Alright, I have been asked by X to cut down on the number of threads that I have been contributing to TV Talk for the past year. Since I'm not a moderator and this web site/forum is not mine, I will respect his request to do that.

However, I just wanted to say that for pretty much most of this TV season and last, I have used alot of my spare time to create alot of episode-specific threads in TV Talk. I've taken time to add promotional shots and episode synopsis to each thread to make them as attractive as possible to posters and lurkers. Honestly, I think I have actually made a positive contribution to the forum and have helped brought attention to shows/episodes that some posters may or may not have been aware of. TV Talk has been a fun place for me to visit in my spare time and I have really enjoyed interacting with alot of the posters/contributers. Honestly, this is a much better/User-friendly forum compared to TV.com or Television without Pity.

I have to admit that alot of the TV Talk posters really don't have the motivation to do the amount of work that I have done. In some instances (and this absolutely drove me nuts!) Some posters would bump a thread of Episode 5 for say Grey's Anatomy to talk about episode 24. That drives me nuts and that's one of the reasons I was motivated to create alot of episode-specific threads.

Also, some posters would create episode thread formatted with a a thread title like this:

"House 3/14/09" , which would make searching for these threads very difficult of almost impossible. So I have taken an extra step and have looked up episode titles and have formatted them like this:

"House -- "Here Kitty" -- 3/14/09"

So, as some of you know TV has alot of really busy nights especially Monday. I have been creating threads for shows on Monday like:
24
Chuck
Heroes
House
Castle
Gossip Girl
One Tree Hill
and every once in a while CSI: Miami

That's 8 shows that I have done threads for in the past for 1 evening. So, should I stop and only select a few per day? To me, that's seems a little unfair and in a way editorializing what I have done. I don't want to step on any toes and disrespect anyone, but alot of posters in TV Talk simply don't have the time or motivation to do the work that I have done. So would you want me to wait a day or 2 or 3 to see if someone else will create the thread instead of me? In the past, probably half that list from Monday's programming would get any discussion and now each of those shows has a pretty decent following in TV Talk. With season finale's coming up soon, your talking about 40-50+ hours of TV that will probably get alot of interest from TV Talk fans. Specific episode discussions are usually hot only for the 1st few days/week and then gradually die off.

I admit that there are several threads that I have created for mostly Procedural dramas that have gathered very little interest/comments/hits and I will gladly cut back on those.

Anyways, I appreciate you all reading my thoughts. If you still believe that I have done way too much, then I will respect your wishes and guidelines that you have set and cut back. It was never my intention to be a "Hog" and dominate the forum with useless information. I've only created threads for shows that interest me and may interest others. If someone else in the forum is a die-hard fan of a certain show and I have been taking away his chance to create a thread, then I apologize for that. Again, it was never my intention to overstep any boundaries. I know this site/forum is for entertainment purposes only and I am not entitled to do what I have done and that it's only a privileged. All I'm saying is that I believe that all my contributions have been a positive to Jadzia's forum and not negative in any way shape or form.

Thanks

As long as there is discussion taking place in the threads I don't see what the big deal is. Why should it matter who created the topic? It's not as if you're just spamming the shit out of the board or making useless topics.

I, for one, appreciate all the threads you create.

I'd much rather have DJariya start them than somebody else with a subject of "House 03/23" and the first post is "Anybody see it?"

Yeah, there's no reason that you shouldn't be allowed to make as many topics as you want for specific episodes in the TV forum. That goes for you, or anyone else, as long as it's just one thread per episode, and as long as discussion takes place.

This rule works in other folders, but it certainly shouldn't apply in the TV folder. That's just insane nitpicking.

While I'm at it, I think it should be a "rule" to properly title threads for episodes, just like you are already doing. It makes it so much easier to search for old threads.

I'm glad to have your threads. All nicely formatted properly so I can find what I'm looking for... good work. I say keep it up.

I also appreciate them.

I don't have any stats, but it seems to me that posting is down on this site, but yet people complain about too many threads being created. I don't get it.

I was also told the same thing a few years back and I have respected their wishes. I can see where both sides are coming from: the mods wanting to limit a person from dominating the first page and the person wanting to format the episodes threads properly. I never argued this back then since it is a private forum and they can pretty much decide what they want.

