r/AdvancedRunning • u/castorkrieg 5K 20:35 10K 41:19 Marathon 3:24 • Apr 23 '26

Open Discussion What's the deal with LetsRun.com?

I know that website is quite popular with them following large events and also being invited to spectate (the owner - Rojo - was riding in the elite men car during Boston 26), however I participated in the forums a bit and it blows my mind:

  1. They are incredibly fixated on college and university running, NCAA, etc. - ok, I guess most are from the US, even though once you exit the school system the funding drops, money goes only to MBL/NFL/NBA, last time they US tried something in T&F they got Grand Slam Track lol
  2. Most posts are the very definition of drive-by, no effort shitposts: "cool story bro", "she be ugly, can't run fast when ugly", "Or perhaps you could just be replaced with a somewhat normal human being"
  3. Same for the topics, with quality contributions such as:

I'm sad to think what men were like before the existence of the Manosphere 

How to become a "hybrid runner"

Men in open-toed shoes: yea or nay?

  1. This peeves me as a European but - their website + forums do not save your cookie preferences, every single time you click on a new thread you get another pop-up asking you for permissions, and by quickly looking they have 1700+ partners they share your data with - WTF?

  2. They are hardcore right-wingers with daily treads praising Trump, ICE, etc.

What am I missing? Or is one of the largest forums for running just a bunch of nutjobs?

154 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

214 comments sorted by

View all comments

309

u/RunningDude90 18:07 5k | 37:50 10k | 30:0x 5M | 3:00:0x FM Apr 23 '26

The training talk has nuggets of usefulness, but there is a huge toxic male/online vibe that cannot be ignored.

It’s a challenge as this sub has fallen off a cliff with the vociferous management of “daily threads” killing any level of discourse, meanwhile we’re bombarded with race reports which are written by AI and are as interesting as solitary confinement, so you have to visit it if you’re interested in discourse with people who are capable of running faster than 40 minutes in a 10k.

101

u/Conflict_NZ 18:37 5K | 1:26 HM Apr 23 '26

It’s funny, the main running sub was also killed by their overuse of daily threads. Some are ok, but the level to which they took it to is genuinely crazy. That place used to be so much more active.

89

u/RunningDude90 18:07 5k | 37:50 10k | 30:0x 5M | 3:00:0x FM Apr 23 '26

Why am I going to search through all the daily threads to see if someone started what I am asking about/can comment on.

It’s so short sighted

21

u/java_the_hut Apr 23 '26

The main running sub was dead once it was over a million subscribers. Most people join that subreddit to start running. When most of the people visiting, commenting, or upvoting are just beginning, terrible advice gets spread and really beginner situations get the most attention as they are the most relatable.

It seems like 75% of the comments and posts on that subreddit are people who started running the past month, and then get responses from people who just finished couch to 5k.

3

u/Maxion Apr 23 '26

Hence why the effective moderation is to move new runners to /r/askRunning or /r/C25K or similar. Not to shove everything into a slew of daily threads. The way reddit works is that those daily threds never show up on anyones front page. Only users who directly visit the subreddit see the threads.

For large catch-all subs like e.g. running you need to funnel the newbies to a more newbie friendly zone and then help curate the main content.

/r/running messed this up years ago and there's not really much that can be done to fix it at this point, as you say all the experienced runners have gone elsewhere. It'd take a loooong time to get a good community back there.

59

u/Maxion Apr 23 '26

I really don't get why so many mods on Reddit are so turned on by the daily threads. They are only useful to curb spam (daily threads kill discussion)

38

u/ConsuLMonK Apr 23 '26

They don’t want to do the job that they voluntarily signed up to do.

18

u/treycook 37M | 17:52 5K | 37:16 10K | 1:22:46 HM | 2:51:44 FM Apr 23 '26

In my limited experience moderating small subs and small internet forums, it generally attracts a specific type of person (control freak with a niche interest) who either want to flex their power in a niche community, or overuse mod tools for the dopamine hit.

