Closing threads for length in the new babble
Is this necessary or desirable now? I've noticed a reluctance on the parts of moderators to close threads with 100+ posts lately (either due to a wavering faith or because the new babble's beta-testing demands so much of their time), so perhaps its time to revisit this aging babble theme.
As far as I remember, our reasons for closing threads in the old babble were 1) sympathy for dialups and 2) killing off of threads that had outlived their usefulness.
Surely with the new babble and its attendant bandwidth demands we can discard the pretence of concern for the broadband impaired.
So the only question becomes 2), and I'm not sure this is enough on its own. For one, reaction threads like 'Reporting Tech issues to rabble & sons' don't seem to benefit from arbitrary closing, since they really benefit from continuity and repeat questions pop up despite having been dealt with on earlier incarnations (although, I realize that this will likely happen anyway, with about the same frequency, even with spooling threads, but it's the goddamn princible, man).
Secondly, archive threads like 'Still losing the war' and 'All hail the Israeli Resistance' that have a rich history would surely benefit from consolidation--and closing them doesn't serve much purpose (does it?) because it will only be a matter of minutes before another babbler starts a new thread--sometimes with added confusion like a different thread title on the same topic or without a link to the previous thread. There are countless threads that are closed in the name of this convention, and I'm not sure that that's a positive thing.
Finally, there is little doubt that many threads do benefit from being closed without a word of judgement as to why: threads on religion or Islamophobia come to mind. jrose or bcg pop in to a particularly toxic thread with a cheerful 'long thread!' and all is forgotten and forgiven. Well, not really, but you get the idea. So I realize that if thread spooling is re-introduced (remember when we used to have it?) this will take away a valuable moderating tool, and perhaps that's enough to warrant this old canard's continued existence.
Nevertheless, it seems like even the moderators are questioning their faith in the ol' thread length shibboleth of babble, so perhaps we should reopen its dicussion?
Comments
I think this is the second biggest reason why threads are ended, and it's a good one. When I go to other forums and see 20+ pages of a topic, I don't even bother. Who has that kind of time? I think the current policy is a good one.
As for some of the threads here that have gone way over 100 posts, I'm wondering if that is because they were imported from the old Babble and, in the transfer, sections of the threads duplicated themselves once or twice, making the thread artificially long (eg: one of the "Movies II" or "III" threads replicates itself in sections, like junk DNA). So in those threads, the post count is actually lower than what it appears.
--------------------------------------------
For my tag/signature line, I think I would like to quote a song from the popular children's musical Mary Poppins: When trying to express oneself, it's frankly quite absurd, to leaf through lengthy lexicons to find the perfect word. A little spontaneity keeps conversation keen. You need to find a way to say, precisely what you mean. Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, even though the name of it is really quite atrocious. If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious. Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious! Say it and wild animals will not seem so ferocious. Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! Um-diddle-diddle-um-um-diddleye, Um-diddle-diddle-um-um-diddleye, Um-diddle-diddle-um-um-diddleye, Um-diddle-diddle-um-um-diddleye..."
Well, since that was said.... 100 posts strikes me as welcoming to new posters and makes this site a lot easier to get aboard than a lot of others. Who has time to read a 30-page thread? For better or for worse, locking them at 100 and opening a new one is new-user-friendly (maybe the only thing in this very odd board software that is).
I can understand why people wouldn't want to read a 20-page thread (although at 100 posts per page, that's a super-monster thread even by babble standards).
More typical around here would be a 2 or 3 page thread.
What I don't understand is this: if people wouldn't feel they can post in a paginated thread without reading all the previous pages, why do they feel excused (in the current non-paginated world of babble) from having to read the previous closed threads on the same subject?
The only difference is that with pagination it's easier to find the previous posts on the same topic. With multiple closed threads, babblers feel free to rehash the same old arguments over and over again ad nauseam, thread after thread, because the earlier threads on the same topic are closed, easy to forget, and hard to retrieve for reference. Is that the way we want babble to work?
M. Spector, the problem with your argument is that you're being too rational.
_______________________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I can understand why people wouldn't want to read a 20-page thread (although at 100 posts per page, that's a super-monster thread even by babble standards).
More typical around here would be a 2 or 3 page thread.
Why would it only be 2 or 3 pages? Would you then be asking the mods to close it down? Why then and not earlier - or later? What magical synthesis will occur after 2 or 3 pages of an argument that wouldn't occur in a 100+ post thread or its sequel(s)?
