News threads creating clutter

[15399]

{Note from mods - this thread split from here: A Report from the North America Galleries}



In regards to @Smaggledagle's point about threads vs. galleries, I also find it increasingly frustrating (and I'm sure others do as well) the amount of zoos that have threads of purely news articles/facebook postings about obscure facilities no one ever visits. News is great, if it sparks discussion. Zoo Chat is primarily a discussion forum, not primarily a news forum- and as such there is no reason to post news for facilities that are not going to spark discussion. Sure, if there's a particularly interesting news article or something major that occurs at an obscure zoo, or something controversial relating to a roadside zoo, these are things that can spark discussion. Lists of every time a goat is born or dies at a facility that nobody on the site has actually visited (or intends to visit), does nothing but clutter up the forum for when people are actually looking for stuff. Perhaps this is a topic for it's own thread, but it'd be really nice to have some stricter guidelines for "news" threads so that only major news/discussion-provoking news is included.

 

[Simon Hampel]

it'd be really nice to have some stricter guidelines for "news" threads so that only major news/discussion-provoking news is included

Given the definition of "major news" is completely subjective - this would be impossible to define and even more difficult to police.

What I would like to do is build a feature which allowed users to "ignore" certain topics (indeed entire zoos), so that threads about these don't appear in their search results, thus reducing clutter. The opposite function would also be useful - allow users to "favourite" certain topics (and zoos) so that content about facilities they are interested in is highlighted in search results.

This is not a small task, so won't be happening in the short term - but it's on my wishlist for the site.

 

[15399]

What I would like to do is build a feature which allowed users to "ignore" certain topics (indeed entire zoos), so that threads about these don't appear in their search results, thus reducing clutter. The opposite function would also be useful - allow users to "favourite" certain topics (and zoos) so that content about facilities they are interested in is highlighted in search results.

This is not a small task, so won't be happening in the short term - but it's on my wishlist for the site.

That would be a great addition! I did try, in order to reduce clutter, "ignore" a few of the users most prolific with posting news I don't care about, but I ended up stopping that because it made certain threads I did care about disappear because of who started them, so it ended up not being a useful tool for me. Something that allows the ignoring of facilities would be a great addition, even if it isn't anytime soon!

I do think, however, that news wise there can be some "guidelines", that, even if they don't solve the whole problem, allow some general idea of what is or isn't considered newsworthy. I'm sure there are a lot of things that the majority of zoochatters would agree are not newsworthy, but get posted anyways by a handful of users who do, such as births and deaths of goats or other domestics with high turnover rates, or things that have already happened (i.e. I've seen a few posts for events or closures that occurred in the past- if it's ongoing I get it, but it isn't post worthy, at least in my view, if one wrote that "On Nov. 1, such-and-such zoo closed an exhibit, and it re-opened on Nov. 20")

 

[Zoofan15]

I do think, however, that news wise there can be some "guidelines", that, even if they don't solve the whole problem, allow some general idea of what is or isn't considered newsworthy. I'm sure there are a lot of things that the majority of zoochatters would agree are not newsworthy, but get posted anyways by a handful of users who do, such as births and deaths of goats or other domestics with high turnover rates, or things that have already happened (i.e. I've seen a few posts for events or closures that occurred in the past- if it's ongoing I get it, but it isn't post worthy, at least in my view, if one wrote that "On Nov. 1, such-and-such zoo closed an exhibit, and it re-opened on Nov. 20")

We had the same problem in the Australasian forum a few years back and following a discussion, agreed minor news wouldn’t be reported on:

Examples of minor news include soft news (animal birthdays, pumpkins for Halloween), news from the petting zoo (the zoo has a new Guinea pig), zoo events (the zoo are holding a concert), changes to admission prices etc.

What constitutes as worth reporting on is indeed subjective, but in the Australasian forum, we use commonsense to identify what is or isn’t newsworthy before posting - and I’d say 99% of the time we succeed in doing so.

I appreciate the US forum is a more complex issue given the number of users and threads is far higher, but I do believe more people need to ask themselves “Does anyone care about what I’m posting?” before they post a news item. It’s not a big ask and benefits all concerned.

 

[Great Argus]

We had the same problem in the Australasian forum a few years back and following a discussion, agreed minor news wouldn’t be reported on:

Is this discussion readable somewhere?

I appreciate the US forum is a more complex issue given the number of users and threads is far higher, but I do believe more people need to ask themselves “Does anyone care about what I’m posting?” before they post a news item. It’s not a big ask and benefits all concerned.

