As someone who just discovered The Secret, I was thinking recently how difficult it is to catch up on this hunt. This site has a ton of information. But it's all in threads 60, 80, 120-pages in length, and once you find something, good luck finding it again (though the forum has a decent search function, compared to some I've seen). The Wiki was a good idea, but having to duplicate information on two different sites isn't ideal, and it's not the best place to discuss the information disseminated. Forums are great for that. My thought was that, despite how far along we are in the game, it might be beneficial to switch up how the threads are organized. In the beginning, it was certainly beneficial to have the verses and images split up like they are. But it feels like now that the pairings are a little more settled and likely locations identified it might be more useful, if someone were willing to put in the work, to give each particular broad theory its own thread and try and summarize what we've discovered to-date in the original post. For example: "Image 1, Verse 7 - San Francisco - Golden Gate Park" (and Erexere could start his own "Image 1, Verse 7 - Fairbanks, AK - Denali National Park" thread ) If someone visiting the forum had a similar idea, they wouldn't have to go read 100 pages of forum threads filled with redundant info and mixed with other theories around the city. With only 10 puzzles with an average of maybe three big theories, it wouldn't be too unwieldy, and it could both consolidate all the information on that theory (like a wiki, without having to leave the site or give up communication abilities), and also lessen the confusion of having multiple conversations overlapping. Instead of someone filling the Image 12 thread with their Branson, MO theory, they could start a new thread that wouldn't distract from more likely conversation. Again, just my thoughts as a new seeker who has read most of the threads on the site and has lost as much of it as I've remembered due to the sheer volume of information on the forum. If the documentary ever comes out, or if a casque is found and there's a surge of interest, it might be beneficial to all to make it easier for people with fresh eyes to comment and contribute intelligently on long-time theories. Thoughts? I don't want to step on any toes and piss off anyone who's made this an online home for the last decade or so by starting a bunch of new threads that consolidate individual theories, but I'm willing to put in a little of the legwork on some of the theories I'm more familiar with.

That may be workable at first, but what do you do when erexere starts posting numerous "thoughts" on each thread? He is going to do it, you know that.

Eg, lay off. Frisco makes a good point. You pose your question in poor taste. The theories have become more standard in some cases such that their own thread would be an improvement. That shouldnt be too hard for you or I to understand.

I think that would be less of a problem, Egbert. He currently doesn't have any alternative than to present his unique thoughts in a thread that already exists for either the image or the verse. With theory-specific threads, either his idea is localized enough that it fits an existing thread and can be dealt with there, or it's way out in left field and he can start his own thread where he can compile his evidence and we can read it or ignore it as we please (or he uses the old image/verse threads as a catch-all, like they're currently used as). Erexere is going to post either way--he's very enthusiastic about the search. It's easy enough to hide every post by him if that irritates anyone. Personally, I'd rather have the option to not click on a particular thread than have to skim over a 100-page megathread trying to separate 3 different legitimate theories plus miscellaneous erexere musings that possibly put the casque 3000 miles away. I understand the resignation, but I think maybe part of the reason the forum is a little stagnant (and thus populated mostly by erexere's posts) is the difficulty in maneuvering it. Obviously the search is 30 years old, and it's been a decade since a casque has been unearthed, so that's the main reason, I'd wager, but it can't help that the main resource for the search isn't very user-friendly.

Well, whatever the majority would like to do would be fine by me. I agree the pages have become unruly. I take it your idea would take on the following look: Thread 1: Montreal/Image 9/Verse 2 Thread 2: Montreal/Image 9/Verse 10 Thread 3: San Francisco/Image 1/Verse 7 etc. Here is another "problem" though: What if someone wants to just discuss something in an Image that they just found, like a number? Would they have to duplicate their post in all threads containing that Image?

Well, I personally would like one more degree of specificity. City, verse, image, and area within the city. The more focused, the more useful, I think, even if threads may be much shorter. As for what someone would do if they found something new--for one, I think this happens less and less often as the years have gone by, which is why it feels like the mega threads are less apt than they once were. But if it does happen, one could just post it in the old image/verse thread and let others run with it for whichever theory, or they could add it to whichever theory they think it fits best. It can always be repeated In another theory's thread if someone finds a relevant connection.

My opinion is probably a little colored by my experiences on other forums. It's really nice aesthetically and organization-wise to have fewer, longer threads. But I've also watched participation plummet because despite how pretty it looks, it's not the best way to communicate, I don't think. In the beginning when the subject was "what do we see in this image" or "what does this verse mean", the current threads were perfect. But as the discussion got more nuanced, the thread organization didn't.

It might not be the best way to communicate, but it's an important archive. Maybe people could use the PM feature more when discussing things, and reserve the threads for posting interesting thoughts, finds, and (relevant) points of discussion...keep the personal back and forth in the PM...keep the threads for theories and solutions, image matches, verse matches, and general findings.

