# RANT: I hate season long threads



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

I know we've had this discussion before and people not using single episode threads is what drove me away from this section for a long time. Last night I had a question about The 100 but came here to see it only has a season long thread.

They are SOOOO counter to what a forum is all about I really can't understand people who like/use them. I wish you all could realize how stupid they are.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

OK. I promise never to make a season long thread, ever.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I know we've had this discussion before and people not using single episode threads is what drove me away from this section for a long time. Last night I had a question about The 100 but came here to see it only has a season long thread.
> 
> They are SOOOO counter to what a forum is all about I really can't understand people who like/use them. I wish you all could realize how stupid they are.


I hear ya... but if you tried to do episode threads for some shows that have rather low viewership, you'd end up with like 2-3 posts in each thread.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I hear ya... but if you tried to do episode threads for some shows that have rather low viewership, you'd end up with like 2-3 posts in each thread.


What's the problem with that?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

I agree. I really hate when someone starts a season thread after the first episode without even seeing how much discussion the show will generate.


----------



## generaltso (Nov 4, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I know we've had this discussion before and people not using single episode threads is what drove me away from this section for a long time. Last night I had a question about The 100 but came here to see it only has a season long thread.
> 
> They are SOOOO counter to what a forum is all about I really can't understand people who like/use them. I wish you all could realize how stupid they are.


I couldn't agree more. When I see a season long thread, I immediately know that's a thread I won't be able to participate in. I don't even understand how to use a season long thread. If I'm behind on a show, how would I go into the thread without seeing spoilers of later episodes? Makes no sense to me and drives me nuts.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

IndyJones1023 said:


> *I know we've had this discussion before *and people not using single episode threads is what drove me away from this section for a long time. Last night I had a question about The 100 but came here to see it only has a season long thread.
> 
> They are SOOOO counter to what a forum is all about I really can't understand people who like/use them. I wish you all could realize how stupid they are.


Is that why you didn't necro the other threads?  The arguments pro/con are the same and its unlikely to change for that reason.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

generaltso said:


> I don't even understand how to use a season long thread. If I'm behind on a show, how would I go into the thread without seeing spoilers of later episodes? Makes no sense to me and drives me nuts.


What's to understand? You find out the air date of the episode just after the last episode you watched, and read only the posts prior to that date.


----------



## generaltso (Nov 4, 2003)

john4200 said:


> What's to understand? You find out the air date of the episode just after the last episode you watched, and read only the posts prior to that date.


Does all conversation about the prior episode stop when another episode airs? Then when I watch the next episode, I should look for a starting date to see where I left off and make sure to stop reading before I hit the date of the next episode's airing? I'm failing to see how this is easier than individual episode threads. At least then you can just hit the First Unread button and not have to worry about spoilers.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> What's the problem with that?


The threads *very* rapidly die and get buried. After a couple of weeks of thread starters talking to themselves, it gets very old, leading to people giving up even starting threads.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I know we've had this discussion before and people not using single episode threads is what drove me away from this section for a long time. Last night I had a question about The 100 but came here to see it only has a season long thread.
> 
> They are SOOOO counter to what a forum is all about I really can't understand people who like/use them. I wish you all could realize how stupid they are.


I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

(In other words, +1000)


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I hate the threads that start off like "I can't believe there isn't a thread about this already."


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Gee, if only this were Usenet, and we could have a message thread per episode.....


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

I think there is a place for both. For some types of shows, ep threads are the way to go. Shows with lots of buzz, shows that generate lots of posts, serial dramas, reality shows with enough viewers to warrant, etc. This can be sitcoms or dramas.

For other shows, it's either a season thread or no thread. Let's take Californication. I just started the season thread a few days ago. It will be the only way there is a thread at all. And even then, there may be weeks at a time with no posts. But when you do have something to say, you have a place to say it. 

Or 2 Broke Girls. I start the season thread every year. It has modest activity, and without it, there might be 1 or 2 eps that get a thread, but mostly not. Or worse, someone would create an episode thread, and others, desperate for a place to post, will start posting about other episodes in it. See Silicon Valley for an example.

As to the timeliness, most posts are made within a week of airing. Look at the popular threads (GoT, for example), 90%+ of all posts are made before the next episode airs. So while the complaint about seeing future spoilers in a season thread is legit, it's of modest concern to most. And really, how much are we obliged to change what works for the sake of a few slow viewers? (sorry if that comes out sounding harsh, I don't mean to, just being blunt)

But I agree, there have been some season threads created that I thought were pushing the boundaries on their use. People creating season threads should be very careful in their use. I would say 90% of the time, we nail it, but there is an occasional misfire.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

generaltso said:


> Does all conversation about the prior episode stop when another episode airs? Then when I watch the next episode, I should look for a starting date to see where I left off and make sure to stop reading before I hit the date of the next episode's airing? I'm failing to see how this is easier than individual episode threads. At least then you can just hit the First Unread button and not have to worry about spoilers.


Another problem with his "solution" is that while it's very easy to stop reading posts when you get to the posts dated when the next episode aired, that's all you can do is read because there is no practical way to participate.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

If anybody wants an episode thread and there isn't one, it's really really easy to make one yourself. That leads me to a tangential question. Why are people so reluctant to create threads? It's not difficult and it doesn't cost you anything, but there seems to be quite a few people who hold off on commenting until someone else creates a thread.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Azlen said:


> If anybody wants an episode thread and there isn't one, it's really really easy to make one yourself. That leads me to a tangential question. Why are people so reluctant to create threads? It's not difficult and it doesn't cost you anything, but there seems to be quite a few people who hold off on commenting until someone else creates a thread.


Frankly, it's easier to join into a conversation in progress than it is to start one. Yeah, you could start a thread with a lazy no-content "Here's your episode thread. Discuss" OP, but that's kind of lame, and doesn't really inspire any further conversation.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

generaltso said:


> Does all conversation about the prior episode stop when another episode airs?


The vast majority usually does. And what does not stop usually involves newer episodes as well as the older ones.

There would be similar problems even with episode threads. You would not have to worry about spoilers (except when people post in the wrong thread), but in many cases you are going to have a hard time getting many people to discuss anything if you bump a month old episode thread. Either people are bored of the old discussion, or do not want to risk giving away spoilers from later episodes by posting in an old episode thread.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Frankly, it's easier to join into a conversation in progress than it is to start one. Yeah, you could start a thread with a lazy no-content "Here's your episode thread. Discuss" OP, but that's kind of lame, and doesn't really inspire any further conversation.


But if you're looking for a thread, it usually means you have something to say about it. In any case, saying whether you liked it or not or repeating a favorite line is more than enough to start an episode thread.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

If there were a way to have sub threads then series could have clumped together threads so if you were interested in a show, you'd see them all in one place. 

I remember when we had an index for shows and threads. That helped a lot with this whole season versus episode discussion because it eliminated a lot of the problems for threads that got pushed down. (The search doesn't work so good for this.)

Either way, it is actually difficult to participate in discussions for shows you don't stay totally up to date on. Which is ironic for a TiVo forum.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Historically if someone simply consistently creates episode threads for discussions in a timely manner, they tend to take over the use of a single thread for a season.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I tend to not like season long threads and I usually try to create episode threads but unless it's a popular show, many episode threads don't generate much traction and I feel like I wasted electrons.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

dswallow said:


> Historically if someone simply consistently creates episode threads for discussions in a timely manner, they tend to take over the use of a single thread for a season.


