Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Yahoo! Businesses The Internet

Yahoo! Takes Down News Message Boards 135

hondo77 writes "Yahoo! has taken down their news message boards. According to the message from General Manager Neil Budde, 'Over the next few months, we plan to offer new discussion forums based on topics in the news and incorporating the latest features to foster a better discussion for all of our readers.' Okay, I can understand wanting to fix the boards so they're more useful but to take them down for months before a replacement is released?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yahoo! Takes Down News Message Boards

Comments Filter:
  • by Ryvar ( 122400 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @01:46AM (#17395990) Homepage
    It's Yahoo message boards. I 100% guarantee that anybody smart enough to have an opinion worth considering is not affected in the least by this - so why does it matter?

    --Ryv

  • The real reason (Score:4, Insightful)

    by amplusquem ( 995096 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @01:46AM (#17395994)
    Let's face it... too much spam and off topic posts are the reasons Yahoo took down the boards, not to improve the board itself.
    • Re:The real reason (Score:4, Insightful)

      by crossmr ( 957846 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @02:24AM (#17396166) Journal
      Bingo. They were an absolute mess. Any remote relation to an obscure hot-topic was used as an excuse to rant about god, terrorists, christians, etc. I often wondered why yahoo even had these up.

      • They still have Yahoo! Answers to do all that ranting now.
      • by Ucklak ( 755284 )
        Well, those AOL users had to go somewhere once they dumped AOL.
      • by egamma ( 572162 )

        Bingo. They were an absolute mess. Any remote relation to an obscure hot-topic was used as an excuse to rant about god, terrorists, christians, etc. I often wondered why yahoo even had these up.
         
         
        Hmmm...when Slashdot gets taken down, someone will say, "They were an absolute mess. Any remote relation to an obscure hot-topic was used as an excuse to rant about Microsoft, Bill Gates, Christians, etc."
        • by crossmr ( 957846 )
          I don't know if you actually ever visited their boards, but there was a pretty big difference. While most related topics you do get one or two people who bring up the "Riaa/MS/etc" is evil rant, on yahoo that was pretty much all you got, and endless people fueling it over and over. I don't think I ever even saw any attempts at real discussion on any of those topics.

    • Let's face it... too much spam and off topic posts are the reasons Yahoo took down the boards, not to improve the board itself.

      If people still use them (and they do, in droves), that's all that would matter to yahoo.

      I have a feeling they were worried about being held liable for content/weirdos so they're putting in some sort of automated screener to find questionable content.

      Everyone jumped for joy when MySpace was getting sued for the actions of its users. Now other sites have to watch out to protect idiot
    • Yahoo's traffic has been dropping steadily for almost two years now There's a finite amount of attention span out there.

      http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme?entry =search_engine_comparison [realmeme.com]
  • Too bad (Score:3, Funny)

    by fishyfool ( 854019 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @01:47AM (#17395996) Homepage Journal
    The boards were pretty much my only reason for visiting Yahoo!
  • Moderation? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mogster ( 459037 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @01:53AM (#17396016)
    I've never used their discussion boards (to be honest I rarely use Yahoo). However it sounds to me like they need a system for moderating comments. Perhaps have a few trusted users given this ability.

    TFA doesn't say why the current systems has been pulled offline prior to a new system being put into place. I'd hazard a guess though that perhaps they want to start beta-testing various new methods shortly and that would be easier to do with the old method gone.
    • by Baricom ( 763970 )
      Love your sig :) Where's it from?
      • by Mogster ( 459037 )
        Honestly, I can't remember where I came across it originally. It was a few years back and I figured it would make a great sig.

        Just did a quick Google - appears to be a quote from Steven Wright. Guess I should cite my source :)
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You hit the nail square on the head!
      For the most part the news boards were filled with vitrolic and vicious post from Dems, Repubs, Christians, Muslims, and racists of every sort. Yahoo never followed their own policy of removal and banning user from the forums.
      The only problem I have with user moderation is a gaggle of like minded individuals often act in concert, whether they know it or not, to mod down opposing opinions. For example in this moderated forum anyone posting anything pro Microsoft is usual
      • by hkmwbz ( 531650 )
        "For example in this moderated forum anyone posting anything pro Microsoft is usually modded down so far nobody ever gets to see an opposing viewpoint."
        That's a load of bullshit. Plenty og pro-MS posts are modded up, provided that they are rational and informative. For example, I am a fairly satisfied Windows user, and I have never been modded down for stating so. However, I refrain from trolling when posting about how I feel that Windows is what works best for me.
  • Hang on.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Before we all jump on the "let's bash Yahoo" bandwagon, why don't we all just sit down and discuss this?

