The Index Reloaded --- (Index of the Giant's Comments II)

[Jasdoif]

I think this whole thread is beginning to seem bemusing, to be honest. If the ideal scenario is that the Giant feels comfortable to post to his heart's content about this comic, then this thread isn't doing any favours. If the ideal scenario is to have a handy reference guide to all the canon established by Word of Giant as well as an alert for whenever the Giant does post, then this thread is the best way to go about it.

So, what's the ideal scenario?

I think the problem we're really having, is differing perspectives on the conflict between "handy" and "all the canon".

If every post the Giant ever makes is put into the Index, then the sheer volume of the Index makes it difficult to use and people will ask questions instead of looking something up because posting is easier. If only single quotes on subjects that are widely accepted to be questioned due to a lack of direct reference in the comic are included, the concentrated nature of the Index makes for a dearth of subject matter, and people will ask questions on the myriad of topics that can't be looked up.

Somewhere in the middle is the ideal scenario, coverage of multiple topics but still lean enough to make finding a particular topic easy. How exactly to define that mix between depth and brevity is the trick. Being a consensus-driven project, a vote is the most straight-forward concept towards resolving edge cases....But lately it seems like identifying edge cases is itself a trick; hence the nearly incessant voting recently.

I think it's the frequency of the voting that's at the heart of the issue here, not the existence of the voting process. Frankly, I get the feeling some of the participants here are uninterested in the stated purpose of the thread (as established in the guidelines in the first post), only their own opinion and criteria on whether a post should be included or not; and uninterested in discussion, starting a vote when they get tired of others talking amongst themselves.

On that last part, I'm going to quote our (overworked) thread maintainer:

No vote has been called, but it is always funny that they seem to happen anyways.

Just an FYI for future reference, we generally do not vote on stuff unless it is a point of contention, i.e. each side of the issue has a sizable group of supporters. Unless that sort of divide happens, suggestions can be turned down by reasoned discussion. Voting is sort of a last resort to achieve consensus, not an event that has to happen for every suggestion.

At the moment I see no need to vote because the suggestion only appears to have one or two supporters. Voting in this case will just clutter the thread.

But I have one more request: if you feel a vote should be called, please PM me explaining why. If the situation merits a vote, I will call a vote on it... but I may actually postpone the vote until there are several items to vote on (usually right before an index update) so that we vote on everything at once instead of holding ten seperate voting events before the update. Make sense? It will help keep things more organized. Also, by PMing me your suggestion in addition to posting it in the thread, you will ensure that it doesn't get forgotten or overlooked, as I will bring up your suggestion again before the next index update. I will do this even if everyone else ignored your suggestion! Win / win!

Cutting down on the number of votes called seems a better solution than changing how/if votes are done. Same overall process we have now, but used less often.

[137beth]

I vote to include the quote, to keep the current voting system, and to continue arguing about the current voting system and the criteria for inclusion.

[orrion]

If every post the Giant ever makes is put into the Index, then the sheer volume of the Index makes it difficult to use and people will ask questions instead of looking something up because posting is easier. If only single quotes on subjects that are widely accepted to be questioned due to a lack of direct reference in the comic are included, the concentrated nature of the Index makes for a dearth of subject matter, and people will ask questions on the myriad of topics that can't be looked up.

Yeah, the Index is already reaching the point that even if I know something is there I'm likely to reference it (and perhaps tell them to search here themselves) instead of linking it directly because it's quicker unless I know exactly where the quote I want is.

Topics like the illusion are difficult. I doubt it'll stop the threads from being created. A poster isn't likely to check this thread to see whether the Giant has something to say about it, and probably wouldn't care anyway. We'll just be able to refute their stance to everyone else more.. resoundingly, I guess? It's not like this a topic with vague evidence in-comic.

I like authorial word for clarifications and insights. I really don't see how the comic could have been more clear on this particular point. I know the quote's going to be included. I just dislike that it has to be.

[Jasdoif]

Voting will be open until Midnight EST.

I believe we're past that point.

Result was to include. 32 for, 6 against.

[Ceaon]

If every post the Giant ever makes is put into the Index, then the sheer volume of the Index makes it difficult to use and people will ask questions instead of looking something up because posting is easier.

This is an interesting notion. I'd like to expand on it.

Rule C: The index is a forum tool, meant primarily to provide easy access to direct statements from the author for the purpose of forum discussion. Thus, while the index may be fun to read through on a whim, this is not its primary purpose or focus - it is a research aid more than it is a trivia collection. It is for discussions more than it is for leisurely reading.