THIS!!!!!


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

philw1776 said:


> THIS!!!!!


The problem with "THIS!!!!!" is that this is a time-shifting DVR forum.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

IndyJones1023 said:


> They are SOOOO counter to what a forum is all about I really can't understand people who like/use them. I wish you all could realize how stupid they are.


I really can't understand people who won't use a thread because of fear of "spoilers". Good grief, it's a TV show... how much can it possibly be "spoiled"? I wish all you spoilerphobes could realize how stupid that is.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Flop said:


> I really can't understand people who won't use a thread because of fear of "spoilers". Good grief, it's a TV show... how much can it possibly be "spoiled"? I wish all you spoilerphobes could realize how stupid that is.


This is just a contrary position.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Flop said:


> I really can't understand people who won't use a thread because of fear of "spoilers". Good grief, it's a TV show... how much can it possibly be "spoiled"? I wish all you spoilerphobes could realize how stupid that is.


It's called a spoiler because it spoils the enjoyment, the surprise, the story telling.

Part of watching a tv show or a movie or reading a book is the enjoyment of the journey. The journey includes, at times, not knowing the ending or what twists lie in the road.

I will give an example. I got a mini spoiler on Game of Thrones this week. I knew something was going to happen at a certain time. I was watching for that rather than enjoying the story and being surprised. It spoiled my enjoyment enough to be bothersome.

Other than all that. We agree here to be spoiler aware for the enjoyment of all. It is part of understanding others and being a member of a community.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I know we've had this discussion before and people not using single episode threads is what drove me away from this section for a long time. Last night I had a question about The 100 but came here to see it only has a season long thread. They are SOOOO counter to what a forum is all about I really can't understand people who like/use them. I wish you all could realize how stupid they are.


As the creator of the season-long "The 100" thread, and as someone who himself generally dislikes season-long threads, I apologize. I remember when per-episode threads were the norm, here, and season-long threads were heavily disfavored. Over time that has changed and we've seen a growing number of season-long threads. Since it has meant that shows that might not otherwise get discussed get discussed, I've kind of given in to the concept even though I personally prefer per-episode. As it turns out, The 100 is getting a decent amount of discussion. We could always switch gears and close the season thread and start per-episode ones.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

I agree with Indy. 

Even with per-episode threads being lightly used, late bloomers can catch up and zombie-post years afterwards. 

It takes discipline for others to be careful of what was known at that episode but that can community policed.

Otherwise, late bloomers have to avoid Season long threads entirely.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

On the other hand, let's be fair: there's a close to zero chance that episode threads for a show like "Nashville" would get traction. I know, because I used to try to make the threads. Heck, even the season thread barely gets much attention, except on occasion when people bump it.

I basically agree with everything astrohip states in his post above.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Azlen said:


> If anybody wants an episode thread and there isn't one, it's really really easy to make one yourself. That leads me to a tangential question. Why are people so reluctant to create threads? It's not difficult and it doesn't cost you anything, but there seems to be quite a few people who hold off on commenting until someone else creates a thread.


One reason is when in spite of your best efforts in searching you are creating a dupe thread.

New threads don't always show up in "New Posts." I look at "TV Show Talk."


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

How about a compromise. 

Start threads on shows and if they don't take off, retitle them and change them to season threads?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> The problem with "THIS!!!!!" is that this is a time-shifting DVR forum.


True, but I think you'll see a correlation between those who want to discuss a show and those who [usually] watch the show almost-live or very shortly thereafter. At least enough that someone among them would create an episode thread once it was apparent amongst the group that episode threads were desired or preferred.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

MikeAndrews said:


> One reason is when in spite of your best efforts in searching you are creating a dupe thread. New threads don't always show up in "New Posts." I look at "TV Show Talk."


Another reason is that this is a TiVo forum. You know, one that means we time shift. Often by days, weeks or even months.

The first two seasons of GoT, I saved the whole season and watched in days. Got a better feel for the story without taking notes. Now that I know the show pretty well, I watch within a day or two.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Simple solution, if you're interested in episode threads for specific shows diligently start one each week. It will be there when you need it after you watch the episode. 

If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> The first two seasons of GoT, I saved the whole season and watched in days. Got a better feel for the story without taking notes.


Wow, you take notes during tv shows?


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

JFriday said:


> Simple solution, if you're interested in episode threads for specific shows diligently start one each week. It will be there when you need it after you watch the episode.
> 
> If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.


That's flat out ridiculous.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> How about a compromise.
> 
> Start threads on shows and if they don't take off, retitle them and change them to season threads?


This is what makes sense to me. Try the separate threads for a bit. If they are not getting any traction, then a season long thread might be better. But to start with a season thread after one episode is not good. Bad dan, bad!


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> On the other hand, let's be fair: there's a close to zero chance that episode threads for a show like "Nashville" would get traction. I know, because I used to try to make the threads. Heck, even the season thread barely gets much attention, except on occasion when people bump it.
> 
> I basically agree with everything astrohip states in his post above.


That's fine if there's little interest after a few episodes or an entire first season, but some shows get season threads the night of or day after S01E01.



TonyD79 said:


> How about a compromise.
> 
> Start threads on shows and if they don't take off, retitle them and change them to season threads?


Also fine, especially when the thread for the first ep turns into a season thread like "The Goldbergs - Series Premiere". I asked the mods to change the title a couple months ago but it didn't get done.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> It's called a spoiler because it spoils the enjoyment, the surprise, the story telling.
> 
> Part of watching a tv show or a movie or reading a book is the enjoyment of the journey. The journey includes, at times, not knowing the ending or what twists lie in the road.


That's the part I don't understand. Honestly. If something (Act 1, preview, trailer) makes me curious enough to ask a question, having to wait 30 min/60 min/a week/more to get the answer just pisses me off. I regularly read plot summaries on Wikipedia to help me decide if a movie is worth seeing or not, or sometimes will just pause a film to read the ending, then go back to it. Also, I've seen plenty of films multiple times(knowing the ending).

It's actually more enjoyable for me to be able to appreciate hints dropped along the way during a film or tv show knowing what it is leading to and who is lying.

I know that anti-spoiler(suspense/surprise=good) seems to be the majority held view, but I still don't understand why people enjoy having an answer withheld from them.



> Other than all that. We agree here to be spoiler aware for the enjoyment of all. It is part of understanding others and being a member of a community.


Yes, I understand it is a common "thing," so I'm careful not to spoil things. IRL, sometimes it gets to be a hassle trying to keep track of what level of knowledge everyone in earshot has. It's easy enough to accommodate on the forums.

And coming back on topic, I like the season threads for the low-traffic shows and episode threads for the high traffic shows. Whichever one gets me the new info faster. Low traffic threads fall off the first page pretty quickly, and the engagement on any individual episode may be low. But there's at least some discussion if it's open to ongoing arcs/trends/storylines without having to flip back and forth between separate episode threads (which from low engagement are hard to find) searching for previous references to that arc.

For higher traffic shows, I like the filtering so I can deprioritize discussions of the older episodes and get to the "spoilers" more efficiently(probably the opposite of why most people like the episode threads).

