World News closed: Entertainment News still open.

[ubonjoe]

31 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Now get rid of the outdated side bar nonsense.

 

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Exactly. Why are we still seeing references to Biden threads?

Look at the bottom of the page for this and select the one that is selected in this screen grab.

 

[polpott]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Exactly. Why are we still seeing references to Biden threads?

There aren't. Click on "Theme" at the bottom of the page. Select "copy". Back out, go into theme again and click back onto default. Sorted.

[puchooay]

On 4/9/2021 at 6:26 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Why should TVF kow tow to the younger demographic? I have zero interest in youth oriented channels on tv, and would never watch them because IMO they cater for the lowest common denominator, and are quite annoying.

The main poster demographic on TVF IMO would be older male farangs, as they are the main farangs living in LOS, and TVF is  mainly about THAILAND topics. World news was just one of many subforums, though probably the most interesting one, and I certainly spent more time on it than all the rest put together.

Personally, if TVF became a youth oriented website I can't see it surviving in the current format at all, though the subforums dealing with Thai information and DIY etc might survive in some other forum. I can't be the only reader that finds youth oriented media tedious and boring. There are already plenty of forums that cater for the younger demographic, and I can't see how subforums that advise posters where to find the best pizza in Pattaya could even be made more interesting for younger people not actually living in LOS.

That's funny. Reminds me of the comment by that old lady at the time of decimalisation of the UK currency. She said "why can't they wait for all the old people to die before they change it?".( or words to the effect)

 

Your post is exactly the same, especially as the poster you are answering was speaking of the future.

 

If you don't attract younger people now, who will read this forum when the older generation are no longer here?

[katana]

Well, whatever reason the World News section really was purged for, its banishment must make the Mods' life a lot easier with less time having to be spent policing the arguments and heated discussions there. ????

[ozimoron]

There is another possible explanation. The world news forum was never germane to the forum's mission. Search engines index everything forever and frequently come back to check that those old posts are still there so they can keep their index up to date. The traffic from these bots is huge. If it's true that the world news forum had so many posts it may have made up a disproportionate number of the total posts on TV and so a lot of the bot traffic would be tracking the world news. The cost of serving up that content to bots is not insignificant.

[mikebike]

On 4/8/2021 at 6:42 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

If they do reconsider, I hope it's not a return to the same situation, which IMO was not satisfactory for anyone with the "wrong" opinions.

Before it was closed, IMO most with "conservative" opinions just stopped posting, or drastically reduced their contribution, and that, IMO applied to everything from Trump to climate change.

Somehow you confuse "wrong" with "minority"... Interesting.

[Cryingdick]

17 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO TVF is primarily a web site for people living in LOS that need information about stuff like visas and marriage / divorce in LOS etc. I don't see how it can become "innovative" and still deliver that content. I use the "where is the best pizza in Pattaya" thread as an example of what seems to be in demand on the local subforums.

You seem to be advocating that it becomes something completely different, which may allow the ad generating content to carry on, but it won't be TVF any more, IMO.

The probably longest running thread is on The Pub, but it might have not lasted very long if catering to a different demographic.

If TVF goes "young" it's just another thing lost to my generation in an unfriendly world.

 

Interesting that you use facethingy as an example of what to aspire to- IMO it's the most vile thing ever inflicted on humanity, and if it's a choice between that and ending I'd prefer ending. I certainly would never have joined a web site like that, and I don't think I'm alone in that viewpoint.

 

You are missing the point that if there is no change the site wojn’t exist and everything you want becomes a moot point.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, puchooay said:

That's funny. Reminds me of the comment by that old lady at the time of decimalisation of the UK currency. She said "why can't they wait for all the old people to die before they change it?".( or words to the effect)

 

Your post is exactly the same, especially as the poster you are answering was speaking of the future.

 

If you don't attract younger people now, who will read this forum when the older generation are no longer here?

Presumably the same people that started reading TVF decades ago- tourists that love LOS ( that's how I started reading TVF ) and expats.

The internet is littered with sites that allow young people to post about things they find interesting. I doubt any will be interested in how to wire a house in Thailand, or where to find the best pizza in Pattaya.

 

BTW, I haven't seen any suggestions as to HOW TVF could change without becoming a completely different sort of web site and losing all the Thai information subforums.

 

I used to post on Lonely Planet Thailand subforum till a new crowd of moderators tried to change it to a more kumbayah sort of place and most of the regulars that actually knew about Thailand left, and last time I looked it was so bad it was pathetic. The vibrant community of Thailand lovers had virtually vanished. The same could happen to TVF.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

You are missing the point that if there is no change the site wojn’t exist and everything you want becomes a moot point.

