Does anybody want to divide up the site between Shale and everything else?

I would like to know if anyone else besides me is interested in a split home page with Shale threads on top, then all of the other banter below in a separate thread section. This separate thread section could still be active where the hot threads go to the top, but they would not compete with the Shale threads. Thoughts anyone? The current tone of the site seems to be non Shale.
Jay

Views: 208

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sesport on April 15, 2009 at 18:26
parker - There is also a very thin line between hijacking and peer moderating, but it is a distinct line. Keith has said that in topics that have no designated moderators it will be up to peers to help out. Maybe we need a clear explanation of what a hijacking is and what peer moderating involves, even the circumstances when peer moderating is called for.

As for your second point, it would not be that members couldn't see, but if they do choose to go there, they have no basis for complaint. The title & description of the group would serve as a warning. "Spewers" could still have their audience & attention. Actually, we already have the "Spout Off" group, I don't know why that isn't used for such purposes.

Best - sesport :0)
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on April 15, 2009 at 16:44
Snake,

You may be on to something. I think that if it is discussed in the Industry group setting, it MAY at least avoid some of the hijacking.

I would vote for a NEW group though, because many are serious about the shale without necessarily being directly involved with working in the industry).
Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on April 15, 2009 at 22:25
I did not take Jay's suggestion of a split to be related to a technical discussion of the Haynesville at all, but rather the topic should be oil and gas in general and Haynesville specifically. I could care less about different breeds of dogs, etc. For that I would go to a different site. I like Jay's idea!
Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on April 16, 2009 at 0:30
Hey Mr. Branch,
What you got against dogs? (Just kidding)

Seriously, I think some kind of split is in order.
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on April 15, 2009 at 16:36
I go the "Groups" page quite a lot and sort by latest activity. This helps me identify the most recent activity for those groups. I believe Haynesville may need to make sure all the groups all listed on that page
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 16, 2009 at 5:28
The group pages contain invaluable information and are used by a number of members who rarely appear on the main page. I think it likely that they read much of what is posted there but for whatever personal reason, choose not to post there. IMO, portions of this discussion have some relevance as to their choice.
Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on April 15, 2009 at 16:47
A category based site would solve this issue. We tried a category based format and nobody liked it. You all like your crack cocaine. Other industry/subject specific sites usually are category based having off topic and political categories.

I have a last card to try that may solve this issue. I'll probably have it up next week. If that doesn't solve it and there is still resistence to the category based site...then I don't know.

How many categories do we need to cover the shale? Are there too many categories? If so, what categories would need to stay?
Permalink Reply by Cathaus on April 15, 2009 at 16:57
You need a hard-core shale category. One that excludes anything not technical in nature. You may have to be chief moderator on this one because Lord help us if we go off topic!
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on April 15, 2009 at 17:05
Or at least if something is deleted have a message that shows WHO it is deleted by. That might keep some of the conspiracy theories from gaining any validity.
Permalink Reply by sesport on April 15, 2009 at 18:38
How about if deleting a post or topic requires a vote of 3 moderators, majority rules. And the vote MUST be confidential, otherwise it becomes unproductive and a potential trap for power play. (Sorry, didn't see this, just now catching up. I type very very slowly when I'm thinking. As opposed to reacting.)

:0)
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on April 15, 2009 at 16:58
Keith,

I don't like the category based system and I don't think most others did either.

How about Category like the others BUT WITH A WARNING ATTACHED TO THAT CATEGORY ONLY. Like SERIOUS SHALE ONLY - any politics prohibited.
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on April 15, 2009 at 17:00
Seriously, isn't politics the main problem?

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Top Content 

1 Looking Back At The Haynesville Shale - A Retrospective

Looking Back At The Haynesville Shale - A Retrospective
2 Pending Public Oil and Gas Hearings

Pending Public Oil and Gas Hearings
3 Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play

Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play
4 Aethon looks for Buyers of its Haynesville Assets

Aethon looks for Buyers of its Haynesville Assets
5 Notice Emails Are Back! Please review how they work.

Notice Emails Are Back! Please review how they work.
6 Comstock October Presentation

Comstock October Presentation
7 Haynesville Has 12.5 Years of Sub-$3 NatGas Inventory - Enverus

Haynesville Has 12.5 Years of Sub-$3 NatGas Inventory - Enverus

Blog Posts

The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling

Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…

Continue

Posted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service