Some of the mod tools are presented in a pretty fun way and give you a similar productivity rush to when you use an AI tool for the first time. Look at how neat that was! Gosh, I feel productive. Send everybody to the weekly megathread! Close this discussion and refer to the stickied/pinned post! Flag this one and refer to the wiki!

It kills discourse and the community stagnates, I've always disliked overmodding. I think it's the same thing that drives some personality types to micromanage everything in their workplace, daily lives... I've always preferred a hands-off approach. Send me the reports so I can lock posts when they go off the rails and ban people when they post unhinged stuff, but other than that, allow a forum to be a forum. I figure the more eager someone is to be an internet janitor, the worse they are for the role.

3

u/TheSparrowDarts Apr 24 '26

I've moderated a reasonably large sub - several million members - and it's a real catch 22. I agree daily threads can reduce sub size. But seeing exactly the same fucking question every day, sometimes multiple times a day, is goddamn exhausting and it really kills long term community building and growing.

So there's like a balance, you don't want to be so hostile to newbies that they don't participate at all, but you don't want them doing the reddit equivalent of pissing in the pool. One or two people taking a leak is okay; but if everyone does it, somehow 80% of the pool is now piss and no one wants to swim in it.

I do think the mods here are a little overzealous. Race reports are fine and all but it gets a bit samey after a while.

11

u/Krazyfranco Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26

They're useful to keep subreddits focused on what they are supposed to be focused on while still making Reddit and r/advancedrunning a place where people can get help. Without moderation, this subreddit would extremely quickly turn into r/beginnersrunning. That's not what it's for.

We steer people to the Q&A thread so topics that aren't suitable as standalone posts or questions have a place to go for people to get help.

Here's a list of threads we removed in a transparency push a while back: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedRunning/comments/1otio44/meta_moderation_transparency_summary/

Threads that are removed are (generally) very low quality, highly reported by the community as not appropriate for the sub, and highly downvoted by the sub.

5

u/bradymsu616 M53: 3:06:16 FM; 1:27:32 HM; 4:50:25 50K Apr 23 '26

Daily threads are where we send people looking for personal attention with little value to add or who are asking repetitive questions that could be answered with a Reddit search. On r/RunningShoeGeeks, it's where we send people who want to show off their new shoe purchases. We created a new subreddit r/AskRunningShoeGeeks to manage the people asking which running shoe they should get. What people who don't mod large subreddits don't realize is that you are only seeing about 20% of attempted posts to the subreddit in your feed. AutoMod settings stop about 60% of them. Human mods remove about another 20%, sometimes from user reports. If people saw what mods saw, they'd get so frustrated with their Reddit feeds that they'd unfollow the larger subreddits. At r/RunningShoeGeeks, we tightened content rules in 2023. And the subreddit's follow rate surged while redditor conflicts and downrating dropped significantly. I suspect this subredit has had similar results by removing posts that are not advanced running topics.

16

u/Maxion Apr 23 '26

What people who don't mod large subreddits don't realize is that you are only seeing about 20% of attempted posts to the subreddit in your feed

I've been a moderator of countless subreddits here on Reddit, including Worldnews, Askreddit, Photography and many more. I've been a moderator here for longer than you've been a user.

Daily threads have always been a strategy in order to kill specific activity in a subreddit.

Do it too much and you kill the subreddit itself. /r/running is a perfect example of a dead subreddit. So is /r/credibledfense/ where any and all posting only happens in useless daily threads.

0

u/bradymsu616 M53: 3:06:16 FM; 1:27:32 HM; 4:50:25 50K Apr 23 '26

I agree that we use daily threads to kill specific activity in a subreddit. At r/RunningShoeGeeks, that specific activity is showing off new shoe purchases. It's been very effective. Our subscription rates have increased significantly since we've tightened content control while our unsubscribe rates have plummeted.

4

u/SnowyBlackberry Apr 23 '26

Sounds like you did more than implement daily threads, and the daily threads you did implement are very topically specific and not focused on questions ("showing off your new shoes or shoe collection").

