lines user experience from today

renegog · 2024-04-10T22:59:45.420Z

Most complaints about merging threads have to do with people posting about gear in a non-gear thread or not posting about gear in the megahype thread, or having their new releases merged into latest tracks because they haven’t added any description or made specific space for a conversation to emerge… these thread mergings make this a useable platform where we can discover music, learn about each other processes, make our own decisions about engaging with gear chat or not.

Silo-ing prerelease hype and latest tracks is, in my opinion, a huge part of why this place functions at all. New releases requiring the artist to put some thought into how they want to present it descriptively, to actually engage with the community here rather than drive-by spamming is really great - I understand why people get their feelings hurt by it, usually because they don’t yet understand what’s required for a release to have its own thread, but I think it’s good for the forum.

Just wanna mention these so we don’t end up throwing the things that are working out with the issues that people are raising.

oscillateur · 2024-04-10T23:07:39.145Z

As a long time user but infrequent poster, I agree with the general sentiment here. Over-merging threads tends to kill my desire to engage. I understand the rationale but I believe its foundations are flawed.

Overall, I think I’d prefer if merging was the exception rather than the rule. Megathreads make sense for very specific situations (the hype thread is very useful to keep this place sane, for example) but should probably not be a default behaviour.

It should be simple enough to have a list of mega threads and only merge towards these when relevant. That could even happen in a thread with community participation…

I think it’s also important to notice that lots of people who are not super frequent posters but still care about this place are expressing their opinion here. This shows that the current way of doing things might work for some very active users but not as much for people who will not read every single thread and want to focus their limited energy more efficiently.

JES · 2024-04-11T00:05:49.403Z

Just to add that I agree with everything @renegog said, especially about requiring people to engage with the community and avoiding drive-by posts. Really important points.

lagervillain · 2024-04-11T01:42:04.021Z

renegog:

Most complaints about merging threads have to do with people posting about gear in a non-gear thread or not posting about gear in the megahype thread

Can you be more specific? What semantic threshold does one have to meet for a comment to be considered “gear” in a “non-gear thread?” … Likewise how do I ensure my post is gear-y enough for the megathread? Should I post random eurorack module names when all I wnat to do is mention off-hand that the name of a module was taken from an obscure Finnish film? If someone replies to me to say they also like this obscure Finnish film which someone decided to name a eurorack module after but prefer the sequel, am I in violation, are they, or both of us?

I said it before, but I think there’s an underlying preoccupation with hygiene and/or contamination here.

Shiftr · 2024-04-11T01:58:33.499Z

renegog:

Most complaints about merging threads have to do with people posting about gear in a non-gear thread or not posting about gear in the megahype thread, or having their new releases merged into latest tracks

From what I’ve read in this thread and my own experience in using this forum this is not what this discussion is about. Your examples are very clear examples of usefull merging. What the issue is here I think is merging when it is less clear. Like the topic starter the OP has in his/her own opinion a really different discussion in mind then the thread it is merged with.

n9n9n9 · 2024-04-11T01:58:59.232Z

Justmat:

it seems crazy to me that people have been saying this is a problem since 2018 , and yet nothing has changed. but then, maybe this thread should be merged into the older one? (that last bit is meant as a cheeky joke )

I firmly believe that the complaints about this policy are valid, but fail to invalidate the benefits of the policy, which to my eye dramatically outweigh the complaints. People complaining indicates that people feel like complaining—not always that what is being complained about is truly a problem, or perhaps that what is being complained about doesn’t have a viable solution.

The wait at my doctor’s office is literally hard to believe: I’ve arrived at opening time and waited 90 minutes to see the doc. That said: she is the best doctor I’ve ever had and the waits are generally due to the fact that she volunteers her time helping elderly people kick addictions to drugs that were improperly adminstered by other doctors and is often dealing with an emergency related to this work. My complaint about the wait is valid, but knowing what I know it doesn’t indicate that I should be seen earlier, or that I should go to a different doctor. It is just a reality regarding the very good doctor that I see. I can’t help but see a similar dynamic here. The complaints are valid, but the alternatives that have been voiced don’t make sense (to me.) (in my view.) (no one asked me to but I’m speaking up.)

oscillateur:

I think it’s also important to notice that lots of people who are not super frequent posters but still care about this place are expressing their opinion here. This shows that the current way of doing things might work for some very active users but not as much for people who will not read every single thread and want to focus their limited energy more efficiently.