Which to me means that, when posters don't know that the Giant has provided an answer to a question they have, they are unlikely to look in this Index. So the Index isn't for them and it being cluttered is less of a problem.
However, when such posters then create a thread asking said question, the Index provides responders who DO know the Giant has provided an answer with a quick and easy way to give a (hopefully) definitive answer. Since they already know the answer is SOMEWHERE in the Index, it being cluttered isn't as big of a problem. This Index is nothing more than a watered-down to relevance, OotS-specific, well-edited subset of a Google search for all of the Giants post.
So we include all of the posts by the Giant that answer questions that have been asked a lot, that are expected to be asked in the future, or that provide interesting back-story that could be discussed.
Which brings me on why I don't find this thread creepy: we have this index not because we are stalking the Giant, or because we try to hold him to his word or nonsense like that, but because we think the comic he makes and the information he posts about it is worth discussing.

[factotum]

Am I the only one who misses the days when this thread bubbling up to the top of the forums meant there was a new quote from the Giant to look at?

[ChristianSt]

Topics like the illusion are difficult. I doubt it'll stop the threads from being created. A poster isn't likely to check this thread to see whether the Giant has something to say about it, and probably wouldn't care anyway. We'll just be able to refute their stance to everyone else more.. resoundingly, I guess? It's not like this a topic with vague evidence in-comic.

I don't think the Index (or even the Giant himself) can prevent topics from reappearing. Just look at the Zz'dtri scrying beacon from 698. There are even some forumites posting that in their signatures (which I personally find more annoying than helpful, but whatever) and still there are questions about it from time to time.

The only thing this thread imo can realistically do is to make it easier for others to say: "The answer is this, the Giant said it here."

On some topics it is probably not necessary to have that link, but I think it is better to provide the author's comment on it if available. Also it disables the need of paraphrasing the Giant's word which could lead to telephone gaming.

Also if I know there is a link, I would otherwise try to dig it up myself, which might be rather hard (because there is no forum search and finding something here with Google can be pretty hard sometimes). So instead of wasting unnecessary time I would like to be able to just use this thread for it. If I even don't know where exactly to look for it, I could just expand some spoilers (or quote/view page source) and do a text search for "illusion" in this case.

Which brings me on why I don't find this thread creepy: we have this index not because we are stalking the Giant, or because we try to hold him to his word or nonsense like that, but because we think the comic he makes and the information he posts about it is worth discussing.

Yeah, I think personally that Google link is creepier than the rest of this thread. (I personally would remove it from the OP)

I think this is not a collection on all the Giant says, but a collection of useful quotes that can help in discussions. Which even makes it easier for the Giant - because he doesn't need to chip in a 3rd time on the same topic, because others could provide the correct answer to stifle such threads earlier. This is a forum tool, just like the collection of vb-Code commands. Only difference is that this is constantly growing and it isn't that easy to figure out what we should include or not.

[ti'esar]

To be honest, I don't think the Giant's opinion of this thread is at all relevant to the matter at hand, so I'm not sure why people keep raising the question. The real issue is that a lot of people (in which I readily include myself) are dissatisfied with the voting, and particularly how much it's come to dominate the thread. I think it's basically become the default option for any quote that's even slightly disputed, and I think that the thread needs to back away from that extreme.

[D.KnightSpider]

Am I the only one who misses the days when this thread bubbling up to the top of the forums meant there was a new quote from the Giant to look at?

Nope.

I share the sentiment, but this is a community project at it's heart. There are going to be times when it requires a lot of community discussion. This is the Giantitp Forums after all. You can't expect anything else. We're all mad here.

[Kurald Galain]

Am I the only one who misses the days when this thread bubbling up to the top of the forums meant there was a new quote from the Giant to look at?

No, I just wanted to say something similar. Seriously, this thread has become way too meta. Let's have some more arguing over the proper way to argue about arguments, please

[Throknor]

To be honest, I don't think the Giant's opinion of this thread is at all relevant to the matter at hand, so I'm not sure why people keep raising the question. The real issue is that a lot of people (in which I readily include myself) are dissatisfied with the voting, and particularly how much it's come to dominate the thread. I think it's basically become the default option for any quote that's even slightly disputed, and I think that the thread needs to back away from that extreme.

The problem is "slightly". Even a single poster can belabor a point either way. Annoying as it can be voting is the last resort when one side won't yield and keeps reiterating the same point repeatedly over and over again.

Throw in that every third vote a new group comes along to argue between including everything ever said (which he specifically requested not be done) vs. another group wanting to cull everything that they think obvious via a new vote and yes, it does become a mess.

[Zherog]

The problem is "slightly". Even a single poster can belabor a point either way. Annoying as it can be voting is the last resort when one side won't yield and keeps reiterating the same point repeatedly over and over again.

If there's one person belaboring the minority view, and it's a clear minority view, my understanding is that ThePhantasm takes that into account and includes the quote.