As far as I can tell, no one is required to search out and read all threads related to a topic they want to discuss before starting a new one. Old Babblers start not-so-necessary new threads all the time, and new babblers sign up every week and, notwithstanding Babble content guidelines, if they are beginning from a different start-point than you are, that's your problem, not theirs. Many here, yourself included, are kind enough to find the related threads and reference them for the newbie. I don't see a problem with this. Also, because someone may approach a topic from a slightly different perspective - something that's happened many times here - a new thread with a new title might be warranted. In any case, the argument you're using here cuts both ways. Perhaps very few would want to slog through even two or three 100-post pages just to see if what they want to post has already been posted. They'll probably look at the first page and the last half of the last page. The solution you're suggesting will not actually address the problem you cite.
I would argue the exact opposite: with pagination it's much harder to find individual posts on a particular topic. (If posts is what you meant and not threads). Even if the paginated thread was easier to find, the content is much much harder to sift through, and many people's highly enlightening, revolutionizing epiphanies will be obscured somewhere on pages 2 or 3, which will get the least traffic for any given thread in the suggestion you provide.
I propose upping the post count to 120 for each thread.
The new Babble allows for tagging the thread you start with numerous keywords, so presumably, over time, it will become easier to search threads that are the same or similar in topic.
When trying to express oneself, it's frankly quite absurd, to leaf through lengthy lexicons to find the perfect word. A little spontaneity keeps conversation keen. You need to find a way to say, precisely what you mean. Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious,
With the old babble search engine, annoyingly slow that it was, at least I could enter my babbler number and quickly find all the posts where I had mentioned, say, China, find the thread I wanted to refer back to, and insert a link to it.
Will we be able to do that again in this millenium?
As things stand now, there are very few threads that continue into a new thread after the original has been closed for length. Of that very few, a small proportion go beyond 2 or 3 threads. My statement was predicated on the assumption that each page in a paginated thread would be limited to 100 posts. But proper forum software allows each user to customize the reading of threads to specify a preferred page length; so a thread of 200 posts would be two pages long if the pages were 100 posts each, but 5 pages long if the user had customized her display to show a maximum of 40 posts per page, for example.
This also points up the benefit of pagination for dial-up users: instead of having to download 100 posts at a time, the dial-up user could opt to have only the last page download, set to show a maximum of, say, 40 posts.
Once dial-up users have the freedom to determine the maximum number of posts that need to be downloaded per page, the ENTIRE RATIONALE FOR CLOSING THREADS FOR LENGTH DISAPPEARS! And since closing threads for length seems to be a major preoccupation of the moderators, it would certainly lighten their workload if threads simply paginated automatically, as they grew, according to each user's own preferences.
As explained above, no need!
In any event, the whole concept of closing threads for length is anathema to the ostensible purpose of babble - to allow - nay, encourage - discussion.
What I don't understand is this: if people wouldn't feel they can post in a paginated thread without reading all the previous pages, why do they feel excused (in the current non-paginated world of babble) from having to read the previous closed threads on the same subject?
As far as I can tell, no one is required to search out and read all threads related to a topic they want to discuss before starting a new one.
I wasn't talking about searching out all threads "related" to a topic. I was talking about reading a linked but separate sequence of thread-chunks, whose separated existence was only necessitated by the practice of closing threads after 100 posts - i.e. a sequence of thread-chunks that, in a rational world, would actually be a single thread, paginated automatically and conveniently by the forum software in accordance with each user's particular preferences.
And I wasn't talking about "starting a new thread"; I was talking about simply making a post in an existing thread. People are presumably expected to at least speed-read the thread they want to post in, to avoid duplication or asking questions already answered, etc.
My point, which you obviously missed, was to counter the objection to pagination that says "I don't want to have to read through a 5-page thread to get up to speed in the conversation before I post in it." And my counter was, in effect, "If you turned those previous 4 pages into separate, closed-for-length thread-chunks (as happens now), you still don't solve the problem, if you feel you have to read through them all in order to get up to speed. In fact, you make it worse, because you have to find the previous 4 thread-chunks before you can read them; whereas with pagination, the previous pages are just a click away."
I would argue the exact opposite: with pagination it's much harder to find individual posts on a particular topic. (If posts is what you meant and not threads). Even if the paginated thread was easier to find, the content is much much harder to sift through, and many people's highly enlightening, revolutionizing epiphanies will be obscured somewhere on pages 2 or 3, which will get the least traffic for any given thread in the suggestion you provide.