BTW, there's a sticky on top of the TV forum, telling you how to properly start an episode thread. I personally don't have the time to go all out and include a photo of the cast of the particular show like DJarija but I do appreciate those that do. For the very least, people should include the episode title and the sypnosis when they start a thread.

If someone is doing a great job at it, I don't see why they can't just keep doing it. Like I said, the TV folder is a special case. It's not like the spammers who to to a DVD folder or Other and just post random nonsense over and over being an ass.

Eh, just my opinion. I just don't see the logic or harm in it, that's all, not in the TV folder.

This is a copy/paste of what I wrote in the Smallville thread:


I can't believe this shit of limiting the creation of threads still going on. I wrote a complaint about it in the feedback section 3 years ago and almost no one agreed that members should be limited in creating threads if they are done in the proper manner and in the best interest of the forum and its members. Still to this day, there isn't anything written down stating the amount of thread a single member can create.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/forum-feedb...roblems-3.html

I don't understand the forum administrators or whoever it is, discouraging people in participating and contributing to the forum. DJariya has created a perfect format for TV weekly threads. Why does he have to stop then? Is someone else going to do the same thing he does? Probably not. His threads are of value to the forum since it brings traffic and discussion, which is what this place is supposed to be about. This micromanaging bullshit has to stop, specially when there are no written rules that you can point members to follow. I don't get why this member gets discourage but others that don't contribute anything are allowed to roam free.

Add: DJariya, you shouldn't apologize for anything since you haven't done anything wrong. There are no set written rules of how to post here. Is not your fault. This is exactly what I meant a couple of weeks ago in another thread where members are being driven away from this forum with the nitpicking of crap like this. As a member, I see you filling the same role that Speedy had in the Bargain forums; creating weekly threads on TV shows. That's your role that fell upon you by accident, but everyone except the administrator, has liked that and have been supporting you by participating in the threads. And the same thing that is happening to you is what happened to me; we don't have a clear idea of how things are supposed to be done since there are no guidelines to follow.

I think the number of threads can be cut down, some threads in TV talk are better served by just having one thread for a season.

Actually there is. Check the sticky on top of the TV forum. There's no actual number of threads given but there are guidelines in place.

Edit to include the link:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/8234413-post1.html

I like this idea better and just create a post with the new episode titles within the thread. The only "issue" might be for those people trying to catch up and having to read comments on episodes that they may have not watched yet.

That's why I hate the idea of a single thread for seasons, instead of individual episodes.

When I went back and watched the first season of Lost on DVD, and the first 3 or 4 seasons of The Shield, not to mention tons of Sopranos episodes that I watched for the first time after they aired, I went back to the individual threads for the episodes that I could find just to at least seem like I was following it along with other people.

It would be too easy to spoil things if we had single threads for seasons. I even went back and did this for the first season of Pushing Daisies, and the threads weren't huge and that would be the type of show that would likely become a single thread for a season, and that could have ruined lots of stuff for me, and others.

Even those guidelines aren't clear since it doesn't say the exact amount of threads that can be created by one member. To one person it could be 5 and to other could be 10. And just looking quickly at the TV Talk forum, it seems a lot of members create threads, not DJariya alone. And by the way, I always thought the more threads and posts in a forum, the better it is for the company that owns it. It gives that site more standing against all other sites in general.

Why on earth would it matter who starts the thread? No offense to DJarija, but I usually don't even notice who started the thread. That's not an insult to his/her work in creating a thread, but rather a testament to the fact that the small group of people who take their time to start the threads every week have done a good job of standardizing it. It's not a thread about DJarija, it's a thread about an episode of a TV show.

Not only does it seem like an unnecessary rule that has no real benefit, it is counter-productive to IB's interests. Doesn't IB want lively discussions about as many episodes of popular TV series as possible, so when people search on Google they find DVD Talk? Don't the users want the same thing, so the forum remains profitable enough to keep running (in addition to the obvious fact that we want to discuss the shows)? Even if DJ starts thirty different threads in a day, as long as people are reading and contributing, isn't that exactly what we want to happen?