Most of us do, but there are a few who seem to still see anything as fair game. It gets dreadfully annoying to click on a news thread and it's baby goats again or some other event that really isn't cared about by most of us. I know some people are really fond of goats, but we really don't need to know every time one is born or dies in the petting zoo. That's not what most of us are here for.
I do have to disagree on some of your "minor news" points though - admission price changes I think are kind of important and worth noting. Animal birthdays are worth noting if an animal has reached a notable age, but otherwise not really necessary.

 

[Smaggledagle]

That would be a great addition! I did try, in order to reduce clutter, "ignore" a few of the users most prolific with posting news I don't care about, but I ended up stopping that because it made certain threads I did care about disappear because of who started them, so it ended up not being a useful tool for me. Something that allows the ignoring of facilities would be a great addition, even if it isn't anytime soon!

I do think, however, that news wise there can be some "guidelines", that, even if they don't solve the whole problem, allow some general idea of what is or isn't considered newsworthy. I'm sure there are a lot of things that the majority of zoochatters would agree are not newsworthy, but get posted anyways by a handful of users who do, such as births and deaths of goats or other domestics with high turnover rates, or things that have already happened (i.e. I've seen a few posts for events or closures that occurred in the past- if it's ongoing I get it, but it isn't post worthy, at least in my view, if one wrote that "On Nov. 1, such-and-such zoo closed an exhibit, and it re-opened on Nov. 20")

I know other people might report on domestics, but I think you might be targeting me on this, so I'll just respond and say that I haven't been reporting on domestics as much anymore. If I do report on a domestic animal though, I make sure to clump it in with other news because it's still news that I know someone on the site might be interested in that. Also, I have posted the "closed an exhibit on date and reopened on another date" before I've stopped doing that.I'm only going to mention them from now on if major renovations/reconstruction happens.

We had the same problem in the Australasian forum a few years back and following a discussion, agreed minor news wouldn’t be reported on:

Examples of minor news include soft news (animal birthdays, pumpkins for Halloween), news from the petting zoo (the zoo has a new Guinea pig), zoo events (the zoo are holding a concert), changes to admission prices etc.

What constitutes as worth reporting on is indeed subjective, but in the Australasian forum, we use commonsense to identify what is or isn’t newsworthy before posting - and I’d say 99% of the time we succeed in doing so.

I appreciate the US forum is a more complex issue given the number of users and threads is far higher, but I do believe more people need to ask themselves “Does anyone care about what I’m posting?” before they post a news item. It’s not a big ask and benefits all concerned.

Most of what you are saying I agree with, and the question you state at the end there I do ask myself a lot when reporting on news that not everyone in the US forums would like.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

We had the same problem in the Australasian forum a few years back and following a discussion, agreed minor news wouldn’t be reported on

Funny thing.... I don't recall *any* of the admin/moderation team being made privy to these discussions aimed at deciding how an entire chunk of the forum (the original chunk of the forum, no less) should be managed

 

[Smaggledagle]

Is this discussion readable somewhere?

Seconded, I as well would love to know the thread you are referring to Zoofan.

 

[15399]

I know other people might report on domestics, but I think you might be targeting me on this, so I'll just respond and say that I haven't been reporting on domestics as much anymore. If I do report on a domestic animal though, I make sure to clump it in with other news because it's still news that I know someone on the site might be interested in that. Also, I have posted the "closed an exhibit on date and reopened on another date" before I've stopped doing that.I'm only going to mention them from now on if major renovations/reconstruction happens.

Nope, wasn't targeting any one specific zoochatter. Just a general observation in which I could name a handful of others that fit as well. Yes, I have found some of your posts to be frustrating. It's frustrating that the forum is cluttered with threads that for years have ONLY been updated with slew of facebook posts from you, and it's frustrating when news is reported so far after the fact it's not that pertinent any more, or reporting on the announcement of an animal's name. I also just generally feel that news posting (not discussion, but hard news), should be reserved primarily for those who visit the zoo (unless it's a particularly interesting article found, etc.) as those who visit a zoo often are more likely to understand what is important in regards to their specific zoo, not a keyboard warrior who might be halfway across the country or world. I understand some members disagree with me on this, however, and there's nothing forbidding anyone from dismissing that view. However, I could name a few other members (but won't since it's rude/disrespectful to pull them into this thread) who are equally (or more) frustrating, especially in regards to misinforming or misleading "news", passing off speculation as "news", etc. At least with your posts, while I sometimes find them to be excessive or unnecessary, they are accurate the vast majority of the time (albeit sometimes slightly misleading in regards to whether an animal was born at the zoo vs. acquired) so are far better than the times inaccurate or misleading information is given.