I wasn't talking about trying to find a particular individual post within a thread (which, as far as I can see is no easier or harder in either system, once you know where the thread is). I was talking about the same thing I alluded to above - i.e., getting up to speed on an ongoing conversation in a thread before jumping in, by reading the previous posts. With pagination, you can read the previous posts easily; but if you have to find predecessor closed-for-length thread-chunks it's not as convenient. As a result, people won't (don't) bother to do it. They will jump in and make a comment or ask a question or breathlessly report some news item that could very well already have been brought up in the previous closed-for-length thread-chunk. The result is that you have a system where closing a thread for length is tantamount to wiping the slate clean, so that babblers can go on discussing the topic in a new thread-chunk as if the previous closed-for-length thread-chunk(s) never existed, re-inventing the wheel all over again. What could be better calculated to prolong a discussion unnecessarily?
Case in point: the thread about Russia and Ossetia and Georgia that got chopped up into about 15 bite-sized thread-chunks by the moderators for the "convenience" of dial-up users and the utter inconvenience of everyone else. Naturally, you got people reporting news stories and chiming in with comments in thread-chunk #5 that had already been brought up in thread-chunk #2 - or avoiding posting in the current thread-chunk altogether because it was completely impractical to track down all the previous thread-chunks to see what had been posted before. As a result, the discussion went around and around and around dealing with the same points over and over.
Sure. Let's replace one arbitrary number with another. And get the dial-up people pissed off — the very people the closing-for-length policy is supposedly designed to help!
Again, this comment is based on misconstruing what I was saying about finding previous closed-for-length thread-chunks that were essentially the same thread — not topically-related threads.
As for keywords, nobody has explained to me what that is all about. Doesn't the babble search engine search the entire text of posts (like Google does) - not just the "keywords"?
And this brings up another good reason to scrap the closing-for-length policy: the person starting up a new "continuation" thread-chunk will not necessarily (if at all) type in the same key words that were used (if at all) by the person who started the now-closed-for-length thread-chunk. This would not be a problem (if indeed it is a problem) if threads were paginated.
If the message board software can be set, globally, to 100 posts per page then maybe I see some value in your suggestion. If it's up to the user to do the settings though, chances are that won't happen, and people will get lost in threads and give up and I think certain threads, and the board as a whole, will lose readership. Pagination tends to disrupt continuity rather than encourage it. There's also the problem of you're quoting and responding to someone's post, but in the meantime they're editing it, but you won't see that because two or three other posts have occurred since then, or just yours, and a new page is created with yours at the top or near the top. Then the previous poster has to point out that they've just edited their post, and can you please click back on page '2' or '3' to see it. And the Babble server or your ISP is slow that day and it takes a minute or so to load. It's just a pain.
Or you'll have posters resurrecting a paginated thread 13 months after it was last active, and the software can take you to the new post, but you will have have to click back to retrieve the context and the OP.
Plus with thread drift, it will be harder to follow the original intent of the thread as the tone and content could subtly or sharply change from page to page. It's just a pain in the butt all the way around. I don't see that the benefits outweigh the nuisance.
Also, the fact that you value 'getting up to speed' before posting is admirable, but seriously, not everyone cares. Redundancy or ignorance tends to be ignored and merrily trammelled over anyway - in the serious threads. And I still don't see how sifting through five 100-post pages is any different than clicking on the continuation links that most serious posters provide at least at the beginning of a new thread. It really isn't.
Also, the fact that you value 'getting up to speed' before posting is admirable, but seriously, not everyone cares.
Actually, I didn't mean to sound that flippant about it. Most people do care that what they've written has been read and understood, but honestly, do you think it's going to be easier to correct someone who has either just repeated something you already pointed out or who has misinterpreted you, by referring back to a page you think your post may be on? And what page reference will you use, if your settings allow for 100 posts per page, but theirs only allows for 25? So, your brilliant insight is back on page 2 for you, but for them it's maybe page 5, 6 or 7. Are they going to care to look that up to verify?
