Hijacking threads.
There's way too much hijacking threads on Art Fair Insiders in both the blogs and on the forums. What that means is that frequently someone posts to an existing thread changing the topic midstream. It's not fair to the person who started the thread or to every one who responded to the original topic.
If you want to start a new thread, or even if you think your new topic is similar to the current thread, please start your own thread or blog. And this should be part of the starters guide.
Larry Berman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just read Larry Berman's post (pasted above) and found a concept that is new to me--Hijacking Threads. My definition of a "discussion" has always been a dynamic exchange between two or more persons. The exchange is dynamic in that it flows, changes, and evolves as the thoughts and experiences are added by those participating in the exchange. Some comments may be tangential to the discussion, but they are nonetheless a contribution to the discussion.
Now comes the concept of Hijacking Threads. Mea Culpa. I know that I have made comments to contribute that others may see as off topic. Mea Culpa. Yes, I have used an analogy to try to explain my position. Mea Maxima Culpa. I have changed the topic in the flowing continuation of a discussion.
So, when is a discussion not a discussion? I gather from Larry's admonition that the term discussion does not apply to discussion threads. Forum Discussion Threads are to be fairly static, that is, they are to be question and answer without opinions that may stray from the exact question or comment that started the thread. Is that correct?
Larry, I was going to respond to you in the thread where I read your post, but that seemed to be Hijacking by your explanation. Please do not be upset with me--I really am trying to understand this concept. This is not the way I have understood or participated in online discussions.
I believe that "Hijacking" may be in the eye of the beholder. What one person thinks is a contribution to be helpful ... is seen by another to be a Hijack of the thread.
Just trying to get my head around this concept. All input is appreciated. Thank you, Lois
----------------------------------
Replies
Geoff has a good idea. I was just reading an 8 page blog that "surprisingly" ended up with the last 4 pages being one the many discussions around here on photography. It didn't start out that way but as Geoff said, someone used photography as an example and people were off and running.
The originator of the post should take the responsibility to get back on subject.
What?? Are there no definitions to make a black and white call? Oh, no. The things I learn as I hang around. I guess on the case in question (Warren's post), I thought the post was about how to survive in the art fair business, but then it drifted into how to improve this site -- somehow I thought that wasn't the point of the original post, so that is why I thought it had been hijacked. David, Lois & Geoff, was it hijacked or not?
Connie, I don't think you as moderator should make "Monitor threads so that they're not hijacked" a priority on your site-management list. Folks who post a topic are the ones who come to a topic again and again (because they get email notifications when a comment is posted to their topic). So they should be the ones to intercede and get things back on track.
Hijacking threads is a common happenstance, and it would be best managed, IMHO, by including this item within a "best practices" topic for the discussion group. With, sorry to say, the expectation that most people aren't going to read it.
Thank you! OMG -- one less job. I am relieved and am glad to take your advice on this one.
Well, the problem is that topic responder "A" may innocently introduce a tangential topic in responding to the main topic. And, what do you know, that tangential topic hits a nerve, followup posters respond to IT, and off we go!
Quite often, responder "A" isn't trying to hijack the thread. They're just trying to introduce an opinion, give an example, or make a point. It's the followup posters who respond to that thread and take it astray.
That's sort of the nature of the beast, as others here have pointed out. It's really up to a moderator or (even better) the person who initiated the topic, to say, "hold it folks, let's get back on track here. If you want to keep up the side discussion, please do it in another topic."
Ahh, but here you are in the "discussions" -- yes, this is where we discuss things, Lois, but still try to stay on topic. Because this is a static medium, a person coming in and discussing one part of the main topic takes it "off thread" or "hijacks" it. The suggested protocol when you get inspired to discuss one aspect rather than the main idea is that you start a new discussion.
A good example of this is that Warren Townsend put up a post where he was not happy with the status quo of the art fair business and what could be done about it. That was his theme. A while into the comments people started complaining about the way this site is run (!!) and making suggestions. That took the discussion way off from Warren's intention, which is why I tried to stop the "hijacking" and started a new discussion on how to make this site run better.
Connie,
I think my problem is that I did not see a main topic the same way you saw the main topic in some previous threads. It seemed that there were many elements to the original post. For example, the post to which you refer I missed the main point entirely if the main point was the state of the industry in general To me the main point seemed to be ranting about how the site is run ("this site is boring . . . contributors to speaking out . . . get censored and banned . . . I get droopy eyed looking at the poor booth drapes . . . art fair industry is . . . screw up and abused . . . yet no one can talk about here or on other sites"). Given the first paragraph of the post I saw the main topic as a rant about how you run the site.
Perhaps we could agree that what appears to be "hijacking" may not be. It could be that there is just a difference in the manner that each of us views the main topic.
Lois