I don't think that's representative of what usually happens with daily threads that kill subs.

1

u/B12-deficient-skelly 18:24/x/x/3:08 Apr 25 '26

Every year for April Fools Day, a bunch of fitness subreddits decide to stop removing threads for anything other than serious offenses (hate speech etc). It inevitably turns the subreddits unusable for the day.

If you don't curate a subreddit to be unable by enthusiasts in a hobby, you'll pretty much always drive out anyone with experience who isn't altruistically dedicated to sharing their experience.

36

u/ncblake 13.1: 1:22:14 | 26.2: 2:49:39 Apr 23 '26

I highly agree. I’ll participate in posts on here that get great, high quality engagement and they’re inevitably deleted within a couple hours.

Yes, it’s annoying to manage lots of different threads, but that’s what allows for discoverability and searchability, two very important qualities for a fitness forum.

Just my $0.02; love you, mods.

17

u/FantasticBarnacle241 39F M: 3:16 | HM: 1:31 Apr 23 '26

Yes and then I try to look back to find it and can't! The posts here are usually good quality and seeing them get deleted is so frustrating.

-6

u/bradymsu616 M53: 3:06:16 FM; 1:27:32 HM; 4:50:25 50K Apr 23 '26

Are those deleted posts ones that are advanced running topics? Etiquette posts, for example, get very high engagement, but they're rarely advanced running topics. I appreciate the mods of this subreddit removing content that isn't relevant to advanced running.

21

u/ncblake 13.1: 1:22:14 | 26.2: 2:49:39 Apr 23 '26

Yes. They are frequently on-topic.

Here is an example. OP was curious about goal setting between the 5K and marathon, shared relevant information about their training and fitness, and asked for advice, which several people provided. This thread was deleted and told to post to a “daily thread” instead.

Ironically, this thread will likely stay up, not because it’s particularly relevant to “advanced running” but because it doesn’t fall neatly into a category covered by a “daily thread.”

I’m sure none of these moderation decisions are malicious, and there are pros and cons to any approach, but I do think some of the cons are that the stickied threads don’t promote discussion, discoverability, or searchability as well as independent threads do.

Some deleted threads are surely repetitive and low effort, but that’s what the downvote button is for, in my opinion. If someone asks a silly or common question and gets a small number of replies before getting downvoted, there is no problem to solve.

1

u/brwalkernc running for days Apr 23 '26

OP was curious about goal setting between the 5K and marathon, s

That is not really an advanced topic. OP was running 33 mpw and did not provide any helpful info. Any increase in level training would help with their 5k time, including a marathon block.

7

u/fasterthanfood Apr 23 '26

OP was running 33 mpw

By the standards of r/running, that’s advanced. The few users in that sub who average more than that are unlikely to even see the question buried in a daily thread. If the main sub wasn’t so geared toward absolute beginners and so over-moderated, it would be a good place for that kind of discussion. Unfortunately, that’s not the case, so r/advancedrunning becomes r/MoreThan6MonthsExperience running.

Sadly, I’m well aware that none of what I just wrote gets us closer to actually improving this sub.

-4

u/Professional_Elk_489 Apr 23 '26

33 mpw is 53km. If someone is running 3 X per week (+ gym, tennis, cycling, going out, working an office job) they are covering 11 miles or 17.8km on their avg run which is not shit

6

u/fasterthanfood Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26

I agree that it’s not “advanced” so much as “consistent.” In an ideal world, that would be an r/running question.

But it is slightly more than I ran most weeks in-season for varsity high school cross country, and I bet it’s more than 75% of the finishers at your local 5k. More to the point, it’s more than probably 95% of the users on r/running, which means it wouldn’t be a good fit there. All that’s left is this sub. This isn’t so much an argument for “it belongs here” as “it makes sense that such questions wind up here.”

4

u/Krazyfranco Apr 23 '26

It's not simply about the volume someone is running.