When trying to express oneself, it's frankly quite absurd, to leaf through lengthy lexicons to find the perfect word. A little spontaneity keeps conversation keen. You need to find a way to say, precisely what you mean. Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
Here's how "real" forum software works: There is a system default for the number of posts per page; it applies, for example, when a "guest" who is not registered and logged in browses the threads. It can be set at 100 posts if the administrators so choose. Once registered and logged in, however, each member can adjust, within limits, the maximum number of posts they want to appear on their computer per page. This is typically done on the member's main "settings" page, where they can do other stuff like setting an avatar, or a tag line, and input their webpage URL, their ICQ and other stuff that people like to do to personalize their membership and their forum browsing experience.
It's not rocket science, and literally millions of people have no trouble adjusting the settings on their user-friendly forum software. If they choose not to do so, however, the system default applies.
Pagination is not some far-out experimental idea. It is in fact the industry standard for forum software. There are very good reasons for it. Babble is the only forum I have ever encountered that does not use pagination.
Yeah, an excellent argument for having as many posts in a page or a thread as possible, so that this rare "problem" becomes even rarer!
And just imagine the pain when you spend 20 minutes on a post and then have it disappear into cyberspace because the thread got closed for length in the meantime.
Again, it's not made any easier by having to search for a series of thread-chunks going back months or years in order to retrieve the context and the OP. Pagination is the most painless way of reviewing the history of a thread. Reading the entire thread, however, remains a chore in either system.
Sometimes threads evolve into drifted topics. It's a fact of life and it is not peculiar to paginated threads. If you want to determine the original intent or topic of a paginated thread all you have to do is click on page 1. With a thread broken into chunks, you have to find chunk number 1, which of course is never numbered as such and requires a search.
Talk about a pain in the butt!
I recognize that, and in fact that wasn't my point. I was responding to the argument that says "If you feel it necessary to get up to speed on a thread before posting in it, it's hard to read through several pages of posts in a paginated system." My response is "It's a lot less hard than having to search and find the thread-chunks that preceded the present one." That's all. There's nothing in either the antiquated Babble-system or the paginated-thread system used by the rest of the civilized universe that prevents people from jumping into a thread whenever they want without reading what others have posted, and I'm sure such people will continue to do so either way.
Why should I rely on the kindness of strangers to provide links to previous threads? Why not let the software do it for me by giving me a series of numbers representing pages that I can click on, to move backwards or forwards in a long thread?
When did clicking become such a huge chore?
You may have noticed that the current Babble software assigns a unique number to each post, as well as a unique url that can be used as a hotlink to that post.
So instead of telling you to look at my post 1/3 of the way down page 2 of this thread, I just say read my post No. 52 - and I can even give you a hyperlink directly to it.
When did clicking become such a huge chore?
To that I'll just say, if you're on dial-up or shitty internet you want to have to click and load a new page as little as possible.
I'm sorry, I'm just not convinced. I think that threads do have a natural life and death. I don't think I want to read three-year long (notice I say 'long', not 'old) threads. I also don't think that Babble became as popular as it did by being like other boards.
I think that threads do have a natural life and death.
So do I, which is why I think it's wrong to arbitrarily chop them up into bleeding chunks. It often leads to either premature death or artificially-prolonged life.
I don't think I do either, but I also don't think you or I should be able to prevent others from doing so if they wish.
And it miraculously manages to survive the current disastrous technical mess for the same reason.
Babble can be unique and different from other boards in ways that really matter. Chopping up threads is not one of them.
January 2, 2009 - 8:38am
"Time is Dead", and so is that thread on the CBC, for which I had just prepared a (now dead) posting comparing Sven's offerings with those of Peter Sellers' Chauncy Gardner. Someday, Maysie, you might offer up a rationale for your timing (in this case, aabout 8:30 a.m. on Jan. 2) in deciding to terminate. Thread drift? Yeah, but perhaps you or another PooBah could have intervened and told the bastard to lay off his star spangled innuendo? Maybe next time?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the advice of Catchfire I am bringing this complaint here (and I see a well-established thread of some length).
To repeat - could the PooBahs intervene with those of challenged ancestry who go to great lengths to muck up a discussion?
Here's the fella below (in this same thread) arguing for irrationality:
rabble-rouser
Member: 10972
Joined: Jul 22 2005
-->
December 18, 2008 - 11:29pm
M. Spector, the problem with your argument is that you're being too rational.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, Sven.
I think the mods (at least myself) haven't been as diligent lately in closing threads once they reach 100, mostly because I'm not sure how the new site loads on dial-up and whether or not it poses the same problems as the previous site.
And despite the common assumption, mods don't have the real live superpowers we might appear to have (i.e. telepathically knowing someone is responding to a thread JUST as we're about to close it.)