    Oh, right..
  • Trolls? (Score:5, Funny)

    by monkeySauce ( 562927 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @01:56AM (#17396032) Journal
    FTFA:
    As they were set up, the Yahoo! News message boards allowed a small number of vocal users to dominate the discussion.

    Translation: we couldn't beat the trolls, so we took down the bridge?
    • Or: We can't compete with Fark at its own game, so we're going a whole different direction?
    • *chuckle*
      What is really means is we believe that soon we are going to have our 'balls' in a legal vice over what is posted on our boards, so rather than wait for the disaster to happen, we are going to preemptively set up a locked down system requiring verified emails and with unique id's so we can quickly and efficiently surrender that information to the FBI and the Homeland Security Gestapo :)
      *then again I've been accused of being paranoid*
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by teko_teko ( 653164 )
      Translation: we couldn't beat the trolls, so we took down the bridge?
      If 90% of the bridge crossers are trolls, why not?
  • Two words (Score:3, Funny)

    by kwrxxx ( 1038350 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @01:56AM (#17396034)
    Lunatic Fringe. It seems only the lunatic fringe are attracted to news message boards. Our local newspapers web site added comments and everytime a hispanic name is mentioned dozens of people would go into rants and start flame wars about illegal aliens.
    • by wasted ( 94866 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @02:20AM (#17396144)
      ...It seems only the lunatic fringe are attracted to news message boards...


      From the Header:
          SLASHDOT. NEWS for nerds. Stuff that matters.

      Judging from this crowd, (myself included,) it appears you are correct.
    • I dunno.. The Seattle PI added the ability to post comments on selected articles this year, and I've been fairly active there. Aside from the expected ad-hominem attacks there is usually some substantive discussion. Of course, instead of knee-jerk racism we tend to rant about the war on drugs at the drop of a hat.
  • Read it a bit closer:

    Over the next few months, we plan to offer new discussion forums

    They plan. That means they do not necessarily have a replacement currently available, or they would use the more definite "we will offer new discussion forums". These might be going away for good and they simply don't want to say so at the moment. Or maybe they've got some vaporware-ish thing they're currently writing, which may or may not materialize.

    There is no real indication of these forums coming back in the

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29, 2006 @02:01AM (#17396062)
    .. Michael Richards, high on drugs, screaming "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER I HATE NIGGERS" over and over again for hours and hours. Add to that an evangelic Christian screaming "FIND CHRIST" at the top of his lungs, once every 45 minutes precisely. Finally, imagine an overweight 40-year old divorced mother crying and saying "why is everybody so mean".

    This is what the Yahoo boards were like. They were worst than useless.
    • With Michael Richards involved, that sounds like the makings for a cable sitcom.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      This is what the Yahoo boards were like. They were worst than useless.
      From your firm grasp of the English language, I see that you too were a Yahoo! poster.
    • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @02:56AM (#17396290)
      Michael Richards, high on drugs, screaming "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER I HATE NIGGERS" over and over again for hours and hours. Add to that an evangelic Christian screaming "FIND CHRIST" at the top of his lungs, once every 45 minutes precisely. Finally, imagine an overweight 40-year old divorced mother crying and saying "why is everybody so mean".

      You forgot about half the posts asking "Why do Libs hate [victim in news story]?" and after someone starts ranting about "Niggers" there's always someone who chimes in about how much their wife loves nigger cock. Oh and 25% of all posts will be typed in all caps, especially the titles so they catch your eye in the message list.

      I remember the news stories about Hurricane Katrina where most of the comments were trying to blame the Democrats or the Republicans for what was in reality a weather phenomenon.

      The problem isn't that Yahoo's boards "allow a vocal minority to dominate the conversation" it's that anybody with a Yahoo account can participate and everyone can post as many times as they want, and comments are not moderated at all. So the unemployed jackass can dominate a conversation simply by his ability to sit in front of his computer all day and type what he wants.

