Dealing with Off Topic posts or not

[ForumFan]

I wish I could give you more than 1 like

I think a lot of forum mods / admins are on a power trip.

I don't think DIScouraging participation through overzealous moderation is good for a forum. I do almost zero moderation on my forum. I treat members like the adults they are.... and by golly... they act like adults! Shazam!

 

[Suzanne O]

I think a lot of forum mods / admins are on a power trip.

I don't think DIScouraging participation through overzealous moderation is good for a forum. I do almost zero moderation on my forum. I treat members like the adults they are.... and by golly... they act like adults! Shazam!

Then you get people like yourself who decide to not have appropriate rules and realise your forum is hacked by some person you didn't want to ban.

 

[AjayJunkies]

Some of the initial replies in this topic perfectly epitomize the legacy approach to moderation, which is punitive in nature: don't do this, don't post there, you must follow these rules.

I encourage modern community managers to change their stance to one of helpful moderation: to focus on guiding members with positive behaviors rather than forcing members with negative escalation. This could be as simple as a stylistic change in explaining why the thread was split:

Legacy: "Each thread must stay on topic. Topic XYZ was moved."

Modern: "There are so many great and detailed conversations that the community shared regarding XYZ, it was moved to its own conversation."

Notice how the thread was still split, but a simple wording on how it was presented can mean all the difference in the world. It's still moderated, topics are still focused, and you're guiding your community in a helpful manner.

 

[Suzanne O]

Some of the initial replies in this topic perfectly epitomize the legacy approach to moderation, which is punitive in nature: don't do this, don't post there, you must follow these rules.

I encourage modern community managers to change their stance to one of helpful moderation: to focus on guiding members with positive behaviors rather than forcing members with negative escalation. This could be as simple as a stylistic change in explaining why the thread was split:

Legacy: "Each thread must stay on topic. Topic XYZ was moved."

Modern: "There are so many great and detailed conversations that the community shared regarding XYZ, it was moved to its own conversation."

Notice how the thread was still split, but a simple wording on how it was presented can mean all the difference in the world. It's still moderated, topics are still focused, and you're guiding your community in a helpful manner.

I'll admit i'm old school but i did learn from a mate of mine who runs some successful forums.

 

[Paul B]

Legacy: "Each thread must stay on topic. Topic XYZ was moved."

Modern: "There are so many great and detailed conversations that the community shared regarding XYZ, it was moved to its own conversation."

 

[ForumFan]

Then you get people like yourself who decide to not have appropriate rules and realise your forum is hacked by some person you didn't want to ban.

My forum has rules. Simple ones. But yes... rules. You attract what you want to attract. Like attracts like. Treat people like adults, and they act like adults... and the forum attracts more people just like them. Voila!

Hacked? Ummmm....

 

[ForumFan]

Some of the initial replies in this topic perfectly epitomize the legacy approach to moderation, which is punitive in nature: don't do this, don't post there, you must follow these rules.

BINGO!

I encourage modern community managers to change their stance to one of helpful moderation: to focus on guiding members with positive behaviors rather than forcing members with negative escalation.

Bingo, again. And I stand by my comment about "power trips." Being anonymous emboldens that power trip.

Legacy: "Each thread must stay on topic. Topic XYZ was moved."

Modern: "There are so many great and detailed conversations that the community shared regarding XYZ, it was moved to its own conversation."

That's pretty much exactly what I do when the tangent from the original topic grows beyond a few comments.
"I moved these great / fun / interesting comments, because they deserved their own thread."

 

[Mr Lucky]

Some of the initial replies in this topic perfectly epitomize the legacy approach to moderation, which is punitive in nature: don't do this, don't post there, you must follow these rules.

Absolutely members should follow the rules or you can end up with all kinds of offensive, rude comments or hate speech. Members appreciate that trolls, spammers and scammers get short shrift.

Some of my members are old enough to remember news groups with no rules that were often just verbal cesspits. If they want that kind of stuff they can always go to X.

We also find that it's useful to organise forums so it is a good idea IMO that people do post in the correct place. It helps other users find relevant information. If someone does post in the wrong place I move the post with a (polite) explanation of why it was moved.

 

[ge66]

We also use the term, deserves an own thread. Especially if we think the new thread would be interesting to others and it makes it easier to find for users not reading the original thread. It often boosts activity on the forum.

Sometimes, not that often, we also ask people to stay on subject.

And sometimes it is to much work so we do nothing at all.

 

[AjayJunkies]

We also find that it's useful to organise forums so it is a good idea IMO that people do post in the correct place. It helps other users find relevant information. If someone does post in the wrong place I move the post with a (polite) explanation of why it was moved.

Love this insight. It's important to lay out our forums to how the users experience their flow, not what the admin want to impose.