I’m going to be very direct in my response: lines is the only music related web forum where discourse has not proven too toxic for me to participate in. The only one. If you want to use a forum that works differently you have a large number of options. If you want to use a forum with the high standards of discourse and civility (benefit) that so far as I know is only available here at lines? Figure out how lines works (cost) and use it that way. If that cost v benefit blanace doesn’t suit you, there is this guy named Bones over at KVR that is dying to meet you.

I am in recovery and go to 12 step meetings all the time. It is very very common for new (and not so new) attendees to take issue with the way the meetings work, with the way the Steps work, with a lot of details. It is all very well-meaning but the deal is that 12-step meetings work the way that they work. You’re more than welcome to go to a different meeting or even to start your own…

And:

brick:

well, the entire thread until this point has kind of been most people else agreeing that the constant merging is a bit excessive, so there is definitely at least a good portion of people who do reflect that opinion, so…

Now this is frustrating. So n-number forum members voice one opionion on a thread and then one (or a couple) people disagree and this is indicated to be an invalid reply because the contrary opinion is not well-represented here? There are thousands of members here. The number of people that have read much less posted, much less posted a specific view here (myself included) vs the total number of users is miniscule. I resist the inplication that representation here represents much in the way of consensus.

And lastly:

Improving the signal chain

hello! i’m wondering what you recommend as a piece of hardware that sits between my main mix out and the PA when playing live? ideally the hardware is as small as possible- has EQ, compression, anything else needed?

i guess in general the advice might be to get a specific mixer, but right now i’m really happy with my set in terms of the signal path up until it goes out to the house. there are things like oto boum, analog heat… wondering if there are alternatives like that?

This is the body of the OPs thread that was merged.

Here is how I would found a thread about signal flow strategies for live playing:

Hey folks! I’ve been looking for solid resources here at lines about how to set up the kinds of specific (read: niche) setups we all have for live performance. I feel like this is a valid topic for a new thread.

How do you hook up eurorack to a PA? Do I need to bring my own specific equipment? What are you folks using and how well does it work? Should I send my outs straight into the PA and let the venue’s engineer handle compression/eq/limiting so that it sounds right in the room or should I be processing my own master first?

Could I ask folks here that have found good solutions to share knowledge and setups?

then I would follow up with the equivalent of a first post to the thread with my specific setup and questions.

Zeke_B · 2024-04-11T02:33:05.081Z

I debated on whether or not to weigh in here, and have decided to. There has been so much great discourse about this topic, and I myself have had my share of frustration around mega threads, but also totally appreciate some of them (prerelease hype - as almost everyone has agreed so far). I think that part of the issue with megathreads is they become too encompassing. Regarding what @eblomquist mentioned with regards to the cl/ifm megathread, I think that could be 3-4 megathreads: cl diy projects, cl instruments/patching ideas, ifm, possibly more. Wading through the diy stuff to find patch ideas for cl instruments is tedious. This could be extended to numerous other megathreads and I think breaking them up into smaller, more focused megathreads would make it so much easier to engage in them.

Just my two cents. Love to the mods and everyone who has been vulnerable and shared their experience and opinions here.

renegog · 2024-04-11T05:51:31.170Z

lagervillain:

What semantic threshold does one have to meet for a comment to be considered “gear” in a “non-gear thread?”

I think the point is not that there’s a threshold or any sort of line-in-the-sand rule… it’s about consideration of the shared space. Thinking before posting, considering your fellow humans here, where people might be interested in what you’re saying, where people might look for the information you’re sharing etc etc. I think the idea that topics are merged due to “violations” is incorrect… there’s no violation, the mods are trying to find the right home for things. It is about sorting I suppose, but to say its a preoccupation with hygiene/ contamination seems slightly adjacent to the reality that a tidy shared space is more conducive to achieving the social purpose of this platform. To act like the mods are the overlords is counter to how this space actually operates… as evidenced by this thread, and many similar discussions that have happened over the years. Your specific example of module named after a Finnish film seems like a discussion that would have a welcome home in many threads without having to get merged away…