 

[Smaggledagle]

Nope, wasn't targeting any one specific zoochatter. Just a general observation in which I could name a handful of others that fit as well. Yes, I have found some of your posts to be frustrating. It's frustrating that the forum is cluttered with threads that for years have ONLY been updated with slew of facebook posts from you, and it's frustrating when news is reported so far after the fact it's not that pertinent any more, or reporting on the announcement of an animal's name. I also just generally feel that news posting (not discussion, but hard news), should be reserved primarily for those who visit the zoo (unless it's a particularly interesting article found, etc.) as those who visit a zoo often are more likely to understand what is important in regards to their specific zoo, not a keyboard warrior who might be halfway across the country or world. I understand some members disagree with me on this, however, and there's nothing forbidding anyone from dismissing that view. However, I could name a few other members (but won't since it's rude/disrespectful to pull them into this thread) who are equally (or more) frustrating, especially in regards to misinforming or misleading "news", passing off speculation as "news", etc. At least with your posts, while I sometimes find them to be excessive or unnecessary, they are accurate the vast majority of the time (albeit sometimes slightly misleading in regards to whether an animal was born at the zoo vs. acquired) so are far better than the times inaccurate or misleading information is given.

Yeah I'm kinda changing how I'm doing news, (this actually started in like late September to October) but for "minor news" (animal births that are either domestic or unspecified amount, like frogs or fish, random transfers/acquisitions, exhibit additions/removals, etc) I have been keeping a list so when some bigger piece of news comes up I will attach the smaller piece of news as well. Also with the misleading in regards to the animal being born than acquired, I thought about not reporting on it altogether but I ended up going through with it. The Pueblo Zoo in Colorado comes to mind, as they said that they have 2 new springbok, but didn't specify if they bred them or acquired them. In that situation I maybe mistakenly rolled the dice sort of speak and said they acquired them. In the future though, I'm planning on just asking them in the comments and reporting from that if I ever find myself in that situation.

 

[15399]

The Pueblo Zoo in Colorado comes to mind, as they said that they have 2 new springbok, but didn't specify if they bred them or acquired them. In that situation I maybe mistakenly rolled the dice sort of speak and said they acquired them. In the future though, I'm planning on just asking them in the comments and reporting from that if I ever find myself in that situation.

Or perhaps say just that, "the zoo announced they have two new springbok". No way of getting that one wrong, as it doesn't specify HOW they got the springbok.

 

[Great Argus]

Yeah I'm kinda changing how I'm doing news, (this actually started in like late September to October) but for "minor news" (animal births that are either domestic or unspecified amount, like frogs or fish, random transfers/acquisitions, exhibit additions/removals, etc) I have been keeping a list so when some bigger piece of news comes up I will attach the smaller piece of news as well.

Most of it is still unnecessary. Putting it in tiny type at the bottom is still posting it.

 

[Coelacanth18]

for "minor news" (animal births that are either domestic or unspecified amount, like frogs or fish, random transfers/acquisitions, exhibit additions/removals, etc) I have been keeping a list so when some bigger piece of news comes up I will attach the smaller piece of news as well.

Why not just leave these unreported? If people want minor news from a specific zoo's Facebook page they can go read the Facebook page themselves. That way news posts on here can be whittled down to only the bigger stuff, rather than having important pieces of news getting lost among a bunch of minor updates.

 

[Zoofan15]

Funny thing.... I don't recall *any* of the admin/moderation team being made privy to these discussions aimed at deciding how an entire chunk of the forum (the original chunk of the forum, no less) should be managed

Seconded, I as well would love to know the thread you are referring to Zoofan.

This is the discussion here. It began with myself having the half-baked idea of creating a thread for a minor news - with the intention of filtering out the crap from the main news threads.

Minor News from Australian Zoos 2017

@Chlidonias made a valid point that my approach at the time was too subjective on what qualified as newsworthy and indeed it was; but this advice was taken on board and I like to think I’ve since evolved to respect the interests of others, while maintaining my interest in mammals.

@MRJ also posted some helpful guidelines as to what would be considered newsworthy.

I continued to post a few items of drivel in this thread (animal birthdays etc) but in realising there was no interest in this content, the thread died a death.

I should clarify that claiming we “agreed minor news wouldn’t be reported on” is an exaggeration as no formal agreement was made - but people at the time nonetheless took the points on board and learnt from my mistakes - as evidenced by the fact we largely refrain from reporting on minor news in the Australasian forum.

 

[Smaggledagle]

Most of it is still unnecessary. Putting it in tiny type at the bottom is still posting it.

If you don't want to read the tiny text at the bottom, just don't read it? I have been moving away from using that and reporting that sort of news altogether, but sometimes I do add a small text to a temporary exhibit or something else that I think is kinda important and if you don't want to read it, just don't read it, it's that simple.

 

[Great Argus]

This is the discussion here. It began with myself having the half-baked idea of creating a thread for a minor news - with the intention of filtering out the crap from the main news threads.