My PM archive filled up long ago (limit = 200 messages), so I frustratingly have to delete old messages I'd rather keep just to read new ones. Every single time.

I'm not suggesting deleting the current threads. They do make a good archive. Although ideally the "theory threads" would incorporate most of the stuff that has already been said in those threads and consolidate it in their first posts. So rather than scour the Image 1 thread AND the verse 7 thread for evidence for Golden Gate Park, you could go to a single thread where someone has put all that info in an easily review-able place. Again, it seems like a lot of work for the activity the forum has right now, but it might be beneficial in the event that a found casque or the documentary stirs the pot again.

I think the Wiki page does that, but unfortunately the person running it, acts as an editor...posting up the theories that he thinks is correct and discarding others. I can't stress how important it is for people to start at the beginning and use the book and not the message boards to do this. So for beginners, I would say the message board is not a "good" place to start. Now for people who have been working on this for years, I can see how this format is a bit klunky.

Wow, the wiki is really intense. I looks fairly well organized but lacking in the discussion department. It's completely devoid of any theory I've ever spouted. People who ignore the parenthetical burden of my postings here should be right at home contributing to the wiki. I can assure you that I'll make no attempt to "contribute" there. As far as the syntax for listing theory threads, Eg's suggestion looks fine. The extra degree of specificity might improve things in the longrun. Is there a bbcode here that allows users to dump a lot of data in a clickable hide/unhide feature? Over at tweleve.org I can use the [spoiler][/spoiler] feature to autohide. Something like that could make it easier to carry the blockchain of theory particular to whatever new comment is being made, thus preserving a sense of completeness to the content. [showhide="click"]nope...[/showhide] I'll ask Mark Parry if he wouldnt mind implementing the feature.

decibalnyc wrote:: I can't stress how important it is for people to start at the beginning and use the book and not the message boards to do this. Why do you think that's important? Do you think it's likely that new seekers are going to be able to actually find a copy of the book without already having been introduced to the search through here or the wiki? It's not like they're just sitting on the shelves of bookstores. A copy of The Secret will run you from $70-$300. This website is free. I agree about the wiki (and I've stopped posting stuff there since my hard work just gets removed). It's not terribly useful for much other than an intro and as a repository for resources. The way it's set up, if every piece of photo evidence were posted, it would be horribly convoluted. And if every theory on the verse were added, it would be the size of a novel. I think the forum is much better equipped to separate the information into manageable posts/threads.

Frisco wrote:: Do you think it's likely that new seekers are going to be able to actually find a copy of the book without already having been introduced to the search through here or the wiki? It's not like they're just sitting on the shelves of bookstores. A copy of The Secret will run you from $70-$300. This website is free. Can't say I'm a fan of having a thread for every theory; I think it could end up looking a mess which would seem even more impenetrable. At least the current format preserves the illusion of orderly, structured analysis. I agree that most of the old threads are full of rubbish, but I think you'll just end up with a load of extra threads that are also full of rubbish. The Wiki is the best place for a newcomer to start. The reprint is easily available as paper or Kindle on Amazon for $20 though. OK, a 1982 edition might be nicer, but the book's no longer out of print. Would be interesting to know what their sales figures are like. (Judging from the emails I get, I think most people are probably discovering it through Reddit.)

WhiteRabbit wrote:: Can't say I'm a fan of having a thread for every theory; I think it could end up looking a mess which would seem even more impenetrable. At least the current format preserves the illusion of orderly, structured analysis. I agree that most of the old threads are full of rubbish, but I think you'll just end up with a load of extra threads that are also full of rubbish. The Wiki is the best place for a newcomer to start. The wiki is not at all comprehensive, and it's mostly the opinions of one poster. It's great for resources, but one can only learn so much about the search before they want to discuss it with others, and the wiki is not equipped for that. As someone who just started navigating this search in the last couple months, I don't think anything could be more impenetrable than the current setup. When the search was recently linked on reddit (which is how I learned about it), over 4 full pages of members came to this forum and signed up. Two months later, there are maybe two of us with more than 2 posts. Check out the membership list--from every 20 people who sign up to this site, only 1 ends up posting. Personally, I was pretty determined, but even I was pretty burnt out after reading through those monster threads. It's cool to see how the search progressed, but most of those pages aren't very useful. And mostly redundant. After 3-4 hours of reading a single thread where you come out even more confused than you start, I can see why most people think "well screw this". If we maintained a standard for thread title format, I don't think it would look like a mess, and it would be far more navigable. And if the thread was full of rubbish, at least it would be relevant rubbish. :p But if people like this, then I'm not going to rock the boat. I just think it's sadistic the number of times I've read in a 100-page thread someone tell a new poster "well first, read every post on the forum so you know what's going on". As if 200-hours of introductory study should be necessary to get up to speed.