All that being said, the megahype thread is the one where i’ve most often seen stuff get merged away as discussions veer off the topic of new gear — almost always this is because some group of posters on there get together and say “send this discussion away we only want pre-release gear talk here”. On the other hand, the namelessness thread, for example, explicitly doesn’t want specific gear discussion, so any of that talk would be merged away too… these are “rules” imposed by the premise of the thread, which is to say by the users who are posting in that thread. Community preferences, that the moderators have the administrative power to enforce, is mostly how this place operates. You may call it tyranny of the masses, or groupthink, but mostly it’s like having roommates or a family… you figure out how to live together and you work it out

Shiftr:

Your examples are very clear examples of usefull merging. What the issue is here I think is merging when it is less clear.

Yes you’re absolutely right that this is slightly off topic, I just wanted to pop in to point out the ways these policies are working and avoid conflation. I don’t take for granted that these are agreed upon as “useful merging”. The maintenance of a community that is so open to newcomers while also being inhospitable to drivebys and advertisers is a very unusual phenomenon on the internet, in my experience.

darylc · 2024-04-11T05:53:52.926Z

Great discussion on this topic, too many good replies to mention.

I’ve felt the same myself for years here, that a new topic would be merged to a megathread and get lost, however just accepted it because for me also:

n9n9n9:

lines is the only music related web forum where discourse has not proven too toxic for me to participate in. The only one.

This has been discussed at length here Gentle Sussurration

Back to the main point I agree with @n9n9n9 that, and I hope, a fully thought out and considered topic would not be merged to anything else.
I’ve recently realised that a topic needs some validation not to be merged and agree with @glia

glia:

first take a look at this thread which thought had been closed

quick summary…it’s about dj64, not a general question but could’ve possibly fit into one of the old threads about the app

OP goes into detail about research they did before thread creation

users swoop in in less than 24 hours trying to help

solutions are found and thread could be closed/merged if we want

If we applied this to non question discussions, or rather posed questions as a basis for more overarching discussion I think this would be the ideal situation.

To that end, when a topic is merged into a megathread, how is the user informed?
From my recent non-new-topic merges, it’s just a notification your post has been moved.
Maybe some simple reasons/guidelines as to why the topic was merged could foster a better thought on how to go about new topics.
Could this be done with a link for the reason of the topic move/merge within the notification of the merge?
We could add to the FAQ’s Improve / Keep Tidy or add a something else specific to this.

Hadn’t replied until now as I’ve been too busy and didn’t want to reply for the sake of it. This is generally a feeling I get from most users here and that spirit has been carefully created by the ideals of the forum and the massive work of the mods.

nonverbalpoetry · 2024-04-11T07:06:09.513Z

n9n9n9:

This is the body of the OPs thread that was merged.

This is everything to be honest.

The title of this thread before it was merged would have made a great thread. But the body of that first post read like a question in an existing thread.

If you want to ensure your new thread lasts, make sure you are starting a conversation, not asking questions that can be answered and then the thread gets shut down.

Lines is a good place because posters put in the work. It’s a little extra work to start a new conversation than engage in an existing one. Just like how it works in the new releases catagory. Start a conversation, provide some thoughts and topic.
It seems some people want to be allowed to start new conversations without putting in the work of actually starting that conversation.

There are plenty of new threads that haven’t been merged made in recent times, and I’d bet the thing they all have in common is a thoughtful and well considered first post, that encapsulates an idea that stays evergreen to the thread, when replies to the thread have gone beyond answering the original posters question.

The Namelessness thread is an excellent example of this.

ermina · 2024-04-11T07:44:45.408Z

renegog:

Most complaints about merging threads have to do with people posting about gear in a non-gear thread […]

this is maybe what the complaints are in general, but this topic here is about the opposite imho; or at least my concern about too prompt merging is: a new thread needs time to develop before it either becomes a/mergeable or b/ worthy of being it’s own separate thing.

renegog:

these thread mergings make this a useable platform where we can […], learn about each other processes

My perception as a reader and a sometimes disappointed poster is that swift merging will tend to encourage answers veering into gear territory.
I don’t care much about gear per se. I love learning about aesthetic, musical concerns, and practice strategies that serve these. In real life when discussing that, mentioning specific gear can occur as a tool that enables the realization of such or such idea; but it is never the focus.