Ideally, "votes" are only called when ThePhantasm is having a hard time getting a read on what the majority thinks. (And by all means, ThePhantasm, correct me if I'm wrong.)

That doesn't mean we can't improve the process. There's often room for improvement.

[Kish]

(which he specifically requested not be done)

Let me clarify first that I'm not contradicting Throknor, just using her/his comment as a jumping-off point to mention something that's been bothering me.

What Rich requested, specifically, was that the Index not record things he said that were not about OotS and that were not in the OotS forum. The sudden tide of, "Let's not include that!" that followed mystifies me; Rich was not ambiguous about what he didn't want included, and it wasn't "Catalog less of everything."

If people were gritting their teeth at what they perceived as a mountain of trivia being unduly immortalized but not speaking up because they considered the forum passion for recording all Rich's words unopposable before it became clear that Rich could actually say things and have them not recorded, then fair enough. But I'm getting the impression some people misunderstand Rich's request to be something like, "I want you to catalog a lot less; figure out what can go and cut the Index down to 25% of its current content."

[Fish]

I think this whole thread is beginning to seem bemusing, to be honest. If the ideal scenario is that the Giant feels comfortable to post to his heart's content about this comic, then this thread isn't doing any favours.

I disagree here. If the existence of this thread keeps Rich from having to post answers to the same questions over and over then it is of net benefit to him (at least I would like to think so). It's important that the forum know when a common question is definitively answered, and where the answer can be found. If I had my way we would err on the side of inclusion for any answer to anything that's come up in more than one debate. "What alignment is Vaarsuvius?" counts, as does "Did the illusion really end?" Note that I personally don't debate either question, but some do. Others I would not include on this basis are "What is the Elven system of government?" and "What is Haerta's backstory?"

My criteria isn't "do I think this is obvious?" That kind of thinking only leads to boasting and showboating and condescension. "I totally called that. See? I was right! What, you didn't get that?" No, my criteria is "Has this come up before? Is it likely to come up again?"

If there is a problem with gathering so many quotes that the work becomes burdensome or the Index becomes unwieldy, we deal with the specific problem as it arises, with whatever solution appears best. Frankly, having lots of ready answers seems like a good problem to have.

[NerdyKris]

The comments about not including his every post were about him posting in an Avatar The Last Airbender thread concerning his opinion on the plot, and someone wanting to add it to the index, I believe. If he's posting about the Order of the Stick, in the Order of the Stick forum, that's fine. What he didn't want was his every opinion on everything else being detailed.

The stuff about not overanalyzing everything he said was in a different thread, not this one.

Definitive statements about the plot/characters/artwork of Order of the Stick should be fine. It's when people are trying to make an index of anything he says that it crosses a line. And in this case, yes, the illusion thing is very much a direct statement about the comic's plot. There's nothing creepy about including that.

[Jasdoif]

If there's one person belaboring the minority view, and it's a clear minority view, my understanding is that ThePhantasm takes that into account and includes the quote.

Ideally, "votes" are only called when ThePhantasm is having a hard time getting a read on what the majority thinks. (And by all means, ThePhantasm, correct me if I'm wrong.)

That's my understanding as well.

What I'm curious about, is why a vote was called in this particular instance. A quick look/count over the relatively brief pre-vote discussion showed about 80% were favor of inclusion and 20% against. Is one-fifth a significant enough minority to warrant calling a vote?

[Tragak]

I disagree here. If the existence of this thread keeps Rich from having to post answers to the same questions over and over then it is of net benefit to him (at least I would like to think so). It's important that the forum know when a common question is definitively answered, and where the answer can be found...

If there is a problem with gathering so many quotes that the work becomes burdensome or the Index becomes unwieldy, we deal with the specific problem as it arises, with whatever solution appears best. Frankly, having lots of ready answers seems like a good problem to have.

This. Absolutely this.

[Dr. Gamera]

The comments about not including his every post were about him posting in an Avatar The Last Airbender thread concerning his opinion on the plot, and someone wanting to add it to the index, I believe.

You're kind to anonymize me as "someone", but while the post I had linked to included the Giant's opinion on Avatar: the Last Airbender, there was also a small point of interest about OOTS in it, which is why I linked it. Alas, I was unintentionally making the Giant feel as if I was stalking him, hence his reaction and the resulting guidelines for which comments of the Giant we should index.

[SaintRidley]

If it's about Order of the Stick and on this forum, I don't see any reason to bar it from inclusion. The whole voting thing seems ridiculous, given the above. Does it seem obvious? Sure, it might, but not everybody is as skilled at reading. Is it redundant? If it is truly and completely redundant, and offers absolutely no possible additional insight, then yeah, there might not be a need to include it. Does it contradict a previous quote? Keep them both. It's worthwhile to see what a creator's thoughts are at different points in the completion of the project, not just the most recent thoughts. But I think we should err very much on the side of inclusion.

