I admit I'm not a regular visitor but I do visit from time to time and reading posts like these and not spotting them make me scratch my head:

"I am also not complaining about length qua word count.On the contrary, I fondly recall an attorney on this forum writing an extensive and erudite post about using QRS software to work up a case for trial. The depth of the article caused me to think hard about features and limitations of QRS for my professional applications. To be sure, I read the posts on this forum to get a dose for my addiction to outliner software, but at the same time, I obtain essential information that enables me to work better.This attorney had lots to say; ergo the length of his post was appropriate.

Although I should think that I ought not have to expand on what I mean about “off-topic,” your post causes me to do so. On this forum, we have had extensive discussions about mind-mapping software, note-taking software, task-recording software, book-writing software, citation software, idea-generating software, bibliography software, spelling & grammar checking software, word processors, PIMs and other software related to thinking and writing. We have also had extensive discussions about the theories and principles underlying these products. We have also had some short tutorials about using this software. For example, I am awaiting your tutorial on using CT to code pdf files. Accordingly, a poster really has to move far afield to be off-topic on this forum."

Have I been living under a rock and missing these extensive discussions about the theories and principles underlying these projects that are so extensive and erudite that they are more appropriate than any random long post that's considered rambling and incoherent?

I don't mean to insult anyone here. There's certainly been discussions in this forum but I believe I made a similar statement before stating how I felt most of the conversation is leaning towards outliners and maybe more recently, there's been more focus on the old basic views of outliners such as one pane vs. two pane instead of more extensive features that make each outliner unique.

If anyone can kindly share all these "worthy of length" posts in one major set of links, I would be deeply thankful.

I apologize if my request come off insincere but I really haven't spotted enough of these so called threads to really get what the whole hubbub is all about with regards to what is exposition and what isn't. It not only sounds pedantic but more than that, it sounds like the community has this treasure trove of knowledge that they are keeping from a more ignorant newbie that are of greater worth than the topics that can be initially glimmered by a person who signed up right now and being one of those ignorant visitors, I'd rather have these links be layed out in one easy to spot topic rather than interspersed across the forum only to be exposed when someone is offended by a name like Proust.

In a forum called outlinersoftwareI don't see a particular problem if "most of the conversation is leaning towards outliners". I also do not find that the value of posts is correlated with their length, either proportionally or inversely.

The current forum dates back to 2006. The original, outliners.com was started by Dave Winer in 1999. I was a latecomer to that and stayed ever since with some periods of absence due to intense work etc. The programs discussed have not always been of my direct interest, but the discussions themselves have. I have learnt a lot about how people organise information in relation to their work and daily life. I have also realised that the information management challenge exists in all disciplines, from craftmanship to spirituality.

I don't want to point to any specific thread in particular, though I do have my (many) favourites; "interesting" is something very subjective. What I would suggest is that you do a search on this forum with some terms of your own interest. I believe you'll be surprised at what you'll find.

That said, I think that our conversations would benefit from more extensive cross-referencing. Quite a few times we start a new thread on a topic that has been discussed in the past; continuity would probably support deeper insights.

Chris, any chance of "related threads" functionality?

True and you are not one of the complainants to my knowledge.

The complaints however are arguing on the principle that there is an objective model of determining what you yourself state as subjective and that they can decipher not only necessary value from it but also such subjective perceptions as manners, clarity, ramblings and non-ramblings.

This in part could be said as a flaw relating to "most of the conversation is leaning towards outliners" not because outlinersoftware.com isn't about outliners but that outliners have moved on but no one knows where. At least I don't know where and I'd like to find out where that line is moving.

For example, the statement about QRS. I don't know about you but even Google doesn't hint at there being some major paradigm shift in QRS thanks specifically to an outliner. In comparison the Proust post was an extension of a discussion with regards to the basic general concept of an outliner but limited towards questioning two pane and one pane outliners. An outdated basic model that have been modified by variants such as folding found in Workflowy, the Brainstorm way of inputting data, the stacks style of browsers such as Opera, Outliner3d, Goalscape...even mindmaps are an outdated meta-category for mindmaps.