I guess what i mean is that i’m not too interested in the hobby of collecting brushes, but in the path to make great paintings. I am aware that both things cohabit in this forum, but one can easily overpower the other. That’s quite unbeatable: i might have only one or two non-gear related insights to share each year ! But i count on the many members to do so, and collectively achieve a nice emulation of ideas.
Don’t get me wrong; i also love the pictures megathreads and the general consolidation where it makes sense (which is, most of the time).

But, when the focus is about gear and technical stuff, if the threads are too general, it tends to foster an idea that all gear stuff is pervasive and that posting about gear does not need to be too considered or focused (this formulation is a bit unclear, sorry). On point example: if i’m answering about end-of-chain compression in the “mixing-mastering” topic, i will be prompt to make some broad statements (you shouldn’t mix into a master limiter, when mastering please do not squash it, too dynamic means difficult for modern listening conditions, hee not quite an easy topic.), whereas in a topic about end-of-chain compression in a live performance context, i would probably evoke the necessary protection of PA system and audience ears, the possible troubles with feedback, the probable need of a non-compressed feed for monitoring, etc…

TL;DR: to me, a more focused thread is a place that fosters more thoughtfully considered answers, with possibly new (relatively to all that has ever been posted here in 8 years) knowledge emerging.

Re: discover new music:
about once a month, i open the “releases” category, skim about 4-5 releases and fully listen one or two. I love that. It works. I never almost open the “latest tracks” threads, although it probably contains great stuff, but i trust the rules and their enforcing: if a release is it’s own thread in the category, it means the author has put enough care into it to also write a enough words to present it to us.

andy_b · 2024-04-11T10:29:00.515Z

Now I see another idea in all this - language itself. How language is used. What it is considered to be.

One view may be of language as an inspirational or evocative object, capable of re-describing the world around, events or experiences. Language as a perspective alterer. Language that takes us outside of ourselves and offers multiple viewpoints.

And then one could consider language as a more functional object.

And I reckon that if I can’t figure out how to connect up my new device or something then I am going to be a wee bit stressed and be anxiously seeking some comprehensive, simple, functional instructions or help from a kindly member here.

However, I don’t think all that much of the general chit-chat is based on that premise. It’s more like, “Hey, I saw this thing …”, “I experienced this thing …”, “I think this looks interesting/is an interesting idea, what do you think?”

And from there you are off and running and who knows where you will end up because it never actually ends and there is always another re-description, another way of putting it, another way into it all and there’s no way out because we are the creatures who want language to do way too much.

But it could do an awful lot. I mean, it’s our inheritance. Perhaps it just needs a little faith. A little belief in the words themselves. That once disembodied and floating around they might be picked up and read and … well, who knows, really?

oscillateur · 2024-04-11T10:54:51.422Z

Language and its use is indeed often relevant, but it’s also good to remember that while English is the de facto common language here, not everyone is a native speaker (I’m definitely not and I think a fair number of people are in the same situation).

andy_b · 2024-04-11T11:23:54.583Z

I think that’s great. Non-native speakers can perhaps refresh the language somewhat, bring something new.

We never really know what we are saying. How could we? Conversation is a way of finding out. Just waiting for somebody else to come along and to see what they make of our words.

G4B3 · 2024-04-11T11:54:50.139Z

One thing that is jumping out to me reading replies is that everyone is talking about moderation style but only a few are talking about communication style

Some people love free flowing conversations that meander between topics (sometimes rapidly) and make disparate connections that could seem random to bystanders. Other people want to stay on topic and get frustrated if an aside doesn’t feel to meet that bar.

I’m sure we have both kind of folks on Lines. I’ve made comments before that felt like a useful aside, a topic within a topic, which prompted responses to move that conversation elsewhere. To me it only made sense in its context as a sub-topic. To others it felt like noise distracting from what they wanted to discuss.