Plus, not to get defensive, but I think we do a pretty darn good job stepping in when needed, unfortunately, we can't be on the site at every moment.
Thanks for the post, GV, but I'll leave it to Maysie to tell us why she's up so early closing threads. :)
George.
I close threads when I notice that they have reached over 100 posts. It ain't frikking rocket science. Sometimes I notice at 101, sometimes I notice at 120. No superpowers for mods, as jrose said.
Not that it's any of your damn business, George, but I generally wake up around 7am, and usually get online around 7:30. I mostly work from home, usually on the computer, so I will pop onto babble, post, ban trolls, and close threads at weird times like 7:30am, 5pm (when GTA babbler mods are heading home or to meetings) and I also will occasionally stay up late, and will close threads at any and all of those times when I see them reach 100 posts or have degenerated into sniping and name-calling.
Sheesh.
P.S. In terms of intervening (and the info you gave about Sven and M.Spector tells me nothing about which thread that exchange happened in), I'm going to channel Michelle and tell you, and everyone, once again, that if you see a situation in which a discussion is getting out of hand/abusive/needing of moderator intervention: PM A MOD! Generally that would be Michelle or oldgoat, as the "main" mods. We can't fix something if we don't know it's going on.
Better yet, e-mail us. michelle AT rabble DOT ca. oldgoat AT rabble DOT ca. (It's best to include both of us in the e-mail instead of just one or the other.)
What NOT to do is to start a new thread to complain about a certain babbler, or put a complaint about a babbler in a completely unrelated thread (like, say, this one).
See the babble policy statement? It pretty clearly states what you do when you have a problem.
1. E-mail a moderator
2. Include a link to the thread
3. Include the post that you believe has broken babble policy.
What not to do:
1. E-mail a moderator saying, "So-and-so is such an idiot - ban him now!" and hitting "send" with no link and no quote.
2. E-mail a moderator with a link to a 58 post thread, saying, "So-and-so is trolling," and then hit "send" with no indication of which post you're upset about.
3. E-mail a moderator saying, "So-and-so is trolling in the Israel thread" and then hit send with no link to the thread and no quote that you're upset about.
P.S. The thread in question that was closed was not only over 100 posts, but it had turned into a discussion about Cuba! That's exactly why I think it's a good idea to keep our tradition of closing long threads. They're usually past their best before date at that point.
First of all, I am not a Poobah, I am a Grand Wazoo! Secondly, this has happened to all of us, including myself. The solution is to weep briefly, repost, and let it go. I sent a lengthy post of Michelle's into the aether by doing just that not long ago. We remain on good terms.
This is a tagline. It has nothing to do with the comments posted above. Just a tagline...really. Please disregard.
Yup. Vacation is over! (sob!) ;) Thanks for being around during our week of rest, Maysie! And you too, jrose, of course!
Welcome back, Michelle and oldgoat.
Please don't close this thread for length.
2. E-mail a moderator with a link to a 58 post thread, saying, "So-and-so is trolling," and then hit "send" with no indication of which post you're upset about.
You see, George, this saves the moderators the trouble of actually having to read that 58-post thread to get the context of the discussion or spot any provocations by other babblers that might explain an alleged act of trolling. It's so much easier if they just have to read one post before passing judgment.
P.S. In terms of intervening (and the info you gave about Sven and M.Spector tells me nothing about which thread that exchange happened in).........
It's apparent that you have not read this thread, or you would recognize the reference immediately.
I'm willing to bet that Michelle hasn't read it eiother, since her "best-before-date" shibboleth has been thoroughly dealt with above.
If the mods aren't going to bother reading this thread, it makes me wonder just how much they care what babblers have to say about making this a more user-friendly place. Maybe they think they already have all the answers, and that threads like this are just useful for letting abbblers "vent", while the mods carry on with business as usual.
Actually, no, M. Spector. We do read the context behind the posts in question. The reason we ask that people tell us which post they have a problem with is because it's not always obvious to us what they're so upset about. There have been so many times over the years when someone has written to me with simply a link to a thread and demanded that I do something about so-and-so, and I read the whole thread and I don't see what they're upset about. Believe it or not, we do get complaints where we don't actually agree with what the person is seeing in someone else's post. Or we read the post completely differently than the person who is complaining. That's why we want to know exactly which post people are upset about, so that we can read the post ourselves, read the posts around it for context, and then decide whether anything needs to be done.