Minor News from Australian Zoos 2017

@Chlidonias made a valid point that my approach at the time was too subjective on what qualified as newsworthy and indeed it was; but this advice was taken on board and I like to think I’ve since evolved to respect the interests of others, while maintaining my interest in mammals.

@MRJ also posted some helpful guidelines as to what would be considered newsworthy.

I continued to post a few items of drivel in this thread (animal birthdays etc) but in realising there was no interest in this content, the thread died a death.

I should clarify that claiming we “agreed minor news wouldn’t be reported on” is an exaggeration as no formal agreement was made - but people at the time nonetheless took the points on board and learnt from my mistakes - as evidenced by the fact we largely refrain from reporting on minor news in the Australasian forum.

Having read the discussion parts of the linked thread, it seems more like you are the main one implying and enforcing this - you seem to be implying you set the standard and the example for the Aussie subforum. I'm going to guess there's similar rules for your population threads as I've noticed only the OP posts actually news and updates.

If you don't want to read the tiny text at the bottom, just don't read it? I have been moving away from using that and reporting that sort of news altogether, but sometimes I do add a small text to a temporary exhibit or something else that I think is kinda important and if you don't want to read it, just don't read it, it's that simple.

This argument again? How many times do we have to say just leave it off?

 

[Smaggledagle]

This argument again? How many times do we have to say just leave it off?

You're the one who is getting heated over the fact I post like this on threads (which I haven't been doing a lot for this exact reason) so just stop complaining about it. I might do it every so often but it's not going to be a frequent occurrence.

 

[Zoofan15]

Having read the discussion parts of the linked thread, it seems more like you are the main one implying and enforcing this - you seem to be implying you set the standard and the example for the Aussie subforum.

As I said:

I should clarify that claiming we “agreed minor news wouldn’t be reported on” is an exaggeration as no formal agreement was made - but people at the time nonetheless took the points on board and learnt from my mistakes - as evidenced by the fact we largely refrain from reporting on minor news in the Australasian forum.

Though it’s not enforced by anyone, I have noticed people are quick to pull up new forum users who post trivial news - but as long as this is done is polite manner, I see no issue. I myself also use the report function.

Animal birthdays are worth noting if an animal has reached a notable age, but otherwise not really necessary.

I agree, but this is where commonsense comes in. An animal reaching a notable age (especially if it’s a record) is news worthy item in it’s own right that I hope the majority could distinguish from a soft news post about some otters celebrating their first birthday with a fish cake.

 

[pachyderm pro]

If you don't want to read the tiny text at the bottom, just don't read it? I have been moving away from using that and reporting that sort of news altogether, but sometimes I do add a small text to a temporary exhibit or something else that I think is kinda important and if you don't want to read it, just don't read it, it's that simple.

I said it before and I'll say it again, it's a matter of quality control. For example, whenever @snowleopard posts on a news thread I know something major is happening because that's he usually only reports significant new exhibits or species. I'm not saying every post needs to be a huge update, but I will say from experience that I tend to ignore your posts even for zoos I follow closely because I know from your history that it's likely something that isn't important. Nobody is going to bother taking you seriously as a source of news on this site if you keep posting these irrelevant little tidbits about animal birthdays or the death of a domestic pig (a recent example), some of which is from several months prior. I'll give you credit, I've skimmed your most recent posts and you have gotten better about this, but your seriously cluttering the US forums when they don't need to be.

 

[Smaggledagle]

I said it before and I'll say it again, it's a matter of quality control. For example, whenever @snowleopard posts on a news thread I know something major is happening because that's he usually only reports significant new exhibits or species. I'm not saying every post needs to be a huge update, but I will say from experience that I tend to ignore your posts even for zoos I follow closely because I know from your history that it's likely something that isn't important. Nobody is going to bother taking you seriously as a source of news on this site if you keep posting these irrelevant little tidbits about animal birthdays or the death of a domestic pig (a recent example), some of which is from several months prior. I'll give you credit, I've skimmed your most recent posts and you have gotten better about this, but your seriously cluttering the US forums when they don't need to be.

I want to point out that I only report on the animals age either if it's a big thing (50th, 100th) or when they pass away. I probably shouldn't have recorded the Kunekune pig death at the Virginia Zoo (I'm guessing that's the example you're referring to) until something more newsworthy came in so that's on me entirely.

I'm not here to fight but I also want to say if you think I'm cluttering the USA section, sorry you feel that way. That being said, I will continue doing these posts probably not as frequently and I will probably reflect and do even more slight changes, but I'm not going to 100% do everything everyone says unless I am told by a staff member I am forbidden to post news in the current way that I am.