Do you really want a specific number to be listed? I frankly don't. I think that we are all adults for the most part and can figured out what the appropriate number is.

However, the issue might not be that a specific person is starting a set amount of threads in a day. It might has to do with the fact that all of the threads that this user creates daily and with the threads being bumped because of discussion, it looks like the TV forum is being "hogged" by this person. This was the reason that was given to me before...

Again, all of this was discussed a few years back in a thread and thus the reason Jadzia created that sticky thread however, right now I don't have the time to search for it but this is nothing new.

I do see a lot of episode threads being bumped very quickly to the second page because of the number of new threads every day that don't get a lot of traffic.

I'm not opposed to the season-long threads for some shows. I watch Stargate: Atlantis on DVD and go back and read the season threads while I'm watching. I just look at the date on the post before reading (although that didn't prevent some season 5 casting spoilers in the season 4 thread, but that could have happened in an episode thread as well).

This is the same issue I was talking about. My previous complaint had to do with this exact same thing, since the administrator deleted 3 threads I had created and that had ongoing discussions because I had more than 5 in the first page. That happened because other members bumped older threads to discuss other topics. So I was blamed and warned for something that I don't have any control.

Again, why does it matter who starts the threads? As long as the threads are of forum interest and create discussion, it shouldn't matter who creates them. The forum should be happy that there are people willing to spend time in creating something that benefits everyone else.

This is exactly what I meant in my previous post.

I agree. I understand in other forums why we don't want one person monopolizing discussion. But DJariya's threads are administrative in nature, and very helpful and informative.

Much better than the "Last night's The Hills was great!" type threads.

This is relative because it depends on how many thread you want displayed settings. Some have 20 threads and some have 40 and see everything in 1 page.

Deja vu. We've been through this before.

This is exactly like watching dx23's response when he was told to keep the number of new threads down to our forum guidelines in order to give other people's threads a chance. First a message to me agreeing with the limits I pointed out, then a thread complaining about it. I guess people think trying to rally public opinion against a moderating decision will do more good than stating their case to the moderator or possibly appealing to other ones as well, but they're wrong.

DJariya, your threads look a lot like dx23's as well. The name of something coming up, and a link or a copied blurb about it. Very little, or even no initial discussion. That's probably why it's so easy to have 16 out of the 40 threads I saw on the first page when I PMed you.

For the record, the relevant part the rules we're working on will state this as not allowed...

• Posting complete nonsense, gibberish or using the forum to play posting games. This includes, but is not limited to, attempting "forum domination". That is, creating new threads in a forum when five or more threads of yours are on the first page of that forum, as well as responding to so many threads in a forum that it becomes obvious that your primary purpose is to have your name appear as the last poster.

It should be obvious to anyone who has been here for a while why we can't say it's ok for one person to do it and another not, or why it's ok in one forum and not in another.

DJariya is doing a great job with the episode discussion threads. When I create a new episode discussion thread for a TV show I always include a photo/synopsis/episode title/date. It's important to put the name of the episode in the thread so posters can find it easier if they want to discuss an older episode because they have just watched it. It's great that anyone starts a discussion thread for a TV show and even though it might be something like "NciS 03/17/09" at least a thread is being started.

Who cares who starts the thread? DJariya is putting a lot of work into the threads and instead of being told your doing a great job and are contributing to the forum; you're being told not to post so many threads. That really doesn't make sense to me.

Some of the episode discussion threads might only get 1-5 posts and sometimes the thread will get 20-40 posts. The OP isn't going to know how many posters are going to post in the thread. The ER threads are a great example of that. One week 5 posts will be made in that week's episode thread and next week when Clooney returns you have 3 pages of comments.

Thank you for pointing that out.

It's unfortunate that we have to specify something so exact in the revision of the rules that we're going to release soon, but it seems that unless we have something exact to point to, some people think we're just making up stuff and they argue that it's not in writing. So now we're trying to have everything in writing.

I'm aware of this setting for posts in a thread, where is the setting for threads on a page? Regardless, I just checked the TV forum and I've got about 40 displayed (I counted 39 but I might have gotten off somewhere or the contest announcement might count as 1).