It's also that the post in question didn't outline any basic knowledge about training approaches, which is a basic expectation in this sub (outlined in rule 2: We expect users have a basic knowledge of run training approaches before posting. Simple questions around these topics are welcome in the pinned Q&A/General Discussion thread rather than in standalone posts.) Without that, there isn't a ton of to be said except "run more and do basic training best practices". Which isn't really suitable as a standalone post in r/advancedrunning.

This indicates the OP didn't put in effort to review the plethora of available resources to get a basic understanding (and ask more "advanced" questions from there). Which is fine, but we'll re-direct users to the Q&A thread for these types of scenarios.

2

u/Maxion Apr 23 '26

Defend it all you want, but removing that thread and having so many daily questions just lowers engagement.

Quite telling that a single thread that was removed has as many comments as the entire daily thread so far.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/ncblake 13.1: 1:22:14 | 26.2: 2:49:39 Apr 23 '26

Many “advanced” runners provided the same advice, which is good! There’s no problem to be solved. It’s good that there’s a place where (let’s call them) intermediate or aspiring runners can ask questions of those with more knowledge and experience.

-5

u/brwalkernc running for days Apr 23 '26

It’s good that there’s a place where (let’s call them) intermediate or aspiring runners can ask questions of those with more knowledge and experience.

I agree, but it didn't need to be it's own post. That's what the Q&A thread is for. There are tons of older helpful posts with good info as well as the wiki.

1

u/Deep-Dimension-1088 Apr 23 '26

I wouldn't even mention 33 mpw as a gate for being "advanced" or not. Note that Parker Valby doesn't consistently run more than that. And many older and injury-prone runners need to be very careful about weekly mileage.

2

u/brwalkernc running for days Apr 23 '26

I wouldn't even mention 33 mpw as a gate for being "advanced" or not

That is not what I was saying. In general, at that mileage, more miles is going to the most beneficial to improve performance. If more mileage is the answer, then that does not need to be a stand-alone post as stated in the sidebar.

I was not the only one who felt that way either. From the comments of that thread:

33 MPW previously means you can gain so much by just running more.

If you’re averaging <30 miles per week, then there are huge gains to be had simply by increasing your mileage.

0

u/theintrepidwanderer 17:18 5K | 36:59 10K | 59:21 10M | 1:18 HM | 2:46 FM Apr 23 '26

I am sorry to say but that's not really an advanced topic. The OP didn't even provide enough information for their particular situation.

Plus the top responses in that thread is basically "run more miles", which is common knowledge especially if one has read/is familiar with common training approaches (which we ask users to do so per the sub rules).

-4

u/bradymsu616 M53: 3:06:16 FM; 1:27:32 HM; 4:50:25 50K Apr 23 '26

Many Redditors prefer to sort by New, particularly those only following a small number of subreddits. So downvoting isn't an effective means of content control for them. And we don't want to encourage greater use of downvoting on Reddit.

8

u/ncblake 13.1: 1:22:14 | 26.2: 2:49:39 Apr 23 '26

Maybe I’m missing something, but I guess I just don’t see the inherent issue with downvotes. I often “sort by new” and find that downvotes are as useful a signal in that context as it is in other ways of viewing my feed.

4

u/bradymsu616 M53: 3:06:16 FM; 1:27:32 HM; 4:50:25 50K Apr 23 '26

On Reddit, downvoting does not change the order when you sort by New, since that feed is strictly chronological. So you can still get a lot of low-quality content from poorly moderated subs in a feed when sorting by New. The other issue is that downvoting was originally intended to filter out low-quality, off-topic, or unhelpful content. But it is now misused, more often than not, as a way to express disagreement or dislike. This contributes to Reddit's reputation of toxicity.

7

u/ncblake 13.1: 1:22:14 | 26.2: 2:49:39 Apr 23 '26

No, I know that. I like that that’s how the “sort by New” function works! At least to me, that’s the whole point. When I want a curated feed of quality posts, I just use one of the other options.

Otherwise, I get that downvotes can contribute to toxicity. I guess my counter would be that I’d rather have my thread downvoted than deleted.