We don't just read babble when summoned, or only read one post in a long thread when there's a problem. I have been reading babble like an addict for years, and participating probably more than any other person ON babble (although it's true that lately I haven't been participating as much as I used to, but I still read it all the time - even on my vacation).
The other thing is, we don't ALWAYS step in when we see a problem because sometimes the problem resolves itself, or sometimes people move on and then there's no point in dragging the thread back to the problem. Overmoderating and stepping in at each and every slightest infraction would be stifling.
[Edited after some defensiveness has cooled off... ;) ]
I think pagination would improve babble. It would just be so much easier to hunt down old threads and maintain some continuity. I can see why extremely long threads might be frowned on but maybe there could just be a 5 page limit, at 100 posts a page, threads could get very large but still not too silly.
Michelle, often the reason that threads don't come back from thread drift, is because they're getting close to 100 posts, and babblers know that the thread will be closed soon. So the thread goes past its 'best before date", only because it's going to get closed.
A 20 post thread with thread drift starting at post 10, has a good chance of being brought back to the original topic, even if threads are closed after 100 posts.
A 90 post thread with thread drift starting at page 80, is unlikely to be brought back to the original topic if it will be closed after 100 posts. However, if the thread can go on indefinitely, then that thread is as likely to revert to it's original topic, as a 20 post thread that goes off topic at post 10.
So your argument about threads going past their "best before date", is bunk.
Plus, some threads never go past their "best before date", and get closed anyways after 100 posts. The "Afghanistan: Still Losing the War" threads are a fine example. The closing of these threads then necessitates a new threads that is essentially the "same" thread as the one just closed.
M. Spector already made much of this line of argument, and more, upthread. Why have you not addressed any of it?
A 90 post thread with thread drift starting at page 80, is unlikely to be brought back to the original topic if it will be closed after 100 posts. However, if the thread can go on indefinitely, then that thread is as likely to revert to it's original topic, as a 20 post thread that goes off topic at post 10.
So your argument about threads going past their "best before date", is bunk.
A 90 post thread with thread drift starting at page 80, is unlikely to be brought back to the original topic if it will be closed after 100 posts. However, if the thread can go on indefinitely, then that thread is as likely to revert to it's original topic, as a 20 post thread that goes off topic at post 10.
So your argument about threads going past their "best before date", is bunk.
If a thread were 100 posts of junk diversion, with nothing else besides the diversion, I think it would likely get closed, even with pagination.
My argument, however, was only about a small diversion of 10 posts. So where posts 1 through 79 are on topic, posts 80-90 are a diversion.
If babblers know the thread will get closed for length at 100 posts, they are unlikely to bring such a thread back on topic. However, if the thread can go on well past 100 posts, then babblers will be much more likely to bring the thread back on topic.
To address the other part of your argument, I don't see why babblers need to read all posts in a thread before making a contribution. I often don't. Having all the posts on the same topic in the same thread allows me to read all of them, but does not require me to do so before making a contribution.
Plus, so what if I make the same argument that someone made 3 months ago on page 3 of a 10 page thread. Is this really any worse than making the same argument that's already been made ad Nauseum in several different threads?
I'm with you on this one Catchfire. EM and BnR have threads that have posts in the thousands and the length serves the topics very well.
Hey Catchfire.
Fyi, until I'm directed otherwise, I'm assuming that long threads are still an issue for our dial-up friends on babble.
As for closing toxic threads in a cheerful or otherwise manner, I'm not paid enough to moderate the types of threads you referred to. And I never assume all is forgotten or forgiven when a new thread is started. Far from it. Nor have I found babblers particularly responsive when a poisonous thread, at 100+ posts, is closed with a "You better behave better in the continued thread you bad rude babblers."
I believe I'll be seeing the mods sometime this week, and hopefully we can talk about this issue and end up with one party line about dealing with long threads.
No kidding. Which is why I suggested that this might be reason enough to keep the thread closure policy alive.
Um, who the heck is Maysie?
It's time to let threads die a natural death. If it's good enough for EnMasse and Bread and Roses...
I personally find the closure of threads over 100 useful, mostly due to time constraints. I find it much easier to skim a thread of 100 posts with a link the a new one at the end, than to try to pick points out of a thread that has reached 200+. For me, I think it's just more of an organizational concern.
I'm used to thread lengths of 100, and not just because I'm on a very slow dialup ISP. I remember really long threads on the other forums, and didn't like them at all.