One of the behavioral challenges that I have with forum indexes is that they can't be customized to the actual user journey. Imagine your forum has two and only two boards:

• New Member Introductions
• Forum Discussions

Which one do you put first? Which one do you put second? Do you prioritize the new member, or the returning member?

For a new member, you probably want to present the New Member Introduction forum first, as a starting point for them. However, for every other returning user, they probably want to show Forum Discussions where the bulk of the on-topic conversation happens.

 

[Forsaken]

Love this insight. It's important to lay out our forums to how the users experience their flow, not what the admin want to impose.

One of the behavioral challenges that I have with forum indexes is that they can't be customized to the actual user journey. Imagine your forum has two and only two boards:

• New Member Introductions
• Forum Discussions

Which one do you put first? Which one do you put second? Do you prioritize the new member, or the returning member?

For a new member, you probably want to present the New Member Introduction forum first, as a starting point for them. However, for every other returning user, they probably want to show Forum Discussions where the bulk of the on-topic conversation happens.

This is why an onboarding add-on like the one by @Naz is valuable; it doesn't matter where you put the forum in your list, you can just encourage people by having tasks for it.

I've had a huge amount of success with both required and optional tasks, and it has alleviated some of the pain points of onboarding new members.

 

[ForumFan]

We also use the term, deserves an own thread. Especially if we think the new thread would be interesting to others and it makes it easier to find for users not reading the original thread. It often boosts activity on the forum.

Yep! That's the idea! Make it a bonus, benefit, reward... instead of a punishment.

 

[bennylava]

Hello,
Perhaps detect as soon as possible when a discussion takes a different tangent and publish a warning message of the type: please stay in the initial topic X, topic Y can be treated in a new thread. And if really topic Y is interesting create the discussion and put the link to it in thread X.

Doing that can make the forum seem more rigid, instead of fun and free. I guess different users will see it different ways, but you could just use two or 3 different (basic) user accounts to try and steer the conversation back in the right direction. Without making it sound like the forum mods/admins are getting involved.

Then again, does any of this actually matter? Because if there are users who want to talk about the original topic, and they have something to say, they'll say it. They're not just going to think "Oh well they're talking about this other thing now, so I better keep quiet".

I've never witnessed that on any forum, to me it looks like people always just interrupt the 2nd offshoot conversation, with posts that address the OP. So you could just let two separate conversations go on in the same thread. They're semi related already, and when I see that kind of thing on boards I like to go to, I just read the off-topic posts, and keep right on reading the following posts until it finally gets back on topic.

 

[Mr Lucky]

Doing that can make the forum seem more rigid, instead of fun and free. I guess different users will see it different ways,

Yes but I think it is best if threads stay on topic, it makes it so much easier for members coming to the thread later on looking for relevant info. Besides it is better for SEO to stay on topic. But if an admin doesn't care about any of that then it's their choice.

but you could just use two or 3 different (basic) user accounts

I don't like using sock puppets - in some ways I find it almost disrespectful to members as you are misleading them.

So you could just let two separate conversations go on in the same thread.

Again, less of o focussed thread so not good for SEO.

 

[bennylava]

I don't like using sock puppets - in some ways I find it almost disrespectful to members as you are misleading them.

How did you overcome the initial push to get users? I'm going to have to use sock puppets talking to themselves (myself) in order to make my forum not seem like a ghost town. I don't see that I have any other choice. We don't get a big "GRAND OPENING" sign out front like brick and mortar businesses do.

 

[Suzanne O]

My forum has rules. Simple ones. But yes... rules. You attract what you want to attract. Like attracts like. Treat people like adults, and they act like adults... and the forum attracts more people just like them. Voila!

Hacked? Ummmm....

Good.
In each thread add this rule.
Thread bans occur if you derail this thread.
Then that causes them to make another thread about their new topic.

 

[ForumFan]

In each thread add this rule.
Thread bans occur if you derail this thread.
Then that causes them to make another thread about their new topic.

Thread bans?? For daring to post something "off-topic??" Oy veh.

Yeah... I'm not on a power trip looking to punish or ban or discourage participation on my forum.

I'll pass on that kind of rule.

 

[Suzanne O]

Thread bans?? For daring to post something "off-topic??" Oy veh.

Yeah... I'm not on a power trip looking to punish or ban or discourage participation on my forum.

I'll pass on that kind of rule.

Yep for derailing threads.
Saves you having to clean the thread up if there are some arguments happening.

 

[ForumFan]

Yep for derailing threads.
Saves you having to clean the thread up if there are some arguments happening.

Maybe report them to the "authorities," too?

 

[Forsaken]

Yep for derailing threads.
Saves you having to clean the thread up if there are some arguments happening.

Does speaking in other languages get you burned at the stake as a witch for speaking in tongues?