...and yet despite the forum still constantly struggling with moving on from the one pane/two pane/spreadsheet only type of data in general conversations, we find out that there is and has been in fact a mysterious set of methods that are objectively superior such as the so called blog posts that were linked or the so called erudite posts that are actually good for business vs. bad for business or the tangible contributions of outliners towards QRS and as you say spirituality that to my bare eyes as a visitor I have never really spotted.

Speaking of search:

Search phrase: QRS
Message matches (2 found)
Where are all these quality topics that are being buried by long ramblings? - Foolness
Proust - reverendmartian

Message matches (3 found)
Where are all these quality topics that are being buried by long ramblings? - Alexander Deliyannis
Why do you CRIMP? - Alexander Deliyannis
Organizing vs. searching - Paulo Diniz
outliners.com archive matches (2 found)
Re: Absent Hoisting or a Deeper Problem; A Question about Id - sub
Re: Zoot - daly_de_gagne

I'm sorry but these to a lay man aren't objective topics where one can easily say, hey this topic will definitely help not only I but everyone in business versus hey this topic is getting away with making me improve my business and it shouldn't belong. It is rambling.

I'm not getting any clues from searches.

I really don't understand the point of this argument. Are you trying to convince me that the forum didn't have interesting threads before Proust was mentioned? In this respect, I already said that I've been following it for many years, so it should be quite obvious that I myself have found something of value here.

Similarly, from my part, I cannot convince you that the forum has a long range of threads of high value. I simply suggested an approach that could have lead to your finding something that might suit you.

Hi F.

If anyone can kindly share all these “worthy of length” posts in one major set of links, I would be deeply thankful.

Who defines what these "worthy" posts are? And who should take the time to find out for you (not knowing what you consider "worthy")?
Why don't you do what the rest of us here does: Go through the threads, use Google search or the forum search.

It not only sounds pedantic but more than that, it sounds like the community has this treasure trove of knowledge that they are keeping from a more ignorant newbie that are of greater worth than the topics that ....

Ahm. Who is hiding a treasure trove of knowledge from you (or whoever)? It's all there. Just go and see for yourself. There are no hidden threads or something.

For example, the
statement about QRS. I don't know about you but even Google doesn't hint at there being
some major paradigm shift in QRS thanks specifically to an outliner.

Who said there was a major paradigm shift in QRS? And that this paradigm shift (if there was one) has sth. to do with this forum?

...and yet despite the forum still constantly
struggling with moving on from the one pane/two pane/spreadsheet only type of data in
general conversations, we find out that there is and has been in fact a mysterious set
of methods that are objectively superior such as the so called blog posts that were
linked or the so called erudite posts that are actually good for business vs. bad for
business or the tangible contributions of outliners towards QRS and as you say
spirituality that to my bare eyes as a visitor I have never really spotted.

What are you talking about? Mysterious set of methods? Spirituality?

And you complain about others "rambling"?

Good night, Franz
p.s. Don't misunderstand me. I also think that Fredy was rambling endlessly.

Alexander, to convince you that "the forum didn’t have interesting threads before Proust was mentioned" would be to raise Proust above other posts which is just as bad as those who raise other posts as being superior to the Proust post.

Who defines what posts are worthy? Obviously the answer lies in posters who put worth in other people's posts. It is disingenuous to not know the answer to this when a quoted example of such a post is in the very first post of this topic.

Who should take the time? Is English of such poor quality in forums nowadays that the tone of a request is different from the tone of a command? English isn't my native language but why would someone take the time to command someone and then thank them before their commands have been delivered?

But worse I think is the elitist attitude of it is all there. I hadn't realized this forum had an elitist attitude.

The forum topics I have read where those of posters who would help other posters looking for software recommendations. Sometimes even sharing and contrasting theories with them.