Frisco wrote:: But if people like this, then I'm not going to rock the boat. I'm open minded. Let's see what others think.

There are 2 main categories of posts: must reads and drivel. There are comprehensive approaches, and there are the minutiae where discussion hinges on the meaning of a single word or letter, e.g. "Hard" or "oz". There are waves of discontent and breaks of humor. Image links are too big. Threads are too long. Tempers are too hot. Heads are too thick. Assumptions are too thin. Inboxes are too full. Lives are too short. These forums are like the film "Gangs of New York". We cant solve all the problems, but anything we can do to organize things a little better going forward will at least draw some new feet to the hunt rather than alienate.

MrSeabass wrote:: Why must you be such a Hard-oz? Have you ever attempted a dig or put forth a complete theory? Its clear you dont find my posts as a contribution, and if thats solely your problem, why must you commit the same digressions? You keep making the same joke over and over. If you want to rip on me, go ahead, just get smarter about it, make an even better joke, and then say something that that actually makes a difference, otherwise you're just wallowing in your own embarrasement. /trollfeeding

MrSeabass wrote:: I'm not joking, I'm being completely serious and saying what others are too scared to say. You are doing more damage than good here and need your own place to rant while the adults in the room get back to work. While 90% of erexere's posts start at the end of the far-fetched spectrum where most people would begin to feel a little crazy, I don't think he's doing damage to the forum, personally. It's a little disappointing when he's the only one posting for pages and pages of a thread, but my disappointment is that there aren't more posts that I feel are working toward a solution, not that there are too many that aren't. It's easy to blame him for the inactivity on the forum, but it's more likely that time and inaccessibility are larger factors. If you're going to claim to be the adult in the room, I think you should try and avoid the personal attacks and instead use the built-in forum feature that allows you to never see a post by someone you don't want to. We're all human beings here. But tying in your complaint to the thread topic, I think having more specific threads would allow erexere to have his own place to curate his own ideas. I don't imagine he thinks that interspersing his long, and often tangential, posts in giant threads where they eventually get tucked away behind pages and pages of comments relating to more accepted theories is the most efficient use of his time. I didn't make this suggestion with erexere in mind at all, though. He'll post how he wants to post either way. I just thought it would be an improvement to the forum independent of his posting habits. I believe this place has the potential to succeed where the wiki is lacking--compiling all the evidence gathered over the last 15 years and making it accessible in a place that is conducive to discussion.

Maybe we could start by degrees...eg 108 pages on Image 9 is ridiculous. The useful content could be summarised in a few sentences. And I can see the sense in new combined threads for certain pairings that are beyond dispute, like Milwaukee or Houston.

I would be in favor of starting new threads that are more specific. I would also be in favor of starting a new wiki, controlled by people we trust, rather than just the one person running his own wiki now.

A better formatted and organized wiki would definitely come in handy. Just information and no opinion would be great, with links to specific forum threads for discussion.

Frisco wrote:: Why do you think that's important? Do you think it's likely that new seekers are going to be able to actually find a copy of the book without already having been introduced to the search through here or the wiki? It's not like they're just sitting on the shelves of bookstores. A copy of The Secret will run you from $70-$300. This website is free. It's important because that is how you're supposed to do the puzzle. Read the book, and figure things out. OK so a friend tells you about this thing he read online, so you read a couple basic articles about the hunt and think...ok so there's a picture and a verse, and a city...you find a page that gives you all this info and you just jump right in...ok now what. What do you do? You start reading the threads (still don't have the book) and you get sucked into the hunt from the message board. You still don't know what your doing, at all. You're formulating a basis, from other peoples theories and opinions. Even if you go back and look at the two solves...there's still no method given out on what you are actually supposed to do. This is why it's important to read the book and start by trying to match the images to the cities on your own, then the verse to the image on your own....and without the internet, save using maps if you don't have access to an atlas. When you just jump in, without getting at least the online version of the book and trying to give it a go on your own, you loose the whole beginning of the hunt. The book is available for free download in pdf form...I had it within minutes of me learning about the hunt years back.

You can always read the relevant pages online while you're reading threads. The book is a 20-minute read. I suppose some people may be unable to think independently after reading other people's opinions, but I don't think that's universally true. Personally, even if I had been trying to avoid "spoilers" I wouldn't have had the patience. Reading the forum didn't impede my ability to formulate unique theories, but it certainly sped up the process. I'm sure the process of duplicating 32 years of progress on one's own using only the book is a real character-builder, but I don't think it's necessary.

