- Matthieu Miossec
- United Kingdom
Doctoral Student - Genetic Medecine (Congenital Heart Disease),
Getting rid of the open-ended option
Am I the only one who finds that talks that are open-ended are often not the most interesting talks but somehow keep getting re-ignited by different people at different times with the exact same points simply because they linger on? Isn't there a risk that these might harbor unending flame wars?
I feel like a number of people abuse it, making an open-ended talk every week with questions and debates that aren't really all that interesting or simply to expand on points that they want to make from other conversations.
I'm happy that most people chose to play along with the time limit. I guess these people can appreciate that setting a time limit forces you to focus your attention a little more, to really engage and jump into the fray before it's too late.
Now I can appreciate that it's a shame when some really good conversations end. I most certainly would have loved to explore the concept of 'free will' some more. An idea would maybe be to allow people to decide whether a talk should be extended for a brief time. This could depend on the willingness of participants, the number of posts per day or something that truly quantifies what makes the debate or question good (featured?). The final decision would go to the original poster.
At any rate though, I think open-ended conversations are a little bit of an eye-sore (not to say that there hasn't occasionally been a good open-ended talk).
Update: If your open-ended conversation gets closed, don't come complaining to me, I'm not responsible for it, I'm not a TED admin and this is not what my thread was proposing.
Closing Statement from Matthieu Miossec
Clearly this idea is not as popular as I first thought. We will soon find what that idea is like in practice (although I stress this talk had nothing to do with the recent changes).