Maysie, the babbler formerly known as bigcitygal. I had no idea my name change would be retroactive.
Long threads are still a hassle for dial up, I do not go near the ones that have recently gone on to 130+ posts, as either half the page loads, and one has toi reload it and it takes forever to up load it.
And I do not like the pagentation format at all.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
So I was kinda wondering who the heck this Maysie person was who had the magical power to close threads.
As far as I know, threads will continue to be closed, for reasons stated by remind, as well as for other good reasons I've stated in the past, one of which is that I don't want to have to go through 20 pages o' crap just to see who started a fight.
This is a tagline. It has nothing to do with the comments posted above. Just a tagline...really. Please disregard.
So how do EnMasse and Bread and roses manage to survive with threads longer than 100 posts/ Do they have better software?
I suggest you can ask them about that.
............
Until taglines are removed: Maysie is the babbler formerly known as bigcitygal.
They do pagenation, which is dislikable.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
And what makes it dislikeable?
I was once told that we are never allowed to compare Babble with EM or BnR. If Michelle finds out she's gona be pissed!
Many reasons, such as perusing each and every page that has many pages to make sure no one has posted what you want to post or discuss, sometimes entails thousands of posts.
Wasted time on dial up changing from page to page, and back and forth again and again to make sure what you want to say has not been said.
Some people pretending a rebuttal that was posted on a previous page is not there when the page refreshes and continues on with premise that has been disproven, which makes page after page the same damn thing.
People who do not want informtion shown will hurry up and run the page to 25 posts saying absolutely nothing, in order to have the page change believing, correctly, that most people can't be bothered reading the previous pages and will go to the last/freshest page.
Loss of continuity from page to page, where people step in and miss what was said before because they did not read ALL the prior pages, so duplication after duplication happens, or apologies if there could be duplication before that was not checked, and/or accustations of duplication occur time after time, which also break up the continuity.
Best before happens usually by 100 posts, really no point in having 25+ pages of 25 posts per page lingering around.
Plus, babble does not need to be like en masse or BnR just because some people would like it that way. The old babble had page capacity too and did not use it.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
It would be interesting to know what percentage of babblers still have dial-up. If it’s more than a single-digit percentage, I’d be surprised.
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Point?
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Point?
Does the closed-for-length policy remain in effect until absolutely no one has dial-up anymore?
___________________________________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
One would hope so, and I would have no doubt, as there are several who will have dial up for a long time to come, outlaying areas just will not have other for a good while yet.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
I don't think we should close threads for length. I also think we need to keep the number of posts per page at or under 100 posts, for those who are on dial-up (which is not me). The only solution that satisfies both conditions, is pagination.
Michelle (or anyone else), before you chime in with your "pagination is not user friendly" line again, I want to assure you that pagination is user friendly on forum software such as smf. Michelle, you've always rejected pagination on the grounds that you have to go from page 1 to page 2, to page 3, ect., which is not true. If pagination is set up right, there will be a drop down menu at the bottom of the page, that will allow you to go from the current page, to any other page in the thread. So to go from page one to page 50, you will only require 1 page change, not 50. So I don't buy for one minute that it's some fact that pagination is never user friendly.
About 12% on canadians still use dial-up.
http://www.muchmormagazine.com/2008/06/more-canadians-hooking-up-to-faster-internet/
,----- [ quote ]
| The urban-rural divide was particularly pronounced when considering
| access to high-speed broadband internet. Over nine in 10 urban home
| users reported using a high-speed connection, compared with just over
| seven in 10 home users in rural areas.
|
| Access was an issue, with more than one-half of rural and small-town
| residents using a slower service saying that a high-speed telephone or
| cable service was not available in their area.
`-----
I use daio-up, even though wireless broadband is available now, but the price differencial is $20/month for DU and $50/month for broadband.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
I don't think we should close threads for length. I also think we need to keep the number of posts per page at or under 100 posts, for those who are on dial-up (which is not me). The only solution that satisfies both conditions, is pagination.
Michelle (or anyone else), before you chime in with your "pagination is not user friendly" line again, I want to assure you that pagination is user friendly on forum software such as smf. Michelle, you've always rejected pagination on the grounds that you have to go from page 1 to page 2, to page 3, ect., which is not true. If pagination is set up right, there will be a drop down menu at the bottom of the page, that will allow you to go from the current page, to any other page in the thread. So to go from page one to page 50, you will only require 1 page change, not 50. So I don't buy for one minute that it's some fact that pagination is never user friendly.