Historical curiosity:
Was the original "Joe Schmoe" thread(s) episode or season?
I don't know how to search more than one year back. That discussion was actually how I discovered tivocommunity, but I don't remember...


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

I prefer episode threads and will oft times start one if one hasn't been started yet by the time I'm looking for it (I rarely watch much live or almost live, so it usually isn't the night of airing).

What I get a little weary of is people being scolded for an episode thread where someone had started a season-long thread - especially for shows that really are better suited for episode threads (and that includes the seemingly obligatory "Already being discussed" post with a link to a season-long thread). Granted, this doesn't happen often, but it does rankle me a little when it does.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

alpacaboy said:


> It's actually more enjoyable for me to be able to appreciate hints dropped along the way during a film or tv show knowing what it is leading to and who is lying.
> 
> I know that anti-spoiler(suspense/surprise=good) seems to be the majority held view, but I still don't understand why people enjoy having an answer withheld from them.


I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's not that I like the fact that I don't know something, but rather that I want to experience finding out something in the way the author intended. Avoiding spoilers isn't the end goal; it is simply a means to an end. It is precisely because I care about finding out the answers that I avoid spoilers. If I didn't care about the answers, I would, ironically, not care about spoilers because how I found them out wouldn't matter to me.

This is especially true for shows like Game of Thrones that are largely unpredictable. I like to be in the same position as the characters in not knowing what is going to happen rather than being some omniscient being that is merely watching events unfold.

Once I have seen the episodes once, however, then I am in the position of "omniscient being". So when re-watching them, I do like looking for hints that are dropped by the writers. Avoiding spoilers just gives me one pass of experiencing the show in a fresh manner before then viewing it from more of an "art appreciation" perspective.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Could one possible compromise be that once a full season thread gets to X number of posts, a new thread is created to discuss future episodes?

For example, let's say that this full season thread was created: "Garbage Gurus S1".

After episode 4, the thread reaches at least 50 posts.

The thread is then renamed, "Garbage Gurus S1 E1-E4", and only discussion of episodes 1-4 would go in there.

A new thread is created, "Garbage Gurus S1 E5+", and discussion of episodes 5 and beyond would go there until the thread reached at least 50 posts.

If people found that they were having to create new threads every one or two episodes, that would be an indication that per-episode threads should be created instead.

This would allow threads to adapt to participation rather than requiring people to predict up front how popular a show was going to be.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

BitbyBlit said:


> This is especially true for shows like Game of Thrones that are largely unpredictable. I like to be in the same position as the characters in not knowing what is going to happen rather than being some omniscient being that is merely watching events unfold.


Ha ha... I think in real life, I just wish I was an omniscient being(including knowing all future events) merely watching events unfold.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

alpacaboy said:


> Ha ha... I think in real life, I just wish I was an omniscient being(including knowing all future events) merely watching events unfold.


For me, it's much like birthday presents - there is pleasure in the unwrapping. If one of my children tells me "Mom got you X for your birthday!" I'm still going to enjoy the gift but I'd rather not have been spoiled by the foreknowledge.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

What we need is a vBulletin model change so that a "thread" can actually be like a "forum" with sequenced threads for each episode, and perhaps a few other sorts like ones geared towards spoilers, future storylines/guesses about storylines, and characters.

Sort of like www.televisionwithoutpity.com, but where a thread at the "Now Playing" level could become a "show" forum.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

alpacaboy said:


> That's the part I don't understand. Honestly. If something (Act 1, preview, trailer) makes me curious enough to ask a question, having to wait 30 min/60 min/a week/more to get the answer just pisses me off. I regularly read plot summaries on Wikipedia to help me decide if a movie is worth seeing or not, or sometimes will just pause a film to read the ending, then go back to it. Also, I've seen plenty of films multiple times(knowing the ending).
> 
> It's actually more enjoyable for me to be able to appreciate hints dropped along the way during a film or tv show knowing what it is leading to and who is lying.
> 
> I know that anti-spoiler(suspense/surprise=good) seems to be the majority held view, but I still don't understand why people enjoy having an answer withheld from them.


I don't want to get into a pissing match about which way is better or who is in the majority or not.

What I can tell you is this. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a show the way you do. I enjoy a show/book the way you do also. The difference between us is that I enjoy it your way the 2nd or 3rd or nth time around, because I watch/read things more than once.

On the first reading/viewing, I want to have that first-time experience. There is only one chance to get that experience.

I can get the re-watch/re-read experience anytime.

Edited to add: my compromise for season-long threads is to put the episode title in the post title for the first post of the new episode. But apparently that isn't easy to do for people who read the forum via smartphone so the idea hasn't gotten much traction.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

BitbyBlit said:


> Could one possible compromise be that once a full season thread gets to X number of posts, a new thread is created to discuss future episodes?
> 
> For example, let's say that this full season thread was created: "Garbage Gurus S1".
> 
> ...


I like this idea.

_______________________

Personally, I would prefer episode threads for most shows, but there are some shows that are more suited to season threads.
Kitchen Nightmares comes to mind as one of them.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Is there a way to change the title of a thread you started? I've never been able to. I needed to contact a moderator to do it.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

john4200 said:


> Is there a way to change the title of a thread you started? I've never been able to. I needed to contact a moderator to do it.


You can edit it, but only during the first few minutes after the thread goes live. After that point, a moderator has to do it.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

"Garbage Gurus" sounds intriguing ...


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Every time someone starts this rant, the answer to me seems obvious...if you want episode threads, then start them. If there are episode threads, then the season ones will die out.

Personally, I mostly start season threads because I don't like starting weekly threads. Reasons vary, I'm not caught up, I don't have the title info (ep and date) handy, or I don't want to read the snark when I make a mistake on the title. 

Again, if you don't like season threads, start episode specific ones. Ranting over and over about how people don't conform to how you want to use the forum seems pretty ridiculous to me. YMMV.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

The people who hate the season threads the most are the ones that are time shifting. So by the time they get to an episode, it is a little late to start an episode thread, since it has already been discussed in the season thread. This is particularly true if you are coming to the series late.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I time shift a lot. And I still start and like season threads.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I time shift a lot. And I still start and like season threads.


Yeah, but we know you are weird.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

eddyj said:


> Yeah, but we know you are weird.


Hey, I resemble that remark!


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Every time someone starts this rant, the answer to me seems obvious...if you want episode threads, then start them.


You are missing the obvious part - this is a time-shifting DVR forum. If I don't watch a show the night it's on, I wouldn't start a thread about it until later. By then it's too late.

I have a logical mind. It's painfully illogical to have season long threads. If there was a rule to only make episodic threads, then everyone can still participate. By having season long threads, a subset of the forum population can't participate. Why exclude people when all can be included?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> You are missing the obvious part - this is a time-shifting DVR forum. If I don't watch a show the night it's on, I wouldn't start a thread about it until later. By then it's too late.
> 
> I have a logical mind. It's painfully illogical to have season long threads. If there was a rule to only make episodic threads, then everyone can still participate. By having season long threads, a subset of the forum population can't participate. Why exclude people when all can be included?


Just because you delay watching a given episode in any particular week doesn't mean every other person watching the show who participates here is delaying it too. And just because you do delay watching some shows doesn't mean you do it for every show, every episode, every time. And just because someone made a comment about an episode in a season thread for a show doesn't mean they won't copy/move their discussion into an episode thread later, if/when one is created.

