What should the board look like

[leftieliberal]

A single thread isn't something I would go to the barricades over; but having been on Cix conferencing for over 20 years and been a mod on a few of them, I'm pretty comfortable with multiple parallel threads. I think if you haven't been used to it, it seems more threatening than it is. Can we compromise on two threads: one specifically for polling only and the other for everything else (which could be restarted monthly if people want that)?

One feature I used to like was catmanjeff's trend analysis which linked to files on his googledrive. Now we have a forum that allows attachments we could have this sort of information as part of the polling thread and set it up so that anyone can update it, rather than relying on one person to keep it going.

[davwel]

The votes are in, but the 1-thread winner isn`t what is happening; but also options 2 and 4 combined did top option 1.

We have had a welcome influx of new quality posters, but too many of the UKPR regulars haven`t transferred and now seem unlikely to. For Scotland, we have lost valued posters - Statgeek, Peter, TCO - I often thought differently to them, but respected and valued their views and inputs of local knowledge. A separate thread for Scotland has been suggested, probably by TW who wants rid of us. But meantime there are too few of us to make discussions viable, and I could hardly be counted a typical Scot for posting on such a thread.

[steamdrivenandy]

Send out a search party for Mr Statgeek, he mustn't be allowed to get away.

Even if he's not Greek.LOL

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Good news is that edge is now picking the site up on search, not yet on google.

I must say the ascetic of this site, with the horizontal layout, makes me more prone to read longer posts. On the original site the main reason for me not reading some people's was my perception of the length of their post.

[jayblanc]

I think it's best to create new threads for new polling results. This prompts refresh, without anyone having to make a contentious decision on if a thread has wandered off down the thorium mines. UKPR discussion was at its best when there were regular updates that prevented perpetual tail chasing in the comments.

[Deleted]

Nov 24, 2021 13:39:28 GMT jayblanc said:

I think it's best to create new threads for new polling results. This prompts refresh, without anyone having to make a contentious decision on if a thread has wandered off down the thorium mines. UKPR discussion was at its best when there were regular updates that prevented perpetual tail chasing in the comments.

There seemed to be (IMO) a bit of a consensus to only do periodic new main threads (eg if major event have moved the dial from 'poll drums') and also to use 'Issue Specific' threads if anyone wants to go down a Thorium mine (see ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/thread/9/energy-markets-net-zero for where CARFREW can post his Thorium thoughts or the Covid thread for discussion of that topic)

I only spotted the new thread you set up by chance as a lot of folks will likely just run the current one in background or refresh it from browser history. 

MARK could set up a few additional admin folks (I've too much 'baggage' to offer my services) who could maybe post a closing comment on old thread and then 'lock' it? I posted a 'new thread' comment on the current thread but doubt many will pay attention.

Early days so a bit of suck it and see?

[Mark]

I have merged the new polling thread with the existng one.

I was reluctant to do so as it was dated and titled correctly and the first post was at pains to explain why it was done so in the way it was.

I did so as it's still not that long since the first one, there was still active and fruitful posting in this as well as the consensus being that it was a bit soon to have a new one.

As to the suggestion of monthly or even fortnightly polling threads, my own thought is that while that is roughly what will happen, I'm not sure that arbitary dates are necessarily a good thing.

My reasoning for this is that, say we agree a new polling thread for the first of the month (or the first poll of the month) and then a game changer happens on the 5th, that would mean eithor a new thread just a few days after the last or the game changer event being 4 or 5 pages in.

Next up, the 'issue specific' threads. There is a balance between relevant posts in the polling threads and them being cluttered by niche stuff that most will scroll straight past.

For now, I am happy to see things take whatever course they do and for the members on here to find that balance.

As always, any feedback or cmments are welcome.

One minor thing, though...I've seen a few post my name in caps. Please don't do this. It's easy enough to tag me if you feel there is somethng I should be alerted to.

[leftieliberal]

Nov 24, 2021 19:53:04 GMT Mark said:

I have merged the new polling thread with the existng one.

....

For now, I am happy to see things take whatever course they do and for the members on here to find that balance.

Can I just say that I'm very happy with the way you are running this board. I think we have got the best of the old UKPR, with the benefit of new posters who could not join UKPR because AW wasn't accepting new registrations. I too like the wider format as the posts look shorter than on UKPR (and there were many posts there that I scrolled straight past because I couldn't face reading them).