This was especially helpful and unique in this forum as many veterans would share not so well known software names to those who didn't dig up old threads. Apparently today it is all "out there". There are no hidden threads. There are no mysterious methods despite new blog posts on outlining being brought up such as the recent tags as context article. Not only this, Franz, but for a person recommending using search might I suggest learning how to use search yourself. If you had use the search in page functionality available to your browser you would have easily spotted the words spirituality not come out of this username alone and you would have easily understood why it was no rambling.

I really don't mean to be snarky but my patience wears thin. This used to be a much better and much neutral forum. A forum where one isn't merely expected to "search". A forum where posters rarely look down on other posters. While all good things do end, I am not a fan of the speed such recent forum posts have been declining. 2nd user account reply and already there's this communication failure of "And you complain about others “rambling”?" and "Are you trying to convince me that the forum didn’t have interesting threads before Proust was mentioned?"

On posters who by the early paragraphs of their post understood that I was seeking something and not arguing for anyone no less.

Foolness wrote:

I really don't mean to be snarky but my patience wears thin.
This used to be a much better and much neutral forum. A forum where one isn't merely
expected to "search". A forum where posters rarely look down on other posters. While
all good things do end, I am not a fan of the speed such recent forum posts have been
declining.

===================
I, Cassius, completely agree with the above.

I recall the existence of a pithy quote that is rather appropriate to this discussion. Regrettably, I cannot find the exact quote so I shall have to paraphrase it and, in doing so, violate its substance:

An truly erudite individual has no need for obfuscatory exposition. Simple exposition will clearly demonstrate his/her erudition and clarity of thought.

This forum has done just fine over the years. I've learned so many things from the smart, generous people who share their knowledge and enthusiasm for this branch of software. We even have an amazing tolerance for talk about Proust, although we do prefer it if the point were made a little more pithily.

I just hope those people who do not find this forum meets their standards will realize that the web is a big place and that they can probably find a forum that does satisfy their needs.

Steve Z

Foolness wrote:

But worse I think is the elitist attitude of it is all there. I
hadn't realized this forum had an elitist attitude.

Neither did I. In fact, I believe it doesn't. Elitism goes hand in hand with unintelligibility. Therefore, I believe that Cassius' call for brevity and clarity is just the opposite of elitism: it supports making all contributions accessible by this forum's broader audience.

The forum topics I have read
where those of posters who would help other posters looking for software
recommendations. Sometimes even sharing and contrasting theories with them.

As far as I can tell, this remains this forum's core theme. It certainly is the main idea behind my following it and contributing to it. And, after 8 years in it, I still hear new recommendations, including of software that I have known for ages but not realised its full potential, e.g. like Natara Bonsai.

This was especially helpful and unique in this forum as many veterans would share
not so well known software names to those who didn't dig up old threads.

I believe that if you go just a few sets of articles back (i.e. via the ">" link), which is less than a month ago, you will find several threads referencing software than has been discussed many times in the past here. There has never been a 'final word' on any piece of software as far as I know, not even on ADM which is long dead and buried deep in the ground by its maker himself.

What I more and more believe would be useful (I mentioned this already, I know), is a functionality to suggest related threads from the near and long past. Not so much to avoid repetition, but mostly to bring up complementary opinions and experiences of the same software. For example, I recall that Stephen Diamond had written quite a bit on Maxthink. Since this software was mentioned recently, bringing up the older posts would benefit those interested in it.

This can be done manually, and I have tried at times to do such cross-referencing, but though my memory is strong, my recall is limited. By chance, I have later found even posts of my own which I didn't recall during relevant discussions.

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

Chris, any chance of "related threads"
functionality?

There's always a chance. ;-) I'll have to see if there is an easy way to do this based on the actual text content of the thread or if we could get by with just linking application names to a search (for example, automatically link "MaxThink" everywhere it occurs to a search of the forum for MaxThink).