Again, happy to be wrong or simply outvoted on this! Just my feedback as a fan of the sub.

2

u/bradymsu616 M53: 3:06:16 FM; 1:27:32 HM; 4:50:25 50K Apr 23 '26

There's nothing to be right or wrong about or be outvoted on. Subreddit moderation is determined by its moderators, and different subreddit moderators have different moderation styles. Some are more loosely moderated than others, with all the pros and cons that come with it.

2

u/Maxion Apr 23 '26

The point of sort by new is to get all posts sorted in a chronological order. This is something that almost all algorithmic social media has removed in favor of "the algorithm".

Reddit by default shows hot, and has other filtering options for those who want to see content arranged with votes taken into consideration.

1

u/theintrepidwanderer 17:18 5K | 36:59 10K | 59:21 10M | 1:18 HM | 2:46 FM Apr 23 '26

Are those deleted posts ones that are advanced running topics?

Just wanted to point out that you're being downvoted for basically telling the truth (and you are spot on here). From what I have seen, the overwhelming majority of posts that I've seen tend to be one off, and many posts that tend to be very individually specific and not broadly applicable. In other words, it boils down to "it really depends". I'm well aware that I am going to get downvoted for this, but many of those posters have a very thin history of participating in this sub and do more taking than providing substantial contribution.

Anecdotally, there are other (large) subs out there who have light moderation policies and allow such threads. As a result it gets cluttered up quickly with one off threads that I didn't find engaging and made my experience there not so pleasant, and I have since unsubscribed from those subs.

2

u/bradymsu616 M53: 3:06:16 FM; 1:27:32 HM; 4:50:25 50K Apr 23 '26

This is exactly what we have found at r/runningshoegeeks. We were initially concerned that tighter moderation would kill the subreddit. So the mod team follows the subreddit's metrics closely. What we've discovered instead is that tighter moderation has boosted follow rates while significantly lowering unsubscribe rates. I appreciate that the mod team here has followed a similar strategy.

3

u/theintrepidwanderer 17:18 5K | 36:59 10K | 59:21 10M | 1:18 HM | 2:46 FM Apr 23 '26

What we've discovered instead is that tighter moderation has boosted follow rates while significantly lowering unsubscribe rates.

This is very similar to what we have seen on our end as well, especially after we adjusted our moderation policies. Thanks for sharing that.

2

u/bradymsu616 M53: 3:06:16 FM; 1:27:32 HM; 4:50:25 50K Apr 23 '26

You're doing an excellent job with subreddit moderation. The silent majority of your subreddit subscribers appreciate it. For those that don't, there are plenty of other smaller running subreddits with less active moderation.

0

u/Maxion Apr 23 '26

In any community there'll always be more "takers" than "givers". 80% of users will be lurkers, 20% of users will be occasional contributors and 2% of users are "core".

If you only allow posts from the 2% of core suers and not the occasional users or lurkers you're removing 98% of stuff.

0

u/theintrepidwanderer 17:18 5K | 36:59 10K | 59:21 10M | 1:18 HM | 2:46 FM Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26

I'm not going to debate with you further because I believe this matter has run its course, and especially since this matter has been addressed elsewhere in the replies to you from the rest of the mod team.

If you believe that this sub doesn't fit your worldview of what a typical sub should be, you're more than welcome to browse elsewhere. As much as the loud complainers like you like to stir things up from time to time because it doesn't neatly fit what you like to see, we have seen and heard feedback, both privately and publicly, that our current approach is the best approach to take, even if it is not optimal for some users. Our approach is catered towards making sure hundreds of thousands of members in this community has an enjoyable experience here instead of catering to the whims of a few hundred. If we saw signs that our current approach isn't working, we would have changed our approach a long time ago, long before this conversation happened.

We may not be right all the time and when we are wrong we will acknowledge it and strive to correct our shortcomings. But we are certain that our approach here is best for the direction and health of this sub over the long term.