You don't need a rule in order to just do it anyway, especially if it matters that much to you. People generally follow others lead around here.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

IndyJones1023 said:


> You are missing the obvious part - this is a time-shifting DVR forum. If I don't watch a show the night it's on, I wouldn't start a thread about it until later. By then it's too late.
> 
> I have a logical mind. It's painfully illogical to have season long threads. If there was a rule to only make episodic threads, then everyone can still participate. By having season long threads, a subset of the forum population can't participate. Why exclude people when all can be included?


You missed the obvious point I made, I time shift, too.

Again, if you want to include everyone, and YOU think the only way to do that is with episode threads, then start them. Even if you haven't watched the ep yet, YOU can start the thread and just not participate until you do watch it. YOU are expecting everyone else to cater to your posting habits. You want others to start the threads for you. Do it yourself.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

But Indy does make a good point. Episode threads hurt no one. Season threads hurt those who timeshift (mostly). So we should be like doctors: First, do no harm.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

hummingbird_206 said:


> You missed the obvious point I made, I time shift, too.


I suppose there's a difference between time-shifting and week- or month-shifting.

But my view is, if people wait that long to watch a show, that's their choice, and they have and deserve no voice in how the threads are organized.

Sorry, Indy.


eddyj said:


> But Indy does make a good point. Episode threads hurt no one. Season threads hurt those who timeshift (mostly). So we should be like doctors: First, do no harm.


Episode threads hurt everybody when they get no responses and nobody ends up bothering to make any more episode threads because they see no point.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

They may not have a *choice*, but they certainly deserve to have a voice.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

eddyj said:


> They may not have a *choice*, but they certainly deserve to have a voice.


But when all they use that voice for is to whine, it isn't going to help fix what they see as the problem. Again, if you want episode threads, start them. Don't gripe at people who start season threads. There is room for both. There isn't a thread count limit.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> deserve no voice


Wow. This place really has changed. I may be done here. So long and thanks for all the fish.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Wow. This place really has changed. I may be done here. So long and thanks for all the fish.


So instead of helping to fix the problem, you're going to take your ball and go home? That's mature.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Expecting someone to start a thread for an episode they will not watch for days, weeks or months, and then telling them to shut up if they don't is not trying to fix the problem. I think Indy has been very reasonable in his posts, and telling him to STFU because he time shifts was not very nice.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

eddyj said:


> Expecting someone to start a thread for an episode they will not watch for days, weeks or months, and then telling them to shut up if they don't is not trying to fix the problem.


Expecting to have a significant discussion about a show that aired months ago is crazy. It is not going to happen for the vast majority of shows, whether there is a season thread or an episode thread. You cannot "fix the problem". Human nature is just what it is.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

I don't know if it will help Indy's cause for me to say so, but I agree with him. 

The most annoying threads of all are the 'live' threads where the shows are live on the East Coast and tape-delayed on the West Coast, and all the East-Coast people post as they watch, essentially live-tweeting. 

There is no way to join in that experience afterwards, and season-long threads, especially threads which don't have any waypoints, make TV Show Talk into that kind of experience for anyone coming along afterwards.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Taking things back a step, can someone explain to me how season threads are "inherently illogical?" To me, season threads aren't really much different than episode threads. Say I choose to time shift a large block of episodes. For me, I just watch through the episodes, get caught up, then participate in the season thread at that point.

With episode threads, I suppose I could watch an episode then post some thoughts into the episode thread.... but it's sort of like talking to your friends about having just read "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" when everyone else has already read "Half-Blood Prince." It feels kind of pointless because they've already moved way on from where you are. Not to mention, it becomes difficult for them to even participate in the discussion for risk of inadvertently spoiling something that occurs later.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> I don't know if it will help Indy's cause for me to say so, but I agree with him.
> 
> The most annoying threads of all are the 'live' threads where the shows are live on the East Coast and tape-delayed on the West Coast, and all the East-Coast people post as they watch, essentially live-tweeting.


Annoying for you, but enjoyable as a group experience for those who can participate. I would never say that "live" threads should ever take the place of other types of threads, but they definitely serve a purpose. 


murgatroyd said:


> There is no way to join in that experience afterwards, and season-long threads, especially threads which don't have any waypoints, make TV Show Talk into that kind of experience for anyone coming along afterwards.


I don't think I can equate "live" threads to season threads. As noted, all it takes to participate in the season threads is to get caught up. This doesn't prohibit time-shifting... it just means that you might want to wait to participate until you get caught up... or worst case, wait to participate until you've viewed your way through the entire season.

Season threads both talk about the episodes as they air, and eventually become a sort of "post-mortem" of the season as a whole (both season so far, and season as a whole once it wraps). There's no reason that even if someone saved up the entire season to watch later, that they couldn't participate in the season thread once they've watched the season, no matter when that might be.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

JFriday said:


> Simple solution, if you're interested in episode threads for specific shows diligently start one each week. It will be there when you need it after you watch the episode.
> 
> If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.





IndyJones1023 said:


> That's flat out ridiculous.





eddyj said:


> Expecting someone to start a thread for an episode they will not watch for days, weeks or months, and then telling them to shut up if they don't is not trying to fix the problem. I think Indy has been very reasonable in his posts, and telling him to STFU because he time shifts was not very nice.


I don't see where anyone here told Indy to STFU. Rob made the comment that trying to have a voice on how threads are organized months after the fact isn't going to happen. That's not saying STFU. I don't see anyone here being 'not nice'. On the contrary, many have made the suggestion that if Indy wants episode threads to start them. His only come back to that reasonable suggestion is to call it ridiculous (as quoted above.) We're not doing it his way, _so he's reasonable and we're not nice?_ _edited_.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

eddyj said:


> They may not have a *choice*, but they certainly deserve to have a voice.


How can he, if he only comes to the game months after it has started?

If the threads have already happened, how could he possibly have a voice in how they are organized? The time to determine how a thread is organized is when the thread is started. And if you choose not to be there, then you forfeit your voice in that decision.

I'm sorry if that's so mean that people leave the forum over it, but it just struck me as common sense. I don't see how else it can be, other than complaining about things that happened long ago, and demanding that they had be done differently.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Color me in the "read season thread expect spoilers" camp. I let many many eps backup before I can get to them. Chores take precedence. I still read the season threads knowing that I am way behind. On a reverse note, I never read individual ep threads if I have not watched that ep.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Exactly if you're not willing to do things the way you want them and come back later and get frustrated that things aren't done to your liking that's on you. Like Rob said you've lost your voice to complain at that point.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Look back at the title of this thread. As it happens, I think for the most part everyone is having a reasoned and polite discussion of the pros and cons of various approaches. But this is really not the place for that.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> How can he, if he only comes to the game months after it has started? If the threads have already happened, how could he possibly have a voice in how they are organized? The time to determine how a thread is organized is when the thread is started. And if you choose not to be there, then you forfeit your voice in that decision. I'm sorry if that's so mean that people leave the forum over it, but it just struck me as common sense. I don't see how else it can be, other than complaining about things that happened long ago, and demanding that they had be done differently.


He has a voice by discussing what the standards of the forum should be.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

JFriday said:


> Exactly if you're not willing to do things the way you want them and come back later and get frustrated that things aren't done to your liking that's on you. Like Rob said you've lost your voice to complain at that point.