      If Yahoo actually policed its forums at all and (here's where they fell down) booted users they would have far less issues. There is no policing of the forums at all, and everyone knows it. That's why people do what they want. Yahoo I imagine is not willing to ban people by IP or otherwise because they want those users to stay and keep using Yahoo's other services. I have seen quite a few rumblings on those boards (which I do read/post on sometimes for cheap entertainment value) about people who complain about abusive users or the state of disorganization and their complaints are erased by Yahoo's staff. Yahoo seems to be encouraging the flame wars the same way a supermarket tabloid publishes thinly veiled lies about celebrities and sensationalize everything.
      • Given the number of dynamic IP users out there, that's going to lead to
        a) people renewing their IP via their cable modem, or hanging up and redialing their dialup ISP;
        b) Yahoo banning ISP's;
        c) Yahoo reporting people to their ISP.

        a) makes the ban useless
        b) will inevitably make the boards useless and unpopulated
        c) will make ISPs laugh at Yahoo

        and I haven't even gotten into anonymizer proxies like boxofprox.com
        • by SeaFox ( 739806 )
          Not all providers will grant a new IP lease just because you drop your connection. At the company I work for (cableco) the IP leases run 7-10 days. Disconnecting all your equipment and reconnecting will net you the exact same IP unless you change your MAC address. Few people know how the system works and have the technical knowledge to change the MAC on thier routers and aren't willing to bypass the router either, which would get them what they want. I have actually fielded calls from people who want their
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by leland242 ( 736905 )
        I'm with you. Anytime I read an article on yahoo that was remotely provocative, I would always check the message boards. I will try, below, to recreate the average thread titles:

        WHERES CINDYBIN http://www.cindybin.com/ [cindybin.com]
        NIGS LOVE CRIME
        IM SHAKING MY BIBLE IN ANGER
        REPUKES SUCK
        LIBTARDS ARE RESPONSIBLE!
        KILL ALL MUSLIMES!!!
        DO YOU SUCK BLACK C@CK?!

        There are some other gems I'm missing, but you get the idea. Always entertaining. Always assured me humanity is doomed.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by suffe ( 72090 )
      So what do you call this show?

      The aristocrats!
    • by jweller ( 926629 )
      I see you've met my co-workers
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Yahoo said they'd bring back the rooms they deleted [out-law.com] last year, except the pedo ones of course.

    After a few months of no action I gave up on them.
  • Loss of control? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nolife ( 233813 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @02:04AM (#17396076) Homepage Journal
    I never actually participated in their discussion groups. I see it as a case of giving the users too much freedom and the corporate side was taking heat. Maybe the users views did not meet or match those of advertisers/news source/Yahoo in general, or there really was a few jackass trolls ruining it for everyone.

    I remember back in early/mid 90's, arguing with some guys on Usenet about commercial postings. Unsolicited messages were not a problem back then but people saw it coming. He claimed that all companies large and small would eventually turn to Usenet because it was free advertising and possibly used for constructive discussions about the company and products. I thought that companies would reject the idea because of the uneasiness of having no control of the feedback and it is there for all to see like it or not. The Microsoft groups are working out well to this day but typically you do not see companies getting involved in any type of forum that they do not control the mute button for. Obviously, Yahoo has the mute button in this situation and they used it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by poopdeville ( 841677 )
      The Microsoft groups are working out well to this day but typically you do not see companies getting involved in any type of forum that they do not control the mute button for.

      Hey! Trolling the Microsoft hierarchy is a great idea!
  • by VGfort ( 963346 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @02:09AM (#17396100) Homepage
    Yahoo killed those over a year ago and they haven't been brought back, even though they said they would. Yahoo has enough things to worry about, they don't see forums or user chat rooms totally useful.
    • I agree. In today's market-driven website hub that is Yahoo, the liability of keeping user driven conversation enabled is more trouble than it's worth.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    OVER THE YEARS WHENEVER I'VE LOOKED AT THOSE SH1TTY BOARDS I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN EVEN A SINGLE INSIGHTFUL MESSAGE! JUST FVCKING LIBTARDS AND REPUGS SCREAMING LAME OFFTOPIC INSULTS! BY COMPARISON EVEN SLASHDOT LOOKS LIKE SOME KIND OFGODDAMNED SHINING BEACON OF ENLIGHTENMENT!

    Important Stuff Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. U

  • Good Riddence (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cyranoVR ( 518628 ) * <cyranoVR.gmail@com> on Friday December 29, 2006 @02:18AM (#17396130) Homepage Journal
    I took a brief look at the Y! message boards once...the incivility of the "discourse" I found there made /. look like the British Parliament.
    • Re:Good Riddence (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @02:20AM (#17396142)
      Never been to usenet, I take it.
      • Stuart!

        I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw a Dead Milkmen lyric. Just had to give you some props for that.
      • by Ilgaz ( 86384 )
        Believe me, Usenet is not in bad shape like Yahoo message boards were. I guess most of the /. people have never been to "news message boards" especially on popular stories.