Not at all. Given that the world news was virtually a no go area for me, and the site was already so boring for someone no longer living in LOS I had considered drastically reducing my time on it anyway. So whether it exists or not really doesn't come into it for me.

That really is the point, isn't it? TVF exists mainly for expats living in LOS and tourists wanting to visit, so what would replace that?

World news and all that were just an add on, but not what TVF was about, IMO

 

BTW, I've seen nothing as to what the TVF of the future would deal with, and I have a hard time visualizing TVF rejigged for a younger demographic. 

Perhaps those posters so enthusiastic for change have some suggestions that they can share with us. If not I have to assume they don't know any more than I.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

You are missing the point that if there is no change the site wojn’t exist and everything you want becomes a moot point.

You know that it won't exist because?

Change for the sake of change has made the world a much worse place than it has to be, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, mikebike said:

Somehow you confuse "wrong" with "minority"... Interesting.

5555555555555555555

Not a "minority" at all, but for reasons that can't be put on here didn't post.

[ozimoron]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Change for the sake of change has made the world a much worse place than it has to be, IMO.

 

I don't believe there has ever been any change for the sake of change. Human driven change only occurs because there is a need, never any other reason. What you are really trying to say is that you don't like change. That's why conservatives are called what they are.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I don't believe there has ever been any change for the sake of change. Human driven change only occurs because there is a need, never any other reason. What you are really trying to say is that you don't like change. That's why conservatives are called what they are.

LOL.

A previous PM of NZ tried to change the national flag just "because". After wasting millions on a referendum he had to abandon the idea. In some cases a majority doesn't want change for the sake of change-are they all "conservatives"?

 

Anyway, what's wrong with being conservative?

 

I have no problem with change for genuine reasons eg banning slavery, and child labour, but a lot of change now does not fall into that category.

 

Human driven change only occurs because there is a need, never any other reason.

Are you saying obesity and facethingy are a "need". They are both a human driven change.

Edited April 11, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Anyway, what's wrong with being conservative?

 

I have no problem with change for genuine reasons eg banning slavery, and child labour, but a lot of change now does not fall into that category.

 

Nothing, just own the description. I think you'll find that many of your changes that you believe were made for "no reason" are based on conservative opinion and that many people supported that change. You just happen to not agree with the change.

[mikebike]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

A previous PM of NZ tried to change the national flag just "because".

The "because" is that it is a virtual clone of the Aussie flag and he believed people would like some differentiation... rarely is change "just because" even if you or I are not aware of the actual reason someone suggests change.

[puchooay]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Presumably the same people that started reading TVF decades ago- tourists that love LOS ( that's how I started reading TVF ) and expats.

The internet is littered with sites that allow young people to post about things they find interesting. I doubt any will be interested in how to wire a house in Thailand, or where to find the best pizza in Pattaya.

 

BTW, I haven't seen any suggestions as to HOW TVF could change without becoming a completely different sort of web site and losing all the Thai information subforums.

 

I used to post on Lonely Planet Thailand subforum till a new crowd of moderators tried to change it to a more kumbayah sort of place and most of the regulars that actually knew about Thailand left, and last time I looked it was so bad it was pathetic. The vibrant community of Thailand lovers had virtually vanished. The same could happen to TVF.

Tourists are not young? At what age did these people start reading TV "decades ago"? If it is the same bunch that read it now, would they have not been young "decades ago"?

 

How old is young?  Why would a young ( not sure how old this would be) person not be interested in wiring a house or a pizza?

 

I guess what you mean to say is, you don't want young people who are interested in different things or have different opinions to you joining TV.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, mikebike said:

The "because" is that it is a virtual clone of the Aussie flag and he believed people would like some differentiation... rarely is change "just because" even if you or I are not aware of the actual reason someone suggests change.

In your opinion. In the opinion of a majority it is fine just the way is.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, puchooay said:

Tourists are not young? At what age did these people start reading TV "decades ago"? If it is the same bunch that read it now, would they have not been young "decades ago"?

 

How old is young?  Why would a young ( not sure how old this would be) person not be interested in wiring a house or a pizza?

 

I guess what you mean to say is, you don't want young people who are interested in different things or have different opinions to you joining TV.

That's what I said, if you read it properly. The present posters might have joined up when considerably younger, which is what I did.

 

How many young people do you know that want to know where to buy a pizza in Pattaya when they don't live there?