Really? Non voice in how etiquette should be?

That is harsh.

So, time shifting is discouraged in a TiVo forum. You have to start the discussion immediately or you lose.

Makes sense.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

One last post, and then I am out.

Episode threads: Everyone can enjoy, from the "live tweeters" to the "watched live" to the "watched a few days later" to the "watched next year, I never heard of this series and I am watching it on Netflix". I thoroughly enjoy reading the old threads for shows which are new to me, when I watch them later (like Downton Abbey).

Season threads: Pretty useless if you are watching much after the fact. If only a few days after, then maybe you can "stop" when you get to a post that is for a future episode. If you don't get spoiled already because you read too far since the next post is right there. I never can participate on a season thread, unless I watch everything within the week. And when I go back and watch old series, I never go back to read the season thread like I do with episode threads.

Now, maybe you feel that because you watch "near real time" you get priority. So do whatever the hell you want, but you are "disenfranchising" people on one type of thread, and not on the other. Maybe you don't care, but to say that those who care should not be able to discuss it is too much.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

While Indy is a nice guy, I think he's wrong on this front. As others have said, if he wants episode threads, he should start them. Supply and demand. If people want them, they'll be created. I hope he doesn't leave over this.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

I like episode threads more than season threads. That said, season threads would be more useful if the OP would edit their post to show the place where each episode's discussion begins.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

eddyj said:


> One last post, and then I am out.
> 
> Episode threads: Everyone can enjoy, from the "live tweeters" to the "watched live" to the "watched a few days later" to the "watched next year, I never heard of this series and I am watching it on Netflix". I thoroughly enjoy reading the old threads for shows which are new to me, when I watch them later (like Downton Abbey).
> 
> ...


You keep describing the situation as if it's an 'either or' thing. It's not. There can be both types of threads. It just takes those who care about episode threads to start them.

And if you want to discuss a series much later, then start episode threads or series threads. One of the most fun, interesting, and successful (based on # of posts) threads was Photoshopgrl's about starting Supernatural from the beginning. She covered several seasons in that thread even though there were probably episode threads.

Again, I don't get the 'either or' mentality. There is room for both. And if there's enough interest, one or the other or both will survive. Or they will die off.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I think both types of threads work. In less viewed shows season threads seem to work. This year someone started an amazing race season thread, AR usually has a good following and weekly episode threads, somebody objected and spoke out about the season thread and subsequently weekly threads have been created. I think people will go with episode threads if there is enough interest/objection to season threads. But to come into the game late and then complain you've lost your chance for episode threads. If you want them to happen the time to complain is when they're started.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> If there was a rule to only make episodic threads, then everyone can still participate. By having season long threads, a subset of the forum population can't participate. Why exclude people when all can be included?


See my first post above. For most series that have season threads started, it's because there would be no episode threads created at all, hence no discussion at all, so we create season threads.

I would venture a guess that the season threads that irritate you, that you come back to read at some future point, would have had no episode threads. So what's worse, a season thread to at least read, or no episode threads to participate in?

Aside: If it's one show in particular that has started this rant, maybe the season thread creator jumped the gun. But to throw every season thread into this bucket is (IMHO) doing a disservice to the benefits that season threads offer.

I am all in favor of episode threads for shows that earn it/deserve it/get it. But to force everyone to create episode threads for those shows that don't deserve it... that would effectively kill all discussion for those shows.


----------



## ebockelman (Jul 12, 2001)

Put me in the episodes thread camp. There are some shows that I'll let queue up until Summer before I even begin watching. This may include shows that premiered in the fall.

Other shows I'll watch the day they air.

Could we at least agree that when episode threads are created, we put the show name and episode title? Airdate (only) is somewhat useless, especially since we have an international membership, and as such may have separate air dates.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Most of my points have already been made so I'll just throw in a quick vote for episode threads. 

I don't delay watching shows because I don't like them, it's because I don't have time to watch them promptly. Especially the ones my husband and I watch together. 

I'm always happy to see episode threads because then I have some chance at participating.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

One approach is to essentially hashtag the episode in a season thread and then you could do a search for posts vs threads.

People should participate in either and not be picked on for their choice.

That aside I do think realistically most of the conversation happens within the first day or so and that time shifted conversation is like being at that party after everyone has left.

I am curious how many other places go with the episode approach. Twitter uses hashtags for the event. My other go to forums are all season oriented or subject oriented.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

And FWIW, I very much prefer episode threads (even though I almost always watch shows within a week of air, sometimes I just automatically click "latest post" on threads I have already participated in, forgetting that it's a season thread for a show whose episode this week I haven't watched yet). But I recognize that for low-traffic shows, if it were only episode threads there would soon be no threads at all.


zalusky said:


> I am curious how many other places go with the episode approach. Twitter uses hashtags for the event. My other go to forums are all season oriented or subject oriented.


This is the only place I got that has episode threads (then again, this is the only place I go that is oriented around a TV-watching device). Everyplace else, it's series threads (not even season), and anything that's aired is fair game without spoiler tags.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I think I hated the season threads at first, then I just got used to it. 

I keep thinking how bummed that I am that by the time I get to S02 of House of Cards everybody else will have moved on. darn! I'm butt-deep in 'Nip/Tuck' (and loving it!), not having realized that it was 100 episodes when I started. Now I feel compelled to finish that before I get into something else on Netflix. Can't go back and forth anymore without wrong-membering everything.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

I don't like the full-season threads, and I don't really participate in them, for active shows.

It's all well and good to say that you just *stop reading* when you get to a particular point, but how are you supposed to actually participate? Anything you post goes to the end of the thread, meaning that you will have to navigate a minefield of spoilers to see if anyone has responded to what you wrote. It's impossible.

So, I guess I'm with Indy here.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Lori said:


> I don't like the full-season threads, and I don't really participate in them, for active shows.
> 
> It's all well and good to say that you just *stop reading* when you get to a particular point, but how are you supposed to actually participate? Anything you post goes to the end of the thread, meaning that you will have to navigate a minefield of spoilers to see if anyone has responded to what you wrote. It's impossible.
> 
> So, I guess I'm with Indy here.


True but the world has changed. Think of all the ways media is consumed.
Live, Live+3, OnDemand, Netflix when they allow it, DVDs a year later, reruns in general.

Now think of water cooler conversations most are within a few days.
And most of the blogs/newspapers/magazines post their reviews the next day.

It really gets down to prioritization of the must see shows.

I also think these forum tools probably need to evolve their technology a little bit to help out but given the water cooler market I don't think the demand is that large.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

eddyj said:


> Season threads: Pretty useless if you are watching much after the fact.


And again, I disagree. They are useless if you are watching after the fact *only if* you intend to read and/or discuss after each episode you watch.

As long as you wait to go in the thread until either you catch up or you finish watching the season, then they're fine.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

That assumes people are delaying on purpose to have a marathon. 

Some of us just can't keep up. I have a lot of things and people in my life that take priority over TV so it's not that I'm saving them up, it's that I perpetually several weeks behind. 