        I tell you one thing. If those trolls have hit Slashdot exactly they did to Yahoo, CmdrTaco would ask for credit card verification to have account at Slashdot or thousands of IPs would get banned.

        Of course yahoo had no responsibility (could implement karma system) but those messages were hosted at .yahoo.com domain which showed company ba
      • I took a brief look at the Y! message boards once...the incivility of the "discourse" I found there made /. look like the British Parliament.

        Never been to usenet, I take it.

        Clearly never watched Parliament either.

      • I haven't been to Usenet since alt.tasteless went all to hell.

        I've *never* been to Yahoo! discussion boards. If I wanted meaningless, I'd go to, well, Usenet...

        ps- British Parliament is hilarious. Back-benchers make it all worthwhile. Almost like a CNN forum...
    • the incivility of the "discourse" I found there made /. look like the British Parliament.

      Congress--with a two drink minimum!
    • by vidarh ( 309115 )
      You mean it made /. look like a bunch of middle aged men of questionable reputation slinging insults at eachother and applauding and shouting like a well trained sitcom audience every time a speaker manages to take a cheap shot at someone?

      Using Parliament as a measure of civil discourse was a creative move on your part, I'll give you that.

      • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
        As the cute kid who comes in an makes the occasional audience-pleasing quip, I have to ask "What you talkin' bout, Vidarh?"

        -Eric

    • You ever seen a transmission from the British Parliament?

      The comparison does a great disservice to /..
      • by Dunbal ( 464142 )
        You ever seen a transmission from the British Parliament?

        The comparison does a great disservice to /..


              Yeah, I men for a start, most of us here are actually awake!
      • by smoker2 ( 750216 )
        You ever seen a transmission from the British Parliament?
        You're not wrong there !

        read any Hansard [martian.fm] recently ?

    • by VJ42 ( 860241 )
      I take it that you've never watched a live broadcast from the Commons: the only time the Commons is full is at Prime Ministers Questions [wikipedia.org]; the rest of the time debate consists of the only 5 MPs who care about the issue at hand, and 99% of them just vote how they are told by the party Whips [wikipedia.org].
    • by jac89 ( 979421 )
      I'm assuming that you have never watched/listened to the "discourse" in the British Parliament. I can assure you that it is far from civil. Something like the US Senate would be a better example.
  • by almondjoy ( 162478 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @02:26AM (#17396176)
    Newsvine [newsvine.com] always seems to have a pretty high signal to noise ratio [wikipedia.org]. I'm not at all familiar with how Yahoo's message groups used to work. I can tell you that Newsvine has a very interesting formula going for a user driven interactive news site.
    • by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Friday December 29, 2006 @02:40AM (#17396220) Homepage Journal

      I can tell you that Newsvine has a very interesting formula going for a user driven interactive news site.

      I agree. The biggest problem is that the Newsvine community just feels too small. Part of this may be that people who enjoy thoughful, stimulating discussion have already been turned off by discussion boards in general (or are already in Slashdot, of course). While Yahoo! is taking down its boards, look at the absurd comments that permeate C|NET, for example. It's like watching third graders fling boogers at each other.

      The real reason more sites don't go to effective moderation systems seems to be they truly want to provoke the most asenine, aggression-inducing responses possible, so as to keep the third graders coming back for more. There may be far more of the booger-flingers out there than there are reasonable people. Then again, it may be that once again the public is being underestimated by the pointy-haired bosses who run sites that provide an outlet for unmoderated booger-flinging. I hope it's the latter, but I fear the former may be true.

      BTW, I don't know where the frack the whole booger-throwing theme came from. Am I trippin' on TheraFlu again?

      • by dbcad7 ( 771464 )
        Although I agree with the need for moderation, if not done right it's pretty bad. The BBC moderates every post before it's posted. I guess to do this they had to eliminate threads, or spend extra time reading parent threads.. (Only reason that comes to mind) To respond to another persons post is pointless, because your response will sometimes be many pages away from the original post, and now completely out of context. This over-moderation also leads to many "your censoring me because..." posts, that I gues
      • by Jerf ( 17166 )

        BTW, I don't know where the frack the whole booger-throwing theme came from. Am I trippin' on TheraFlu again?

        Probably. If you weren't, you might have come up with the more accurate analogy of "feces-flinging monkeys".

        Seriously, anybody who thinks Slashdot or even Digg has worthless discussion should go check out Yahoo or Digg or CNN or YouTube [xkcd.com] or anything like that. That's worthless discussion.