One feature of the old UKPR blog that we haven't got is the updated list of polls that used to appear on the right-hand side at the top of the page. Do others think it would be useful to add it in a separate topic. I've got all the data from 2010 to May 7th 2020 from UKPR; no doubt others have also been keeping a record of polls.

[Mark]

Nov 25, 2021 14:21:15 GMT leftieliberal said:

One feature of the old UKPR blog that we haven't got is the updated list of polls that used to appear on the right-hand side at the top of the page. Do others think it would be useful to add it in a separate topic. I've got all the data from 2010 to May 7th 2020 from UKPR; no doubt others have also been keeping a record of polls.

Thank you very much, both for the compliment and the suggestion.

I think that's a very good idea - and a useful resource. If you want to make a new thread for it, I can lock it, and unlock periodically for it to be updated.

[Mark]

I have increased the number of posts per page from 15 to 30. Several members have asked me about this and I readily agree, 15 was too few and led to having to change page too often.

I've also been asked about starting a new polling thread on December 1st. My own thought is that is still a little soon, barring a game-changing or potentially game changing news story. As previously said, I'm not sure that arbitary dates are necessarily a good thing as events stubbornly tend to refuse to play along...but, thoughts from others are welcome.

[steamdrivenandy]

Confused of UKPR

When I left the pages on the main thread read 30. When I looked in again it read 15. Much confusion, now resolved if we've doubled the threads per page.

[steamdrivenandy]

Presumably Mark could set titles for the different levels of posting. Like starting with 'intern', followed by 'adviser', 'candidate', 'member' and 'ennobled'

[Deleted]

Nov 25, 2021 20:56:18 GMT Mark said:

I have increased the number of posts per page from 15 to 30. Several members have asked me about this and I readily agree, 15 was too few and led to having to change page too often.

I've also been asked about starting a new polling thread on December 1st. My own thought is that is still a little soon, barring a game-changing or potentially game changing news story. As previously said, I'm not sure that arbitary dates are necessarily a good thing as events stubbornly tend to refuse to play along...but, thoughts from others are welcome.

I would favour you deciding when a significant polling point has been reached.Stop ou r blather and set us off again with a new thread.

[shevii]

Nov 25, 2021 20:56:18 GMT Mark said:

I have increased the number of posts per page from 15 to 30. Several members have asked me about this and I readily agree, 15 was too few and led to having to change page too often.

I've also been asked about starting a new polling thread on December 1st. My own thought is that is still a little soon, barring a game-changing or potentially game changing news story. As previously said, I'm not sure that arbitary dates are necessarily a good thing as events stubbornly tend to refuse to play along...but, thoughts from others are welcome.

Thanks Mark.

I think your suggestion of when something happens to start a new thread is good.  My only consideration for a 1st December is that at the moment it looks a bit weird with the one yougov poll as a header so new people may get a little confused.

You are doing a great job and when this started I just thought it would be a place for the old UKPR people to hang, maybe even just at elections times, but it's brought in new blood and the options with this site are much greater.

[shevii]

Nov 25, 2021 21:51:54 GMT colin said:

Nov 25, 2021 20:56:18 GMT Mark said:

I would favour you deciding when a significant polling point has been reached.Stop ou r blather and set us off again with a new thread.

Yes- I think it would be best if Mark initiated the new threads which gives a certain order to things rather than people going off on their own thing.  Maybe the General Discussion could be locked for new threads and just Mark as Admin able to start a new post.  There's still the other off topic one where people can start something.  This is assuming we are going with the one thread fits all which seems to have a consensus.

[mercian]

I'd agree that Mark is doing a great job. I just hope it doesn't become too onerous. I agree with Shevii that the title of the main polling thread is a bit misleading. Maybe call it something like 'Main polling thread'?

[mercian]

I really like the idea of the issue-specific threads being separate. It gives the obsessives somewhere to obsess, and still allows the rest of us to chip in occasionally without the main board being dominated by endless repetitions of the same arguments.

[robert]

I agree that mark has done a great job setting this up in such a short space of time. Personally I'm delighted that the nit picking sarcasm also appears to have been consigned to the past, along with the stupid/idiot kind of descriptors some were wont to use against others, on occasions. Long May it continue.

