Reza

ShiaChat has a policy against extremely long copy/paste posts. Either give a link or quote selected portions. This “text dump” is not fair to readers. The post in question is hidden.

ShiaChat has a policy against extremely long copy/paste posts. Either give a link or quote selected portions. This “text dump” is not fair to readers.

Yes, I’ve seen some lectures and speakers with a “shout from the rooftops” vibe. Loudness is a public speaking tool to project importance of subject, competence, and authority. Speakers know they’re being recorded, and to engage the audience, there is a need to exert oneself. Unfortunately it’s done too often, and some don’t know how to do it properly. We should distinguish “speeches” from “lectures”, with speeches reserved for special occasions and should have lots of emotion, and lectures more frequent, subdued, and leveled. Unfortunately, I find speakers not distinguishing these. Political rallies and classroom seminars are not the same style from one another.

It's in the presentation. Your post gives the appearance of authority and professional advising, when maybe that wasn't the intention. 1. Put a disclaimer upfront you're unmarried, and not a qualified matchmaker or counselor. I know it sounds redundant, but it always has to be done. 2. Phrase your opinions as rhetorical questions. Instead of the title being "Online platforms aren't the best for marriage", it could be "Are online platforms the best for marriage?". Your opinions can also be placed as questions. "Perhaps face to face communication is most ideal?", "Perhaps there's a chance people aren't serious on these sites?". By asking, not telling, members will think more, and it will show you as more open minded and inquisitive. 3. Use either statistical data, cite some authoritative source, or at the least, state our own anecdotal experiences. Those are always of value.

Got married through a website years ago, and I had experience with them back in the day. I have seen this many times. If it’s a long distance online communication, there’s often an extensive period before an in person meeting is considered. People want to make sure it’s worth the expense and effort, so this incentivizes more talking over this long trial period. Also, the ease of communication through text and messaging makes “intimacy” easier. I didn’t spend time talking with men in these sites, so I haven’t witnessed what you’re saying first hand. I have seen and talked with women who were not serious, “testing the waters”, and just seeing how much attention they could get. It was related to age. The younger ones were more likely to be like this, but less so for the older profiles.

Its graphics and visual style still hold up today, while many of the “realistic” looking games from that time period look quite ugly by today’s standards and aged poorly. Proof you have to take creative risks.

Thanks!

If there wasn’t an effort to name children “Ali” in the early days, just to keep the name alive, it may well have disappeared from history. So obviously it’s held quite tight. Who else Is going to?

Are you talking in terms of Shia center events? Published books? Lecture topics?

That's a classic.

The merging of subforums was a separate issue, way before the fluid view. We used to have too many subforums (40+), and it was too bloated for any average user to access most of them. Many became inactive, and you'd see the last post from a month ago! This was another shake up that some older members opposed, but it had to be done. If anyone thinks a new subforum is warranted and should be split from an existing one, they can propose that and prove its viability. But from my standpoint, this is a discussion forum, not a library or academic directory. Point #1 is plausible, but I didn't see any evidence for this, except for maybe sensitive issue topics. If anything, having everything together in fluid view increased a member's chances of opening a thread on a subject they wouldn't ordinarily seek, just because it was super convenient. Most people want their created thread to be viewed and replied as much as possible. Point #2 is also logical. However, clubs were designed with this in mind, and they aren't very active. Also, it's overwhelming to have too many choices of subforums. There are members here who post any topic, no matter what it is, in "General" or "Off Topic", because they don't want to spend a few seconds discerning where the best place is. They don't have the archivist mentality. Of course, my mind can change from any of my points above. Content and structure are separate issues, unless you think one influences the other. When a site structure is more accessible to more people, that could possibly lead to a diluted discussion. But it could also enhance it.

This was all on me. The fluid list layout was an exciting new feature, resembling the newsfeed style of modern sites like Reddit, Facebook, etc, which is how the internet is used today. The old table layout seemed like an outdated relic of the early 2000s, and opening each subforum separately was tedious, increasing the chances of topics being overlooked. Nonetheless, some older members had nostalgia for it and complained about the change, which was expected. That's the story of life. But most members, especially newly registered ones after the change, did not share much negative feedback as far as I know. The advantages you outlined were the reason. This change wasn't radical. The subforums were not eliminated, so the organized repository by category was still intact. It was just accessed differently. People were requesting an option between the styles, but I chose not to because it affected the placement of ads, and also I wanted everyone to share one common site experience. I also wanted to see how people would adapt to it, which I believe most people did. However, after reflection on this experiment, and since the ad situation got fixed, I decided to add the toggle between styles, so members can use what they want. Customization is another demand of the modern internet. Also, it's been noted to me that many forums ultimately have kept the traditional table format, likely because forums have entrenched conservative communities, who are often change resistant. Of course, we want the veterans to be happy, but we also need to adapt to attract new younger members, who may have different user preferences and expectations. So far this week, I'm finding myself still using the fluid view to see the new topics. I did this by consultation with others, but since I do the bulk of the site's tech work, most decisions were ultimately mine.

Had it recently. Spicy, but not bad.

No, because the site layout (ads, announcements, other boxes) are designed around the fluid view.

All new topics are immediately together and accessible on the front page. Much more convenient in one list. If we had 10x the amount of topics, and there was more need for separation among them, the old table view could be better. Otherwise, as with our volume now, having the front page be 20 folders you have to click and explore individually is a pain. Even so, the fluid view gives the option of filtering one or more subforums anyway, in case you don’t want the whole list (which isn’t that long to begin with). “Nostalgia” is not enough of an argument against the advantages stated above.