Johnny Rocket Low D review" or "Johnny Rocket Low D a Winner!" post on the last page or two, then it often makes sense, and works out best for most folks, if one adds to the existing thread on a specific whistle. This has advantages for the poster, those searching for info on specific whistles, and for the makers as well.

This could be solved by moderators who "correct" the subject line, but changes in subject line leads to confusion in my opinion.

I agree, it causes confusion, and we ought not consign our responsibility for creating clear topic headings to the mods, who already have plenty to keep them busy.

A different strategy to consider would be nominations for "hall of fame" posts where sound advice and or reviews could be easily archived. Create a seperate, locked forum called "Seek answers to your newbie or redundant questions here" where nominated posts could be copied.

Certainly there's merit to this idea, however I believe (based on discussions on the topic that have taken place here in the past) that Dale decided some time ago that this was not the way he wanted to go. I can see his point of view on the matter, and respect his decision.

Just fodder for thought, since my post count is only about 100, I have about 1/100th the credibility of you folk

Honestly, I can't imagine why that comment was necessary......


Loren

[scheky]

Good idea and bad one at the same time Loren...I'll explain.

Some consolidation is indeed good. I agree if the post is on the first page, you should consolidate. Honestly, I don't even look at page 2 though.

Now, as for thread necromancy (rebirthing ancient threads to add to it), it's possibly useful and possibly a disservice. I'm speaking of this because it's the natural progression to combining posts. Think of a review of Burke Whistles. His current product is very different than his whistles of 2000. Were I to pull up an old review thread and simply tack a review onto it, a reader would be very confused as to which was the truth. Most searches are by date, so if a user were searching for Burke Reviews, and the threads were seperate, they would see the newer ones first and likely never even get back to the older ones, giving them a better picture of the current state of his products (not saying it is or was ever a bad whistle...just using an example).

Lastly, it leads to a lot of RTFM type behavior that could really be the downfall of the C&F community. When a newbie asks something that's been asked over and over, it's sometimes nice to post a link to a thread, or answer it. When threads are often combined as a matter of rule, the standard answer often becomes "LEARN TO SEARCH...RTFM..." or other behavior that's not in tune with our friendly (well, friendly outside the rubber room) behavior here. That's what makes C&F work. New players aren't intimidated. We are mostly nice to them.

So, I think you are looking at a legit problem here. And you have made an effort to provide a solution, which I applaud. I just fear that if we go down this path, it could lead to a direction that we could regret.

Of course, this is my 2c..

[rkcooke]

As someone who just posted a newbie question, here's my .02. I searched pretty thoroughly for an answer that was specific to my needs (Low D, not breathy, lowish cost, small hands) and though I found some useful info I wasn't positive that it was up to date and exactly answering my question.

So...I posted and received a half-dozen helpful replies within a couple of hours. That was very helpful, and better than leaving me wondering after my searches.

And thanks, everyone!

[shadeclan]

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to side with Scheky and RK on this one. As they both point out, asking for opinions on whistles is alot like asking for today's news - yesterday's news may give you some indication of what's going on, but it really won't tell you exactly what's happening now.

For example take your standard Generation whistle. All lots made today may be crappy, but what if the manufacturer replaces that worn fipple mold he's been using? Suddenly, there are a bunch of "MaGens" out there. You wouldn't pick that up by reading yesterday's reviews.

I once thought as Loren did, even wanting to suggest that The Undisputed (play heavy minor cord here) start a space on the regular Chiff & Fipple page to put all the reviews, organized by whistle, but I now see the error of my newbie ways.

[Loren]

Now, as for thread necromancy (rebirthing ancient threads to add to it), it's possibly useful and possibly a disservice. I'm speaking of this because it's the natural progression to combining posts. Think of a review of Burke Whistles. His current product is very different than his whistles of 2000.

I wasn't suggesting this approach at all, I thought I was pretty clear about posting to a same topic threads that are recent, not months or years old.

Lastly, it leads to a lot of RTFM type behavior that could really be the downfall of the C&F community. When a newbie asks something that's been asked over and over, it's sometimes nice to post a link to a thread, or answer it. When threads are often combined as a matter of rule......

and then

.....So, I think you are looking at a legit problem here. And you have made an effort to provide a solution, which I applaud. I just fear that if we go down this path, it could lead to a direction that we could regret.

I wasn't suggesting any rules be made or implemented. I was simply suggesting that folks consider, before posting, if it might make sense to add to an ongoing (current) discussion of something like a whistle review of a specific model, or specific questions, rather than start an entirely new topic on the same subject currently on the last few pages.

In addition to the other reasons I mentioned, something else has occurred to me since my original post: One of the things I've observed is that when multiple people post separate threads about same model instruments (for example), we get less actual discussion and interaction on the topic. When you have several people posting separately something along the lines of "I love my new Johnny Rocket D whistle, it sounds great, it's beautiful! I recommend them!", and then the next person posts something similar in a different thread a few days later, and so on, there's nowhere much for the conversation to go. It's not a conversation, and those who respond, having seen similar posts recently, usually end up simply replying with their congratulations and perhaps affirmations that they love their Johnny Rocket D as well.

There's nothing wrong with this at all. However, issues of board clutter aside, isn't it more interesting and useful to have people discussing their various experiences with a particular whistle with one another, as opposed to just making statements? It used to be that someone would post a review, be it long or short, and the next person who soon got the same model whistle would post their review and comments to the existing thread, noting where they differed and or agreed with the original poster. Pretty soon you had several owners, plus all the interested non-owners, comparing notes, re-evaluating their comments providing updated reviews a week or two down the line, and generally having a good sussing out of an instrument's personality (plus some good craic). It seems more specifics about each whistle's characteristics came out, particularly as more folks with their various perspectives and experiences.

I dunno, I found that sort of interaction, which is much less common over the last couple of years it seems, very interesting and useful. But, again, that's just an after thought, not the reason I initially posted my suggestion.

Right then, I've got work to do, so I'm off.

Loren

[arnie]

I like the idea of the site of Whistle To The World, where there are threads for every wellknown whistle with the whistlename as name of the topic.

[peeplj]

I'm afraid what you would find in real life is that this would cut your number of reviews.

If I have just a couple of thoughts on a whistle, then sure, it's no problem to append that to someone else's thread.

If someone is going to take the time to assemble a full review, though, with photos and maybe recordings, then I think that deserves its own thread.

I wouldn't want to append that to someone else's review for two reasons:

1. Their review took time and work, and it's not fair to them to draw the reader's attention away from it;

2. It would be very hard to stop a second review of a whistle from coming across looking like a set of corrections for the review above it. Again, not fair to the person posting the original review.

That's just my $.02.

--James

P.S. I also like the way WTTW is laid out, but I would imagine it'll get old making changes on the fly to the board design as new whistles come out.