With episode threads I can participate as I watch. With a season thread it might be a whole year.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Are you really participating weeks/months after the episode has aired? Do people that have already seen and discussed the episode come back to talk about it if the thread is bumped? I don't really see much discussion 2 weeks after an episode has aired.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

JFriday said:


> Are you really participating weeks/months after the episode has aired? Do people that have already seen and discussed the episode come back to talk about it if the thread is bumped? I don't really see much discussion 2 weeks after an episode has aired.


Right. After the next episode airs, there is a large drop-off in the amount of activity in an old episode thread. After several of the next episodes have aired, it is extremely rare to have any significant participation in a discussion of the old episode.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Yes. 

For the few shows I watch I always go read the episode thread, if there is one, after I watch. And if I have anything to add, I do.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I'm in the camp if you really want thread-each-episode discussion, create the episode right away even if you are going to time-shift it. It's really the only way to insure things start out the way you want them.

Otherwise grit your teeth and endure the way things are. 

Just to note we have show threads here that are simply show threads. The Days of our Lives thread is that. There's no season as such and very little discussion about it, but every once in awhile someone will post a rant or talk about a storyline there. It's been around for over 8 years.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

JFriday said:


> Are you really participating weeks/months after the episode has aired? Do people that have already seen and discussed the episode come back to talk about it if the thread is bumped? I don't really see much discussion 2 weeks after an episode has aired.


Someone just bumped an _eight year old_ HIMYM thread.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

JYoung said:


> Someone just bumped an _eight year old_ HIMYM thread.


And I notice that there is no significant discussion going on there now.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> You can edit it, but only during the first few minutes after the thread goes live. After that point, a moderator has to do it.


That is one downside. It would increase the work for the moderators. But ideally, there wouldn't be too much of that -- less than once a month per show of low popularity. Or maybe we can get rename permissions just for the TV Talk section. I don't know if that's possible.

That could actually work the other direction too. People might be more willing to start out with a per-episode thread because if it doesn't get much participation by the second episode, they could change it to a season thread rather than creating a new one.



eddyj said:


> So do whatever the hell you want, but you are "disenfranchising" people on one type of thread, and not on the other.


I don't think it's that simple. For shows with low discussion, splitting up that discussion amongst a bunch of different episode-specific threads can disenfranchise people who are interested in what other people have to say, but aren't sure when people will have anything to talk about.

In the extreme cases, shows might average less than one or two posts per episode. And in others, many episodes might not have any discussion, but in certain ones something interesting will happen that people will want to discuss.

Rather than have someone take it up on him or herself to create a bunch of empty episode-specific threads for people to subscribe to (in case someone decides to post something), it is easier in those cases for people to subscribe to a season (or even series) thread that will let them know when someone has posted something. This in turn might cause them to post something, which might lead to other posts.

Without that continuity, the discussion can be so broken up that people might miss posts, which means they might not post, which means others might not respond, etc. And so, as others have mentioned, you don't end up exchanging a season thread for episode ones, but instead nothing.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And FWIW, I very much prefer episode threads (even though I almost always watch shows within a week of air, sometimes I just automatically click "latest post" on threads I have already participated in, forgetting that it's a season thread for a show whose episode this week I haven't watched yet). *But I recognize that for low-traffic shows, if it were only episode threads there would soon be no threads at all.*
> 
> This is the only place I got that has episode threads (then again, this is the only place I go that is oriented around a TV-watching device). Everyplace else, it's series threads (not even season), and anything that's aired is fair game without spoiler tags.


I would vote for the current system, of either/or, depending on the show. A good example for me is Arrow. My wife and I watch together, but we're usually several weeks behind. When I finally watched an episode, I came here and there was no episode thread for it. We sometimes have episode threads, but I guess lack of participation has led to a drop off and no current threads. I'm not going to start a thread for an episode aired 4 weeks ago. If there was a season thread, I could perhaps at least read comments up to the one I just watched. Then I could post when we get caught up.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

eddyj said:


> The people who hate the season threads the most are the ones that are time shifting. So by the time they get to an episode, it is a little late to start an episode thread, since it has already been discussed in the season thread.


Yes there are season threads for shows that I just don't bother to use because I am really far behind on the episodes. Off the top of my head one of them is the thread on The Originals, because I'm never up to date. I would add to that thought that not only is it too late to start an episode thread, it feels too late to join the discussion in the season long thread.

The only season long threads that I feel like I would actually use are ones that are too popular for a season long thread. Shows that I absolutely watch right away (like The Amazing Race or The Good Wife) or at least within the week (Survivor, The Blacklist, a few others). The one exception is The Biggest Loser, which is not popular enough to warrant episode threads and has gotten a season thread in the past (when it gets a thread at all), and that is a show that I also watch within the week.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

I think has been getting worse as we get farther into the 'good tv + DVR' age. I was just imagining the proverbial water cooler, and what we see here is that if a show has a big first week viewership, it usually gets episode threads. Or if it a show people immediately want to talk about. If it's not one of those things, no episode threads.

Bob: (takes drink) Hey, did you see that episode of MASH from 6 weeks ago? The one with Hawkeye and BJ pulling that prank?
Alice: Oh sure. We watch that right away. It was funny! But did you see this week's episode? So sad.
Bob: Hold up there. Spoilers! What about Hill Street Blues this week?
Ted: Ooh, we watched that! Crazy good! Those guys should create meth and then write while doing it!
Carol: (sighing) Gosh, we're still making our way through Roots...
Bob: Carol, get with the program! That was last year!
Carol: Don't say anything, I'm not listening...lalalalala.
Carol: Wait, who's BJ? I'm only in season 2.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> I don't want to get into a pissing match about which way is better or who is in the majority or not.
> 
> What I can tell you is this. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a show the way you do. I enjoy a show/book the way you do also. The difference between us is that I enjoy it your way the 2nd or 3rd or nth time around, because I watch/read things more than once.
> 
> ...


This. Looking for clues about things I already know from the ending is for the second go round. Imagine if you had known the Lost ending somewhere in S2? Lost is a show where the journey was so much better than the eventual outcome. I would have hated to miss that knowing how bad the ending was.

I like bitbybilts solution. Cap season long threads at 50 posts and if it starts filling up quickly, it means a weekly thread is warranted. If not, maybe you just get a partial season thread rather than a whole season thread.

I start a lot of threads, but sometimes it's a pain to look up all the particulars for the thread title, especially if your posting from a mobile device. I much rather someone else starts the discussion.

What I find worse than season long threads are "anticipation" threads that become season long threads, complete with spoilers. That used to be a bigger problem, here, but has gotten better.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

laria said:


> Yes there are season threads for shows that I just don't bother to use because I am really far behind on the episodes. Off the top of my head one of them is the thread on The Originals, because I'm never up to date. I would add to that thought that not only is it too late to start an episode thread, it feels too late to join the discussion in the season long thread.


Why is it too late to start an ep thread? If you're not up to date, there might be others who aren't, too. I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of traffic, but there would probably be some, the same folks who post in the season thread would probably chime in.

This is not for Laria, but in general, seems to me the folks who are complaining about the season threads just don't seem to be willing to create ep threads. They just want to complain that someone hasn't already started a thread for them.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> You are missing the obvious part - this is a time-shifting DVR forum. If I don't watch a show the night it's on, I wouldn't start a thread about it until later. By then it's too late.
> 
> I have a logical mind. It's painfully illogical to have season long threads. If there was a rule to only make episodic threads, then everyone can still participate. By having season long threads, a subset of the forum population can't participate. Why exclude people when all can be included?