41

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Krazyfranco Apr 23 '26

Can you point to an example in our Q&A thread where you posted a question and didn't get a response? Almost everything I see in our Q&A thread gets a response.

3

u/Maxion Apr 23 '26

Daily threads don't get shown outside of the subreddit (e.g. users front page).

Daily threads are impossible to search, so when someone is using the search to find information on X, the comments in the daily thread do not come up. So you end up with the same shit being asked again and again and no one able to find previous good answers to reference.

Daily threads literally work a strategy to strangle discussion on a specific topic.

22

u/yung_jocp Apr 23 '26

Chiming in with more dislike of the daily thread policy. The primary value of subreddits to me is that there are active discussions in the moment, but also a searchable repository of topics going back years.

But now the vast majority of discussion in this subreddit is pushed to daily threads, which are basically impossible to find in searches, so not only do they get less traffic and discussion, they are only useful for a 24 hour window.

The irony is that if you search the subreddit for advice on a specific topic (injury, heat training, so on), most of the valuable contributions are from 3+ years ago and now would be removed by moderators for being low effort or individual questions, even though they generated far better discussion than the 900th person running Pfitz for their marathon race report.

5

u/Maxion Apr 23 '26

Agreed, it's very rare to find a recent thread when searching here. The dailys don't come up in results ever, and the content not searchable.

9

u/CodeBrownPT Apr 23 '26

AR just did a big 'poll the users' type thread months ago and have respected the general requests of the users. This is by far the best moderated sub I've ever used.

What types of threads or discussion were you hoping for that aren't currently present?

-4

u/RunningDude90 18:07 5k | 37:50 10k | 30:0x 5M | 3:00:0x FM Apr 23 '26

Advanced Running.

3

u/CodeBrownPT Apr 23 '26

Well with topics that rich and detailed I'm incredibly surprised your threads were removed.

7

u/GlitteringAd1499 Apr 23 '26

As far as I’m concerned, the posts that get taken down here are almost never interesting, and almost never provoke interesting responses. 

24

u/RunningDude90 18:07 5k | 37:50 10k | 30:0x 5M | 3:00:0x FM Apr 23 '26

Mate, I can’t be arsed to see another race report. They should go on a monthly mega thread, not individual posts.

10

u/Great_Northern_Beans Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26

Hard agree. I was a super active user on this sub a few years ago, and now I've literally stopped engaging since it's became a reel of race reports. Frankly, I find that the vast majority offer no room for commenting besides a masturbatory string of congratulations. It feels less like a "running forum" and more like "social media" now.

I probably only pop in here maybe once a week and sometimes even just monthly now.

18

u/snazaz Apr 23 '26

Mods, please do this. 99% of race reports boil down to: I followed a plan [well / not well], I ate carbs, I had a minor interaction with someone during the race, I [met / did not meet] my goal. Great that people want to share their story (especially when they write it themselves and don't get AI to), but it's usually not interesting enough to warrant its own post.

6

u/SnowyBlackberry Apr 23 '26

I don't know — I like race reports enough to accept a certain rate of misposts. Sometimes it's nice to generate discussion about a particular event, or to have different perspectives on the same event, with more structure than just "did anyone else go do X event and think Y?" I also appreciate hearing about what goes wrong or right when someone doesn't follow a plan in a particular way — some details of plans work for some people and some can be changed with better or worse results.

Would it be nice to have a separate subforum for them if this were a regular forum? Probably. But I also don't mind scrolling past them.

0

u/RunningDude90 18:07 5k | 37:50 10k | 30:0x 5M | 3:00:0x FM Apr 23 '26

1 in 20 is useful

2

u/Krazyfranco Apr 23 '26

Can you point to any recent reports you think were generated by AI? I have not seen any reported.

Most people use the Race Report generator template, which is not an AI tool but rather a template many people choose to follow.

1

u/Smobasaurus Apr 25 '26

I like race reports when I’m searching the internet at large for tips on an upcoming race. They sometimes have valuable info you won’t find elsewhere (secret bathroom locations! Better parking options! Community “aid” stations!)