[Danny]

Been posting a few days now, so what I think.

The unique feature of UKPR was one thread for everything, which has to continue. Broadly the topic is anything influential to current politics.

But I actually like having some side threads where detailed discussion on specific topics can continue. But they cannot be set up with a rule that subject may not appear in the main thread. I think doing it this way will create a long term record of how specific topic debate has gone, make referring back easier and perhaps reduce the neeed to repeat points lost in old threads.

AW at one point set up a thread on scottish politics. This failed to work in as much as it tried to separate all such into a separate thread, and that simply is impossible without leaving a hole in the main thread debate. But maybe scots would like such a thread in addition to the main one?

The main thread needs to be renewed from time to time. AW did this approximately when a new significant polling event arose, and even in latter days this sparked some debate on the specific point. I dont know if we can do that, AW was probably using this place as a sounding board for ideas for himself and was already informed on the subject. However, breaking up one long thread even if only when it reaches a certain length or after a period of time (or both taken together) will create a historic record of the debate if anyone wants to look back at a certain time. I did this occasionally. Perhaps parliamentary by-elections and up, specific scheduled local elections should trigger a new thread. National (or constituent national votes of some sort, significant foreign ones).

I think UKPR has changed in recent years. Partly because it was curated previously, but also because the last 5-10 years has changed politics into a single issue (or now 2, brexit and covid) dominating the debate for years and creating knife edge issues between elections. All the normal rules were torn up and we did not go to sleep politically between elections.

Oh, I dont know how editing posts is permitted, but for archiving purposes arguably people should not be permitted to edit old posts after a certain length of time. If they can it means they can retrospectively distort the record or the debate.  I tend to re-edit posts for a few days if i spot typos.

I'm  not sure people should be able to hide posts they dont want to see.  I agree it is essential people see opposed views to their own if debate is to make any sense.  It seems one of the big problems of social media is people only clustering with those like minded.

[lululemonmustdobetter]

@ Danny

Pretty much agree with you.

I would also highlight the independently/bloody minded nature of most posters, which could undermine such an approach. How will any 'system' be enforced/maintained, by whom etc?

[Mark]

Hi, all. A couple of things to note.

Firstly, LeftieLiberal has kindly taken the time to put together a polling archive for us. Many thanks for that. It is a downloadable Calc/Ecxel file, available on it's own thread for anyone who wants it.

I have locked the thread as it is meant, first and foremost, as a resource, akin to the historical polls on the right hand side of the original UKPR.

The second thing, I have been asked if I intend to keep AW's ban on discussing PMQ's.

I would be interested to hear the thoughts of others on this.

My own feeling, off the top of my head is that such a ban should not be implemented. My reasoning for that is that highlights are often shown on the main news, the press often report on who 'won' the exchange.

IMO, this can be a factor that influences polling - and actual voting. The very things that we come here to discuss.

I feel this has a place in the main threads. If some want to discuss the minutiae of PMQ's, a side thread can be set up in 'Issue Specific'.

This issue/question is not set in stone as yet and I would welcome the thoughts of others and reasons eithor for or against.

[shevii]

I don't think there's any reason to ban talk of this in the main thread- it only becomes an issue if everyone starts to claim a win for their side which was what Anthony got concerned about. But this was in a different era where neutrality was vitally important and later Anthony moderation I think accepted this was never going to happen.

The only things that concern me (which was a key to the success of his site) was stamping down on rudeness among posters and having civil discussions. That's what makes it different to CIF and twitter.

[Mark]

Well, we've now topped 100 members! I'm amazed. When I set this place up, I thought we would get around 20...I would have been delighted with 30.

Welcome to everyone has joined and a shout out to those that were lurkers, unable to post on the original UKPR. I hope to hear frm you here.

...And a big thank you to all for keeping things nice even when it's obvious that some others have vastly differing opinions to your own. I strongly suspected that would be the case which is why I was confident in setting up UKPR2, but, even so, please give yourselves a big pat on the back!

[Deleted]

Dec 4, 2021 1:49:52 GMT Mark said:

Well, we've now topped 100 members! I'm amazed. When I set this place up, I thought we would get around 20...I would have been delighted with 30.