The way I use the forum is I actively participate in threads for shows I don't binge watch (it's actually one of the reasons I don't binge watch shows very often). If I binge watch a show, I'll come to the forum after I've caught up and then ask my questions in the last thread for that series (or the series thread). In fact, one of the things I find annoying (and I know I'm probably in the minority) is when I see an episode thread from an episode that happened 4 years ago pop up currently. It's really hard for me to answer their questions without knowing what I already know about something that happened in that episode.

And for those time shifters, I find there's a difference between ways to time shift. How I generally time shift is I usually watch an episode within a week or two of the original air date which means the threads about the episodes are still "in play". There's the other type of time shifters who save up a whole season and then binge watch. I generally ONLY do that for series I'm joining late.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> I don't know if it will help Indy's cause for me to say so, but I agree with him.
> 
> The most annoying threads of all are the 'live' threads where the shows are live on the East Coast and tape-delayed on the West Coast, and all the East-Coast people post as they watch, essentially live-tweeting.
> 
> There is no way to join in that experience afterwards, and season-long threads, especially threads which don't have any waypoints, make TV Show Talk into that kind of experience for anyone coming along afterwards.


Are you saying that East Coasters should wait three hours to post? By that time, I'll have lost my train of thought. Usually if I come to post right away it's because I have a particular point I want to make or discuss. Three hours later, I may not remember that point. Unfortunately for you, there's not a whole lot you can do about it. That's life on the west coast. I've lived in the western time zone for 5 years, and I know what it's like. And that's BEFORE Tivo and other time shifting devices were in play (I bought my first DVR when I lived in San Diego, so that's where my time shifting began).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Lori said:


> I don't like the full-season threads, and I don't really participate in them, for active shows.
> 
> It's all well and good to say that you just *stop reading* when you get to a particular point, but how are you supposed to actually participate? Anything you post goes to the end of the thread, meaning that you will have to navigate a minefield of spoilers to see if anyone has responded to what you wrote. It's impossible.
> 
> So, I guess I'm with Indy here.


I don't participate in full season threads unless I'm caught up. I also know that for those threads, the show isn't highly "discus-sable". Usually those threads are more about liking or not liking a particular episode than detail. I doubt we've had a full season thread for any show that there's going to be a big discussion about.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Robin said:


> That assumes people are delaying on purpose to have a marathon.
> 
> Some of us just can't keep up. I have a lot of things and people in my life that take priority over TV so it's not that I'm saving them up, it's that I perpetually several weeks behind.
> 
> With episode threads I can participate as I watch. With a season thread it might be a whole year.


While this is true, if you start participating in an episode thread 3 or 4 weeks (or more) later, in most cases you probably won't get much discussion on your points. And you'd also be at more risk to get spoiled by someone slipping and posting a spoiler.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

The real lament is about the gradual shrinking of our community. We just don't have the population to support individual episode threads for every show anymore.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> The real lament is about the gradual shrinking of our community. We just don't have the population to support individual episode threads for every show anymore.


How many shows had episode threads in 2007? How many have them now? I would wager that the difference isn't that extreme, it's just there are more people watching a wider variety of good shows, and because of that we watch in more stretched out patterns.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

hummingbird_206 said:


> This is not for Laria, but in general, seems to me the folks who are complaining about the season threads just don't seem to be willing to create ep threads. They just want to complain that someone hasn't already started a thread for them.


I know you said it's not specifically about me, but I'll respond about me.  I honestly time shift so much now that I don't enjoy participating in many of the threads at all anymore, whether they are episode based or season based. I think the only thing I post in regularly anymore is TAR and Survivor.

I don't feel strongly about the subject enough though for it to be a rant like Indy.  It just is what it is.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Season threads don't work that well because there isn't the cut off between episodes that some people talk about above.

That said, I agree, if you want episode threads then start them, even if you watch the show later.

I think there are too many threads about not having season threads myself


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Why is it too late to start an ep thread? If you're not up to date, there might be others who aren't, too. I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of traffic, but there would probably be some, the same folks who post in the season thread would probably chime in.
> 
> This is not for Laria, but in general, seems to me the folks who are complaining about the season threads just don't seem to be willing to create ep threads. They just want to complain that someone hasn't already started a thread for them.


I've seen people complain about content-free placeholder threads which is why I haven't created them.



laria said:


> I don't feel strongly about the subject enough though for it to be a rant like Indy.  It just is what it is.


+1

I'm not expecting anyone else to "fix it" I'm just sharing my opinion and explaining my perspective in a thread dedicated to such discussion.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

People who time shift shows significantly will never be able to participate in social discussions about a show in the same way people who are watching in near real time are able to. That's true for this forum, it's true in social media, and it's true around the proverbial office water cooler. If you want to talk about episode 4 and a majority of people have already seen episodes 5 through 10, it's going to be much more difficult to do. One because people may have difficulty remembering the specifics about what happened in that episode and secondly, knowing what's comes after can tremendously skew how someone sees a particular episode. It's difficult to talk theories about where a plot may be going if the person you are talking about it with already knows. It's best to have those discussions with someone is watching it at the same pace you are. 
Sure you can read what others thought at the time but you can't really participate in the discussion all that much.
It's a fundamental problem with time shifting and having episode threads vs season threads isn't really going to solve it,
To be clear, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with time shifting and people have plenty of reasons to do so, it's just that you can't expect to have the same social interactions around it as someone who is watching it same day or shortly thereafter.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

Azlen said:


> People who time shift shows significantly will never be able to participate in social discussions about a show in the same way people who are watching in near real time are able to. That's true for this forum, it's true in social media, and it's true around the proverbial office water cooler. If you want to talk about episode 4 and a majority of people have already seen episodes 5 through 10, it's going to be much more difficult to do. One because people may have difficulty remembering the specifics about what happened in that episode and secondly, knowing what's comes after can tremendously skew how someone sees a particular episode. It's difficult to talk theories about where a plot may be going if the person you are talking about it with already knows. It's best to have those discussions with someone is watching it at the same pace you are.
> Sure you can read what others thought at the time but you can't really participate in the discussion all that much.
> It's a fundamental problem with time shifting and having episode threads vs season threads isn't really going to solve it,
> To be clear, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with time shifting and people have plenty of reasons to do so, it's just that you can't expect to have the same social interactions around it as someone who is watching it same day or shortly thereafter.


I'd agree with this. Imagine if the GOT EP threads were created by 7+ days by default, it would be only one page.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> This. Looking for clues about things I already know from the ending is for the second go round. Imagine if you had known the Lost ending somewhere in S2? Lost is a show where the journey was so much better than the eventual outcome. I would have hated to miss that knowing how bad the ending was.


I actually stopped watching Lost sometime during S2 because I thought the season 1 finale was grossly unsatisfying, and then in S2 they killed off someone I liked.

Knowing more of the big picture answers could only have improved things for me. Though from what I know of the ending (even with Wikipedia and Lostpedia, I still find it really confusing), I would have been pissed if I sat through all six seasons for that.

I know I'm in the minority, but I would have opened JJ's mystery box.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I doubt we've had a full season thread for any show that there's going to be a big discussion about.