[FujinAkari]

Does it contradict a previous quote? Keep them both. It's worthwhile to see what a creator's thoughts are at different points in the completion of the project, not just the most recent thoughts.

I would disagree with this thought. If the author has clarified his position, I would consider it disrespectful to make it easy to link to a post which the author has made clear isn't accurate.

This is doubly true when the author has actually -altered- his position.

[DaggerPen]

I'm all in favor of switching to a PM voting system. Heck, a separate thread just for voting would probably fill up pretty quick, but I doubt that's forum kosher.

[Jasdoif]

Does it contradict a previous quote? Keep them both. It's worthwhile to see what a creator's thoughts are at different points in the completion of the project, not just the most recent thoughts.

While I can understand how keeping entries to support a timeline could be interesting, the purpose of this thread is to provide answers to questions; and that being the case it's rather inconvenient to have conflicting answers. And then there's rule D, from the first post in this thread, which says we only keep the quote reflecting the most current answer if there's a conflict.

[Kalmegil]

I would disagree with this thought. If the author has clarified his position, I would consider it disrespectful to make it easy to link to a post which the author has made clear isn't accurate.

This is doubly true when the author has actually -altered- his position.

If the index contains a link that is marked as "old position," I don't see how it's disrespectful.

[FujinAkari]

If the index contains a link that is marked as "old position," I don't see how it's disrespectful.

The Giant has said that there are a number of things about the comic he wished he had never done and would undo if that were possible. The best he can do is to never make reference to them or repeat them.

I don't think he has ever made a statement as to how he would prefer us to handle situations which he no longer feels a specific sentiment, but I would presume he'd want us to stick to the same policy.

[The Linker]

If the index contains a link that is marked as "old position," I don't see how it's disrespectful.

Yes, I agree. Or add the older position as a footnote to the newer quote. 'His previous, now-superseded thoughts on the matter: [link]' or some such. That's a really clumsy way of putting it but that's the general idea.

[SaintRidley]

See, Rule D is a rule I wouldn't have if I were curating this thread, but that's just me. It might be attributable to my interests as a scholar, but the "timeline" as you put it is directly interesting because it can give some context to events in the comic when they were posted, as opposed to pretending that Rich is and has always been this monolithic figure with only the most recently expressed opinion.

Which I guess is where I differ from Fujin. I see the inclusion of past, no longer held opinions as highly respectful to Rich because it doesn't sweep his past opinions under the rug as if they had never existed. It acknowledges his own evolution as a person with thoughts. Not including them seems disrespectful, in fact, because it makes Rich out to be static and unchanging, without the agency to actually take matters into account and alter his opinions.

[oppyu]

I disagree here. If the existence of this thread keeps Rich from having to post answers to the same questions over and over then it is of net benefit to him (at least I would like to think so). It's important that the forum know when a common question is definitively answered, and where the answer can be found. If I had my way we would err on the side of inclusion for any answer to anything that's come up in more than one debate. "What alignment is Vaarsuvius?" counts, as does "Did the illusion really end?" Note that I personally don't debate either question, but some do. Others I would not include on this basis are "What is the Elven system of government?" and "What is Haerta's backstory?"

I don't know about the Giant, but if there was a thread on this forum devoted to archiving every post I make and then bringing up said posts whenever the relevant topic was discussed, I would not post ever. Especially if people kept touting my answers as definitive proof for or against anything. I'd probably become a fervent believer in Death of the Author literary critique, simply because it's less pressure.

[FujinAkari]

I don't know about the Giant

I do know about the Giant, and he considers this thread incredibly useful :P

[ti'esar]

The problem is "slightly". Even a single poster can belabor a point either way. Annoying as it can be voting is the last resort when one side won't yield and keeps reiterating the same point repeatedly over and over again.

The thing is, it seems like voting is not being used as a last resort but as a first option. I wasn't in favor of including the illusion quote, but it seemed pretty clear that a majority of people were. There was no real need to spend several pages voting on it to determine that.

[The Linker]

See, Rule D is a rule I wouldn't have if I were curating this thread, but that's just me. It might be attributable to my interests as a scholar, but the "timeline" as you put it is directly interesting because it can give some context to events in the comic when they were posted, as opposed to pretending that Rich is and has always been this monolithic figure with only the most recently expressed opinion.

Indeed; many of Rich's views have changed over the years, but when you're discussing an aspect about strip 150 that relates to subject X, his views on subject X at the time he wrote strip 150 are going to be more relevant than his views on subject X at the time he was writing Tarquin and the Order of the Stick fighting in the desert.