Welcome to everyone has joined and a shout out to those that were lurkers, unable to post on the original UKPR. I hope to hear frm you here.

...And a big thank you to all for keeping things nice even when it's obvious that some others have vastly differing opinions to your own. I strongly suspected that would be the case which is why I was confident in setting up UKPR2, but, even so, please give yourselves a big pat on the back!

You too Mark !

[Deleted]

Dec 2, 2021 0:58:29 GMT Mark said:

Hi, all. A couple of things to note.

Firstly, LeftieLiberal has kindly taken the time to put together a polling archive for us. Many thanks for that. It is a downloadable Calc/Ecxel file, available on it's own thread for anyone who wants it.

I have locked the thread as it is meant, first and foremost, as a resource, akin to the historical polls on the right hand side of the original UKPR.

The second thing, I have been asked if I intend to keep AW's ban on discussing PMQ's.

I would be interested to hear the thoughts of others on this.

My own feeling, off the top of my head is that such a ban should not be implemented. My reasoning for that is that highlights are often shown on the main news, the press often report on who 'won' the exchange.

IMO, this can be a factor that influences polling - and actual voting. The very things that we come here to discuss.

I feel this has a place in the main threads. If some want to discuss the minutiae of PMQ's, a side thread can be set up in 'Issue Specific'.

This issue/question is not set in stone as yet and I would welcome the thoughts of others and reasons eithor for or against.

I think AW got fed up of My Guy  did  better than Your Guy spat. Provided that is curtailed , I think PMQ can be a reasonable source of debate.

[Deleted]

Dec 2, 2021 0:58:29 GMT Mark said:

The second thing, I have been asked if I intend to keep AW's ban on discussing PMQ's.

I would be interested to hear the thoughts of others on this.

My own feeling, off the top of my head is that such a ban should not be implemented. My reasoning for that is that highlights are often shown on the main news, the press often report on who 'won' the exchange.

IMO, this can be a factor that influences polling - and actual voting. The very things that we come here to discuss.

I feel this has a place in the main threads. If some want to discuss the minutiae of PMQ's, a side thread can be set up in 'Issue Specific'.

This issue/question is not set in stone as yet and I would welcome the thoughts of others and reasons eithor for or against.

IMO ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/thread/5/general-rules-post-read is sufficient to cover risks of excessively partisan comments, offenders being warned or kicked. I'm addition then using the block feature means folks can also choose to ignore the small minority of folks who are just 'copy+pasting' biased news sources or try to pretend their personal opinion is fact. The final sentence in the 'general rules' being:

If it is someone who should know better, just ignore them: continuing a partisan argument is just as bad as starting it!

So I'd say folks can and should discuss PMQs, just within the bounds of the 'General Rules' 

[Mark]

Just to let you all know, I have moved the new thread on the economy to 'Issue Specific'....

[eor]

Dec 4, 2021 11:34:36 GMT colin said:

I think AW got fed up of My Guy  did  better than Your Guy spat. Provided that is curtailed , I think PMQ can be a reasonable source of debate.

Personally I don't see how this can be curtailed. Of the various posts that started to appear on the old site about "the event we don't mention" etc, how often did you see one that wasn't basically that? 

[Mark]

It has been suggested that I disable 'liking' people's posts.

I have no strong feeling on this eithor way, but wondered what others thought.

[Deleted]

Dec 6, 2021 17:48:10 GMT Mark said:

It has been suggested that I disable 'liking' people's posts.

I have no strong feeling on this eithor way, but wondered what others thought.

I don't see what harm 'liking' is doing. I note it tends to occur amongst people with similar views but I 'like' the polling comments as that it what the main discussion thread should mostly be about.

PS I do note a lot of the 'niche' discussions are still taking place on the main thread and a lot of blatant partisan bias and personal opinion stated as fact (which was one the reasons UKPR became a 'cess pit' as folks then felt the need to respond). I've adopted a 'block' approach to those who don't post any polling or evidence to substantiate their view (some 'usual suspects' from UKPR and some new ones) but wondered if anyone else had suggested it's time for a few 'warnings' to a few users to (re)read the 'general rules' and ensure UKPR2 doesn't slip back into the bad old ways of UKPR (for which I accept I certainly had some blame by being drawn into futile discussions)