No matter what, you can’t make everyone happy. We aren’t a monolith. We can probably find a middle ground on merging topics that is less rigid but we’re never going to be perfect.

lagervillain · 2024-04-11T13:26:56.997Z

You make a good point: I didn’t mean to frame the debate as a punitive dialectic of transgression/discipline but re-reading my last one it does look like that’s what I’m doing. That’s on me, it does make something seem sinister that really isn’t.

eblomquist · 2024-04-11T13:49:04.930Z

Nice to see a serious discussion of community process not devolving into flames. As pointed out above, there are different ways of thinking about this stuff, and pretty clearly different flavors of topics that lend themselves in various ways to more or less shepherding.

This seems entirely appropriate in a community of folks who are simultaneously trying to wrangle highly technical tools to make highly imaginative art…

No matter what, it’s bound to be a bit clusterfuckish, but as long as we’re listening and thinking together, we should be ok in the long run.

I definitely encourage a general practice of kindness and patience in all our interweaving…

21echoes · 2024-04-11T17:30:16.766Z

nonverbalpoetry:

There are plenty of new threads that haven’t been merged made in recent times, and I’d bet the thing they all have in common is a thoughtful and well considered first post, that encapsulates an idea that stays evergreen to the thread, when replies to the thread have gone beyond answering the original posters question.

glia:

The real innovation would be if users made an open call NOT to merge something they value. I might be in the wrong for suggesting something that could become as widespread as “20chars” but it might be useful when a mod tries determining whether to merge

As another data point here:

Field Notes thread started as its own thread. OP was very specific about Field Notes and why they liked them specifically
People started using it to talk about non-Field Notes notebooks
OP requested that those posts be kept out of the thread, and a new notetaking thread was made to house them
Both threads continue on, although activity has died down a bit. People occasionally post in the wrong one and have their post moved

This isn’t some Grand Success, nor is it some Abhorrent Failure. But I think it points to the fact that:

Thread starters can be intentional about the conversations they want to have, and the boundaries of those conversations
Mods are generally good at helping participants enforce those boundaries, when the boundaries are clear
Participants in those threads can themselves be confused about which conversation they want to participate in, as some discussions do cross those boundaries

It’s good to remember that, as someone posting on an internet forum about topic X, of course you see differences and nuance between X₁ and X₂ where others (i.e., other posters, the mods, etc.) do not. I see multiple posts above saying that the CL/IFM thread should be split into 2 threads (no, 4! Because DIY is also separate). Or that the OP-1 vs OP-1F should be separate threads. Or that live sound end-of-chain processing is different from in-studio end-of-chain processing. Etc. etc. etc.

What to you makes a thread seem more focused, may make the forum seem scattered and disorganized to others who aren’t interested in either topic.

To be clear, I’m not advocating for more merging or less merging or anything. Just stating that it’s good to embody other people’s perspective sometimes, and remember that a huge difference to you may not be visible to others, so give them some grace when they don’t immediately see and value that difference.

vehka · 2024-04-12T06:30:35.294Z

At this point in the conversation, to me it seems that the issue raised by @instantjuggler and echoed by many in this thread can mostly be solved by improved communication when creating new threads. (Perhaps even by adding a template to new threads?) I think it would make sense for the thread author to add a “moderation note” to the beginning of a new thread, something along the lines of these examples.

Thread opener A:

Note to mods: I think the following post deserves it’s own thread. There are similarities to discussions in the “Improving the signal chain”, but I’m mainly interested in live situations and very specific solutions. So please don’t merge this!

Thread opener B:

Note to mods: I’m not sure if this should’ve been posted in an existing thread. Feel free to merge if you think that is the case!

Perhaps we could have a poll at this point of the discussion, to gauge the feelings people have about this?

This is mainly a communication issue
This is a deeper issue that requires a reformulation of the moderation policy
This issue requires more deliberation – let’s continue the discussion!

0 voters

bugula · 2024-04-12T07:47:09.511Z

i may tend to rely too much on taking things for face value but if someone starts a new topic, it seems safe to assume they thought it warranted its own thread.

reading the thoughts here, it seems that desire for an ongoing conversation, not being had elsewhere, and not a one and done answer to a question is what justifies the creation of a new topic (it also needs to be relevant to the community, fall within the bounds of the category it lives in, etc.).

assumption again, but is it safe to assume that a question does not make for a good conversation starter and should not be the main content within a first post in a new topic? apologies if this is being pedantic…