 

I have no reason to not want young people to join, as long as the forum doesn't abandon it's primary purpose of being a resource for those living in or visiting Thailand to cater for them. You made that up.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

Nothing, just own the description. I think you'll find that many of your changes that you believe were made for "no reason" are based on conservative opinion and that many people supported that change. You just happen to not agree with the change.

Own what exactly? I've never claimed to be other than conservative in life, if not in politics.

Many of the changes that have been made since WW2 have been disastrous for the environment, and the primary motivation of business now seems to be making a profit rather than serving humanity.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Own what exactly? I've never claimed to be other than conservative in life, if not in politics.

Many of the changes that have been made since WW2 have been disastrous for the environment, and the primary motivation of business now seems to be making a profit rather than serving humanity.

 

Sorry, I thought you were dodging the label. I agree entirely that many changes have been disastrous for the environment but they weren't made for "no reason". They were made to make money. Would that changes were only made to serve humanity. Scientists were saying 50 years ago that continuing to burn fossil fuels would be disastrous for the environment. All that did was prompt fossil fuel companies to spend money on misinformation and donate to corrupt politicians.

 

Back on topic, I think the removal of the world news section was made to save money.

[7by7]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Many of the changes that have been made since WW2 have been disastrous for the environment, and the primary motivation of business now seems to be making a profit rather than serving humanity.

 

Since WWII? No. 'Twas ever thus; even before the Industrial Revolution, but more so since.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Back on topic, I think the removal of the world news section was made to save money.

Perhaps, but I doubt we'll ever know.

It's going to be an expensive mistake if they discover that most only came on to look at world news, as I did, even if I virtually stopped posting on it. The number of active posters is not necessarily indicative of the number of viewers.

 

I think there is more to it than just cost. Due to the conduct of some posters I had been expecting some major changes to take place, though closing it completely had not seemed a likely option to me. I know a lot of other posters were very dissatisfied with the situation, and most, like me, just stopped posting on it, with perhaps an occasional post now and then.  Many posters that had been quite prolific vanished ( perhaps for good ) during the last year before the last US election. Eliminating a sizable number of posters is not IMO conducive to selling advertising.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps, but I doubt we'll ever know.

It's going to be an expensive mistake if they discover that most only came on to look at world news, as I did, even if I virtually stopped posting on it. The number of active posters is not necessarily indicative of the number of viewers.

 

I think there is more to it than just cost. Due to the conduct of some posters I had been expecting some major changes to take place, though closing it completely had not seemed a likely option to me. I know a lot of other posters were very dissatisfied with the situation, and most, like me, just stopped posting on it, with perhaps an occasional post now and then.  Many posters that had been quite prolific vanished ( perhaps for good ) during the last year before the last US election. Eliminating a sizable number of posters is not IMO conducive to selling advertising.

 

On the other hand, after reading world news for months I finally joined and started posting on it about a week before it was removed. Somehow I get the feeling that you weren't enjoying push back from posters who didn't agree with you.

[mikebike]

41 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In your opinion. In the opinion of a majority it is fine just the way is.

Not my opinion, the opinion of the P.M. Just because you didn't know his reason, or didn't agree, does not mean there wasn't a reason... Strange assumption on your part.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Since WWII? No. 'Twas ever thus; even before the Industrial Revolution, but more so since.

Due to things invented during WW2 life began to change quite quickly after it was over. The first operational electrically operated computer was invented to break Enigma, and that started probably the largest change in human behavior ever. Also major advances in aircraft eg the jet engine.

It's got to the stage where it seems new inventions are obsolete even before they are taken up in significant numbers. IMO hydrogen is going to replace battery cars even before they become universal, no doubt to Elon's disappointment.

[ozimoron]

There is greater sensitivity lately by corporations who are reluctant to advertise on sites which contain controversial or extreme views. I believe this, together with the cost of serving up traffic not germane to their core business is the reason the section was withdrawn.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Not my opinion, the opinion of the P.M. Just because you didn't know his reason, or didn't agree, does not mean there wasn't a reason... Strange assumption on your part.

My opinion of Key is not appropriate to post on here, but this is all off topic anyway, so that's it from me concerning flags.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

On the other hand, after reading world news for months I finally joined and started posting on it about a week before it was removed. Somehow I get the feeling that you weren't enjoying push back from posters who didn't agree with you.

It wasn't the other posters per se, but I can't explain further without writing about that which is forbidden to discuss.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

There is greater sensitivity lately by corporations who are reluctant to advertise on sites which contain controversial or extreme views. I believe this, together with the cost of serving up traffic not germane to their core business is the reason the section was withdrawn.

That wouldn't surprise me.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That wouldn't surprise me.

 

Or me and I support that "woke" attitude.