Unknown: As someone who just discovered The Secret, I was thinking recently how difficult it is to catch up on this hunt. I'm not sure I agree with your premise Frisco. Sure there is a lot of information contained in the forum, and it's also true that most of it is nonsense, false starts, and dead ends. But if someone is truly interested in the hunt, there is a pretty easy way to get up to speed that doesn't require wading through all 22K posts to find the relevant information. Here is what I would suggest: 1) Start by reading the "To All Newcomers, PLEASE READ" thread. It's only three pages and contains some good information. But more importantly, it's a short thread that shows how ideas are discussed, and consensus is reached to the extent that that is possible. 2) Read the Threads associated with the Chicago solves. The two main ones are the Image 5 thread, and the Verse 12 Thread, but there are a few others tangential threads that also contain some useful information on how the puzzle is supposed to work. 3) Read the Threads associated with the Cleveland solves. Again, the main ones are the Image 4 thread, and the Verse 5 Thread, and a few others that are easy enough to find. The amount of time invested if you do these three things listed above is no more than a few hours, and it can be even less as you learn to skim to get the salient points, and start to develop an understanding of the puzzles as a whole. From there, I would think it would be up to the individual to decide what the best next step is. All the puzzles are interesting in their own way, and the more you learn about one, the easier it is to understand the puzzle as a whole. However, they each also stand alone, and you don't really need to know anything about Milwaukee to solve Roanoke, as an example. But it helps. Pick one, and dive in. As an aside, I think most people lose interest way before they get as far as even the simple steps above require. It's a hard puzzle that was already obsolete by 1984, with no guarantee of monetary gain. Most of us who are still working it today are doing it out of sheer stubbornness and habit. And have hundreds, if not thousands of hours invested in the effort. Speaking only for myself, I don't think it's too much to ask of any newcomer to do a few hours of homework, and show a basic understanding of the puzzle before they start posting. Navigating the archive, even if it's just the steps outlined above, is a good way to show commitment IMO. One final thought: In some of the other forums that I have been a part of, there is usually a sticky thread at the top of the page devoted to FAQ, and general guidelines for participation. We self moderate here, so perhaps all we need is some sort of index, which builds on the list I started above, and guides people to the relevant threads for the city in which they have an interest. Newcomers would still have to navigate individual threads, but only the ones that they were interested in. And would be free to form their own opinions as they go, which I think is important if we are going to get new ideas to the hunt.

Unknown: Navigating the archive, even if it's just the steps outlined above, is a good way to show commitment IMO. I think more easily navigable threads would be good for everyone. It sounds here like you would hamstring your own efforts in an effort to spite people who happened to discover the hunt after you did, like some sort of hazing ritual. After multiple times reading 100 redundant, conflicting, confusing, and often off-topic pages of these megathreads, that's sort of what it feels like. I end up thinking that what took 4 hours to slog through could have easily been summed up in a single page, if not a single post. And then I realize that every time I want to revisit the information, I'm going to have to spend even more time trying to guess where in that behemoth thread it is. And then it'll turn out to have been in the verse thread instead of the image thread or something. Inflicting pain on new seekers to get them to show commitment isn't a good reason to cling to this system, in my opinion. But then again, I've just been through the hazing, so I'm a little biased. ;-) But really, just the thought of trying to look for a minor piece of info I remember from 8 hours of reading a verse thread and an image thread makes me want to not even bother.

Unknown: It sounds here like you would hamstring your own efforts in an effort to spite people who happened to discover the hunt after you did, like some sort of hazing ritual. That's an interesting way to look at it, but not the way I look at it at all. No one has to slog through multiple 100 post threads unless they want to. It's a barrier, sure, but not a barrier to entry. If you feel that there is value in what you propose, there is nothing that I can see that is stopping you from doing it, other than the massive amount of work involved. Perhaps you can start one thread of your choice, one that summarizes what you've learned so far (about the puzzles as a whole, or one puzzle in particular). If it's a good idea, it will catch on. If not, it will sink to the bottom with all of the other forgotten threads.

True, and I may try a few threads. I just wanted to gauge public opinion. Both to not seem as much like an irritating newbie who thinks he runs the joint, and to advocate for the new structure. Maybe also to convince some of the individuals who have done a lot of work on casques I'm not familiar with to try and consolidate the info into something easily accessible. Since most of the theories I'm most familiar with (Boston, NYC, New Orleans) are pretty dormant lately, I think the threads will sink regardless. But I guess maybe they won't sink below their respective image/verse threads if done well enough.

Unknown: But I guess maybe they won't sink below their respective image/verse threads if done well enough. Only one way to find out. Go for it.

my 2 cents would be if you are consolidating and summarizing you run the chance of eliminating something that to you would seem irrelevant but turns out to be a major clue. so in reality if you really want to learn about the hunt you would end up needing to read both the new summary and the old posts to make sure you don't miss anything. So effectively you are only increasing the amount of fluff you have to slog through if you want to understand the hunt.