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @02:42AM (#17396228) Homepage

    It's surprising how few sites have a decent rating system, like Slashdot. It certainly helps. (It would help even more if the editors were also rated, of course.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by d_jedi ( 773213 )
      Only problem is, anything going against the Slashdot-groupthink (ie. OSS good, DRM bad, etc.) is almost automatically modded out of existence (if a comment is written, but is modded down to -1.. will anyone read it?)
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by wyldeone ( 785673 )

        You know, I keep hearing this repeated over and over again, but I really don't think it's true. There are plenty of examples of contrary views getting modded up highly. For example, the second comment [slashdot.org] on the recent story about how Microsoft is abusing personal data is saying that it's fine what Microsoft is doing. This clearly goes against the slashdot "groupthink" as you call it, and yet it's rated a 5. There are plenty more examples in that story and in nearly every other controversial article.

        Though it

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Dunbal ( 464142 )
        (if a comment is written, but is modded down to -1.. will anyone read it?

              Real men read at -1.
    • The BBC's news forums are a mess precisely because they don't have the sort of moderation system Slashdot affords. I blogged [joe-baldwin.net] about the problems with the BBC forums...to summarise; the moderation isn't restrictive as to who can moderate (every registered user can) and there's only one moderation option (moderate up, or "recommend"). That and a lack of decent threading or quoting makes it hell to be on.

      Sorta on-topic I suppose...
  • by beej ( 82035 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @02:46AM (#17396252) Homepage Journal
    I frequented them quite a bit. It's great to watch some of the interaction that takes place, pretty much 100% of which is wholly predictable. So why play? Same reason people watch sitcoms--when was the last time you were blindsided by a brilliant joke in a sitcom? It's just braindead entertainment. Same with the discussion groups.

    But the boards had quite a few usability problems, not the least of which was that there was no way to get a list of your own posts! Going back to check for replies was a nightmare. Ancient posts on a topic were mixed with the new ones. Navigating a large thread was horrible. The list goes on and on.

    Why take them down before a replacement was available? I think it was probably due to the huge number of profane and offensive posts. Your (I'm talking to you personally, here) great-grandmother has been turning over in her grave nonstop since Yahoo Discussions came online because the word "fuck" has been uttered an average of 12.3 times per second every instant since then.

    If they bring it back, I hope it's a lot more like Usenet. Especially with a killfile. Or at least something with which I can filter out every post containing the string "your an idiot". That should get rid of 50% of the traffic.
    • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by KlomDark ( 6370 )
      Oh what the fuck are you going the fuck on about anyway, you fucker. It's not like you can fucken say fuck any other fucking place. Fuck!
    • ``If they bring it back, I hope it's a lot more like Usenet.''

      Seriously?! These boards must be beyond horrible if being more like Usenet is an improvement!

      (Kidding. I actually have plenty of civilized discussions on Usenet)
  • one too many posts of "and I for one welcome our..."
  • In my experience yahoo has always had more spam getting through than other similar sites.
  • by gbobeck ( 926553 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @03:08AM (#17396342) Homepage Journal
    For those who never used the Yahoo! News message boards, here is a simple analogy which explains (without resorting to quoting 99% of the garbage on said boards):

    Yahoo! News Message Boards were to intelligent discourse as toilet paper is to the great classics from English Literature.
    • by mkw87 ( 860289 )
      Can you rephrase that in terms of a car analogy? I do much better with those. TIA.
      • by gbobeck ( 926553 )
        Can you rephrase that in terms of a car analogy? I do much better with those. TIA.

        Sure...

        Yahoo! News Message Boards were to intelligent discourse as a rusted out Yugo is to classic collectable luxiury cars.

        Hope that helps.
  • There was some speculation that various 'political entities' were paying people small amounts to go on the yahoo news boards and perpetuate this or that agenda. I find it unlikely, but I wonder if anyone knows anything more about that.
    One thing that people haven't mentioned here is that the flame wars on yahoo news discussion boards were extremely entertaining and probably more intense than anything i've seen on usenet because of the short delay in the time it would take for a message to post.
    And th
  • ...never used anything other than google groups.
  • Could it be that the cost to pay someone to moderate the boards started costing more than the ad revenue they brought in? Sounds like they are simply cutting their losses and coming up with a new business model.
  • As they were set up, the Yahoo! News message boards allowed a small number of vocal users to dominate the discussion. In addition, related discussions from similar news articles were not easily linked. Over the next few months, we plan to offer new discussion forums based on topics in the news and incorporating the latest features to foster a better discussion for all of our readers.