True Detective


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

alpacaboy said:


> I actually stopped watching Lost sometime during S2 because I thought the season 1 finale was grossly unsatisfying, and then in S2 they killed off someone I liked.
> 
> Knowing more of the big picture answers could only have improved things for me. Though from what I know of the ending (even with Wikipedia and Lostpedia, I still find it really confusing), I would have been pissed if I sat through all six seasons for that.
> 
> I know I'm in the minority, but I would have opened JJ's mystery box.


When you read a book do you read the last chapters first? Yeah, you are in the minority. The ONLY time I'm ok with knowing how something ends is if I've read the book and then go see the movie (or vice versa). Otherwise I want to be surprised.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cherry ghost said:


> True Detective


But didn't that break off into weekly discussions after awhile?

Edit: maybe not. It really should have.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> When you read a book do you read the last chapters first? Yeah, you are in the minority. The ONLY time I'm ok with knowing how something ends is if I've read the book and then go see the movie (or vice versa). Otherwise I want to be surprised.


I have a friend who does that. Every time she reads a book she reads the last chapter first. I find it Incomprehensible.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Robin said:


> I have a friend who does that. Every time she reads a book she reads the last chapter first. I find it Incomprehensible.


My mom does that. Reads the last pages of books to find out what happens. Drives me nuts. 

Before she had a DVR she used to watch her soap operas backwards too on the VHS tapes. She'd rewind until the last commercial break, watch from there until the end, rewind until the second to last commercial break, watch from there until the last break, etc until she was back to the beginning of the episode.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

This same friend was several episodes behind in Parenthood and wanted me to tell her a major plot point. I did, but it hurt me.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> When you read a book do you read the last chapters first? Yeah, you are in the minority. The ONLY time I'm ok with knowing how something ends is if I've read the book and then go see the movie (or vice versa). Otherwise I want to be surprised.


Honestly, I hardly read anymore. I know I really should.

But... 2 things:
* After I saw the first Lord of the Rings film, I thought, "I'm not going to wait 2 more d**n years to find out if he succeeds in his quest or not so I bought the books and read the last couple chapters of the last book first. Then went back to read the rest.

* On the day of the release of the last Harry Potter book, I read the Wikipedia summary. I was actually early enough that whoever was writing the summary hadn't finished yet and I was frustrated that I had to wait until later in the afternoon to see how it ended. If it was an option, I would have read the end of the summary first(even the summary was a little too long).

And as I've said before, I know I'm in the minority. I think I just don't understand what is enjoyable about surprise/suspense. But the closest thing I can think of is: is it like a puzzle or homework problem where you're developing a skill? Is it more rewarding when you do or don't figure out the ending before the reveal?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

The journey is rewarding. Look at it this way. Your life is a journey. Do you want to live it or just jump to the end and end it now.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I don't mind season long threads for certain shows. However I do like the idea and hope that people will put either the title of the episode or the date it played.

Shows like Project Runway and World's Worst Chefs - that's fine. There is just a few people interested and we know to expect a season long thread. If more people were into it and posting then it may make a difference.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> When you read a book do you read the last chapters first? Yeah, you are in the minority. The ONLY time I'm ok with knowing how something ends is if I've read the book and then go see the movie (or vice versa). Otherwise I want to be surprised.


I've read multi-book series in reverse order. Does that count?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I watched Memento backwards...


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I watched Memento backwards...


Thread winner

Close thread


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I watched Memento backwards...


Yea but then you quickly forgot about it later


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

zalusky said:


> Yea but then you quickly forgot about it later


Did I? Huh...


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

dswallow said:


> I've read multi-book series in reverse order. Does that count?


I don't do that on purpose, but I have, on several occasions, read a series out of order, usually when I don't realize it's part of a series until I've already read it. Or when I can't find the previous book (s) but I see the later one and can't resist buying/reading it.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Did I? Huh...


Joke falls flat about amnesia in Memento!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

zalusky said:


> Joke falls flat about amnesia in Memento!


I just didn't remember that I had forgotten. And am grateful to you for reminding me.

(Maybe I should get a tattoo...)


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> The journey is rewarding. Look at it this way. Your life is a journey. Do you want to live it or just jump to the end and end it now.


What an atrocious analogy !!!


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I watched Memento backwards...


I just laughed out loud at work and someone walking past my office just gave me the strangest look!

I agree - thread winner!


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Are you saying that East Coasters should wait three hours to post? By that time, I'll have lost my train of thought. Usually if I come to post right away it's because I have a particular point I want to make or discuss. Three hours later, I may not remember that point. Unfortunately for you, there's not a whole lot you can do about it. That's life on the west coast. I've lived in the western time zone for 5 years, and I know what it's like. And that's BEFORE Tivo and other time shifting devices were in play (I bought my first DVR when I lived in San Diego, so that's where my time shifting began).


The only thing I wish people on the East Coast would do is recognize that they have excluded people not in their time zone, and have a more gracious response than "sucks to be you" or to insinuate that if you don't like season-long threads, you don't have any right to be annoyed.

Not everyone is that way, but the "well, what do you expect us to do about it?" response gets old.

Just saying "we're sorry you get left out; we didn't do it on purpose" every now and again would go a long way.



Robin said:


> I have a friend who does that. Every time she reads a book she reads the last chapter first. I find it Incomprehensible.


A friend of mine does that. She wants to make sure which characters are alive at the end. She doesn't want to invest emotionally in a character that is going to get killed in the middle of the book.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I just don't open any thread about a show that I'm behind on. It's really my choice that I'm behind on it. When I catch up, I'll read the thread.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Howie said:


> I just don't open any thread about a show that I'm behind on. It's really my choice that I'm behind on it. When I catch up, I'll read the thread.


+1 on that. I know I am in danger if I want to go through my usual searches (including here) at night before my stories start. My routine is then to read through the posts just before I go to bed and then the next morning.

The east/west coast thing does not bother me. I still remember in the old days when the other networks broke in to the east/west coast feeds as soon as it was announced "Who shot JR"with a crawl. I assume it a preemptive move to try to prevent the west coasters from watching. I don't think it worked.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

murgatroyd said:


> She doesn't want to invest emotionally in a character that is going to get killed in the middle of the book.


Did she get scarred for life by a George R. R. Martin book?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

laria said:


> Did she get scarred for life by a George R. R. Martin book?


More likely Louisa May Alcott.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

mattack said:


> Gee, if only this were Usenet, and we could have a message thread per episode.....


I miss USENET.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

laria said:


> Did she get scarred for life by a George R. R. Martin book?


This pre-dates _A Song of Ice and Fire_.

It's easy to make fun, but seriously, why is this any different than someone who doesn't want to go to a movie which is too scary/gross for them? As long as they aren't hurting someone else, why shouldn't people be left in peace to enjoy their stuff the way they want to?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Sometimes it's tempting to create a front-end that can present threads in a custom order/grouping/sequence, substitute decoded/expanded codes for banned words/URLs, and permit a syntax for posting of material otherwise not permitted.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> When you read a book do you read the last chapters first? Yeah, you are in the minority. The ONLY time I'm ok with knowing how something ends is if I've read the book and then go see the movie (or vice versa). Otherwise I want to be surprised.


I wish I'd read the last chapter of The Colorado Kid in the store before I bought it, or at least before I wasted time reading it.


----------

