Bill's pull-up of the classic restoration thread by Larry got me reminiscing about the time when I joined these forums a year ago.

There was a lot of meat in the threads here. I remember reading the archive for a month before I posted anything. I actually read every thread in the restoration forum. It was well worth it.

When I tried to catch up after an absence of a few months on what I missed I quickly realized that the effort of going through the threads was more trouble than it was worth. I probably missed some good ones but most contained more noise than signal. Some threads looked like a chat session transcript rather than a forum thread.

This got me thinking that not everyone here understands the difference between the two and hence the reason for noise pollution in the threads.

Here is how I see it:

A chat is an ad-hoc conversation. A chat is spontaneous and ephemeral (short life span). The reply lives long enough to scroll off the top of the screen so there is no need to put too much thought into replies. It is the closest thing to a bar-stool converstion using text.

A forum thread is a cross between verbal and written communication and is preserved for historical reference by others. It requires more coherence and organization. Sticking to topic is vital otherwise valuable information is drowned out by verbal diarrhea.

A few remarks for the purpose of humour are very good to liven up the subject and put a human face on it. Nothing but humour would only fit in a "Razor Jokes and Gags" forum.

A forum reply is not about who replied the fastest or the most but who gave the most interesting and/or useful information. A question is valuable if it has not already been answered or if it is asked in a new way that requires re-thinking of the old answers. Repeating the same thing over and over has no value. Forums have a search function for that.

I feel that forum posts should be useful to anyone reading them months later. Just like they were when I first joined SRP. This is what attracted me to this community.

Many "old-timers" who were valuable and interesting contributors have moved on. Did the change in quality of content have anything to do with it? Not sure, but it was probably a contributing factor.

I am concerned that the quality of content has slipped in the last year and I would hate to see this trend continue.

Am I the only one who feels that way or am I the only one voicing what some of you are thinking?

NOTE: This inquiry is not for a detailed transcript of meandering thought processes but the conclusion of such.