    Translation: you are horrible, horrible people. We'll take the discussion forums down for a few months, until all you bigot

  • I've often wondered about the psychological state of those who post to news groups. I've not seen Yahoo msg boards but if it is anything like Usenet then it is infested by disturbed individuals who set themselves up as self appointed monitor and post 24/7. Any legimite debate is then totally shouted out of existance by them and their helper trolls. What do the psychiatric profession have to say about people who spend literally years posting abuse to Usenet.
  • . . . the bathroom walls of the internet.

    And I mean that in a good way - enteraining as hell.

  • I noticed this when I read a news story on Yahoo a few weeks ago. I say good riddance! The last time I looked at the discussion board, it was completely worthless. It was probably a huge waste of disk space. If they bring it back, they need some way to moderate comments and boot abusive users. Personally, I don't see any need for them to bring it back. If I want intelligent messageboard conversation on current events, I usually go to the Fray on Slate.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mike3k ( 574665 )
      I've never seen intelligent conversation on Yahoo's message boards. The yahoos who post there are a step lower than AOLers.
  • Truly, you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy that shallow into the Internet.

    (Well, maybe more of the former than the latter.)
  • by freelunch ( 258011 ) on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:50AM (#17398716)
    As bad as many yahoo boards can be, there are people who hang out there. Yahoo has a long history of arbitrarily and instantly destroying online communities which have many years of history. You can't just re-create a community. Does anyone have a clue at yahoo?

    Yahoo did the same thing with the finance message boards a few months ago. With no warning, they forced everyone over to a new user interface that was extremely bad and poorly tested.

    It immediately stifled discussion and massive numbers of long time posters fled to alternate services. There are many reasons users camp out on a particular stock message board.. I know folks who have over 10K posts on a single stock board and who have been there for 7 or 8 years. Long time investors, former and current employees and friends and family, the company is local, etc. And, of course, community.. Those communities have value. That yahoo has been unable to preserve them shows just how far they are from monetizing them..

    During the transition to the new interface, some message boards were lost in the shuffle. A lot of those people were investors, you know, people with money.. Seems like a pretty good demographic. Does anyone understand business at yahoo? FWIW, yahoo had a terrible quarter shortly after the finance board overhaul. They blamed it on reduced ad views.. Wonder if the reduced finance board traffic was part of that?
    • by rlp ( 11898 )
      You must have found some exceptional message boards in finance. Most of the ones I've seen were dominated by shorts trying to talk a stock down and off-topic pump-and-dump artists.
  • I had my dose of "fun" on some of them. The CA board from time to time provided very interesting inside scoop on company reorgs. The SCOX board would make wonderful material for researching about short squeezing & pump'n'dump. I hope the board content is archived somewhere and made available for research and not destroyed.
  • Now I don't have to read "Bush sucks" vs. "Bush is God" when I want to discuss the news article entitled "New Element Discovered."
  • Honestly, I am. They just pulled the goddamn plug without a replacement. As worthless the boards were concerning my time, I still posted regularly if only for the fact it made me feel better to bitch about something or just make a statement 10 people would read. I'm not sure what "value" the boards had, but they still managed to help me kill an hour or two while being bored out of my mind at work.
  • the yahoo boards are famous for their trolls but yahoo couldnt care less about them. yahoo possibly incouraged flame wars by posting 'loaded' stories so they would get high click throughs for their ad's.
    the main reason yahoo is "improving" their boards (e.g shutting the old filthy ones down) is because a lawyer named Stephen Galton is suing them over the fact he was badmouthed. some think there is some sort of political motive as well.
    new boards are available but are filled with spam and it doesnt look
  • Now that the boards are offline for a while maybe some of the posters will start taking their medication. The Yahoo message boards attracted the crazies like a 100W bulb attracts bugs.
  • I used to love to read the political stories and just read through the comments that would get posted. The truly cream-of-the-crop crazies are all over those boards. You couldn't ask for a more truly represenative slice of Americana. Some of my favorites:

    1. The subject line only flamebaiters. Say the most offensive thing possible in one line and leave.
    2. The "HOW DARE YOU" right wingers. Usually taking the bait from #1 forming a poorly written 3000 word essay that #1 will never read.
    3. The super

  • by rlp ( 11898 )
    Wonder if they'll introduce a moderation and meta moderation system. If they do and then apply for a patent, I'm sure the USPTO will grant it.

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Working...