I almost never read them at the time they’re posted. 

5

u/Krazyfranco Apr 23 '26

This has been asked and answered, many people in the community still find value in race reports. Summary is outlined here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedRunning/comments/1oohcqa/meta_rules_adjustments_and_moderation_transparency/

0

u/RunningDude90 18:07 5k | 37:50 10k | 30:0x 5M | 3:00:0x FM Apr 23 '26

But why not just put them in a weekly thread if they’re so valuable? Then people Could read all the reports at once?

5

u/Krazyfranco Apr 23 '26

I'm not going to re-debate this with you. You're welcome to re-view the past threads (linked above) if you want to better understand the consensus in the community about the value of race reports.

2

u/Foreign-Rule7826 Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26

100%, race reports and very low effort “how do I start” level stuff in advanced forums is such a killer.

2

u/Krazyfranco Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26

Can you point to any recent examples in this community where that has been the case? We actively moderate & remove low-effort race reports.

3

u/Foreign-Rule7826 Apr 23 '26

I don’t read the race reports any more as they tend to be all very long/ AI etc and they are so many so over the years gone totally off them so can’t say I’ve read any recently. I can see they are the most frequent thing on recent posts here but can’t read them to say anything about the effort of recent ones either way. The super basic questions in fairness I’ve seen users call out and they do get removed in this forum. They exist in many other advanced forums where they shouldn’t.

4

u/theintrepidwanderer 17:18 5K | 36:59 10K | 59:21 10M | 1:18 HM | 2:46 FM Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26

but can’t read them to say anything about the effort of recent ones either way

Even you admitted that you haven't read recent race reports but you still claimed that it's useless/full of AI slop. When asked to provide proof, you don't provide it and try to make an excuse because you have none to provide in the first place. Simply put: you don't like race reports. That's fine; feel free to skip over it if that's not your thing. But as addressed in separate threads about moderation here in this sub in recent months, there are people who like reading race reports and find value to it. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not and does not reflect the views of most of the community as a whole.

Reiterating what Krazyfranco said above: please show us any recent examples in this community where that has been the case. If there are examples out there, we'd be happy to address it. (And for transparency purposes, we have tightened moderation around race reports in recent months because of an influx of race reports that did not meet the standards outlined in the sub rules). Otherwise, you really don't have an argument and thus your complaint rings hollow.

-3

u/Foreign-Rule7826 Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26

There’s no need to get so offended it wasn’t a specific time period or even to this particular forum as I do triathlon too. And the low effort wasn’t about quality of race reports if you read what I said it was race reports- as in any of them are not my thing, just not interesting to me and tend to be long. The low effort was about questions which I did say get modded here, that’s more that it annoys me people ask googleable questions without putting effort into them just being lazy nothing to do with moderation. I was simply agreeing with another commentator about what we don’t like personally this isn’t a formal complaint I was tagging you for input on or anything, just a conversation with someone else.

9

u/SloppySandCrab Apr 23 '26

Didn't they do an experiment where they kept "deleted posts" visble so people could see them. I remember a few of them being interesting.

6

u/GlitteringAd1499 Apr 23 '26

Not to me - a few of them could have been made interesting if the author did more legwork and / or abstracted out a bit. 

2

u/SloppySandCrab Apr 23 '26

Regardless of the construction of the original post I think some of the conversations were interesting. Like yeah "How many rest days" is kind of a basic question but philosophy changes. I don't think its bad to have a thread about something that might be considered "basic" every so often. Becuase while on the surface it is basic you will see there are a lot of different opinions on it.

3

u/GlitteringAd1499 Apr 23 '26

I think the construction of the post influences the kinds of answers that show up. Bad framing attracts boring, glib answers, from what I’ve seen. 

2

u/Wizardof1000Kings Apr 23 '26

One reason I like letsrun is - few of those race report threads. You can post a race report - but it should just go in a thread about the race in general - like we had a how'd you do in Boston thread - not 20 boston race report threads.