QFT
Many reasons, such as perusing each and every page that has many pages to make sure no one has posted what you want to post or discuss, sometimes entails thousands of posts.
You're supposed to do that with multiple linked threads as well, so this argument is bogus.
See above. Since when is it considered a hardship not to be able to jump into a discussion halfway through and raise points that have already been made (and possibly demolished)?
Same damn thing happens with linked serial threads (which, BTW, are not invariably linked back and forth, so you often have to do a search to find the previous page for instance).
If this really happens, then it will not be prevented by having separate, linked (or worse, unlinked) threads.
Gee, this sounds familiar. But of course it never happens on babble, because we don't use pagination!
I don't know where this "best before" myth originated, but it's not true.
Pagination should default at 100 posts per page, not 25.
But the software should allow each user to customize their own page length display according to their own preference, bandwidth, etc. (just like "real" forum software allows).
---
Look: instead of having to search for 11 different threads entitled "Afghanistan: Still Losing the War" (or approximations thereof), it's much more convenient to have them all numbered and listed as pages in a single thread.
It seems to me that all of the opposition to changing the 100 post rule come down to that being the culture of Babble.
One would hope so, and I would have no doubt, as there are several who will have dial up for a long time to come, outlaying areas just will not have other for a good while yet.
Hey, no kidding. Here on Quebec's Lower North Shore we were promised digital phone service in 2005, but here it is 2008 and no sign of digital phone service ever coming here. Consequently we are stuck with a land-based analog phone service probably well into the next decade if not longer. Actually, I don't believe there is any digital service east of Sept-Iles - well, until you get to larger population centres in Newfoundland, anyway. Certainly not here or in Labrador, next door to us.
There are days when dialup is painfully slow - we're supposed to be getting 48 kbps from our ISP, but often it crawls along at 28 kbps.
ETA: High speed internet is available for a price: $300 for the receiver, and I think $60/month after that. My dialup/telephone combined amounts to $54/month which is affordable on my disability pension. I can't afford high speed on top of basic phone service (and on top of my monthly satellite television service at $60).
Many reasons, such as perusing each and every page that has many pages to make sure no one has posted what you want to post or discuss, sometimes entails thousands of posts. . . Loss of continuity from page to page . . . Best before happens usually by 100 posts, really no point in having 25+ pages of 25 posts per page lingering around.
I agree with all remind's points, summarized above. For those who wish to go back to the previous thread, we normally link to it when a new one is started. Much cleaner than endless pages fading into the mists of time.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of babblers still have dial-up.
Don't know, but it's shrinking. Expensively; the urban half of our county has high-speed, but
I can't wait until this one hit's 100 posts!
Seriously though, technicalities aside, I am of the strong belief that the policy of closing threads at about 100 posts is for the most part good for the flow of discourse. This is based on over 7 years of posting here, and I also posted at a time when we did have pagenation. Others may have solid arguments to the contrary. The community was happy to see it go at the time BTW.
It will make it harder to moderate. The other two comparitor sites don't have the same type of moderator issues, and just plain aren't as big. I admit I say that not having looked in on them in a while because I haven't had time.
Now having said all of that, I just looked at the "Soldiers Hello" thread with a view to closing for length, and didn't, because I had the feeling I'd be halting a dynamic conversation at a bad time. That thread might need a moderators attention for other reasons because it's a bit heated, but I didn't want to close it with my usual line to start a new one if you want.
I guess if there's really an overwhelming consensus that we should go with pageanation, then I don't want to be obstructionist about it. I think it's one of the things the mods will be talking about in the new year when we take stock of just where the hell we're at and where we're going.
This is a tagline. It has nothing to do with the comments posted above. Just a tagline...really. Please disregard.
For those who wish to go back to the previous thread, we normally link to it when a new one is started. Much cleaner than endless pages fading into the mists of time.
In fact, "normally" only a few people actually bother (or with the current forum software, know how) to link to a previous thread. More important, however, is that linking is required both ways - forwards and backwards. It is very rare for a thread to contain an actual link to its successor thread, because once it's closed, it can't be changed to add a link to the new thread.
And thread titles get changed or misspelled by the person opening the successor thread. So it's not always apparent from a list of titles which threads are linked in a series.
With pagination there is no need to create links - the link is created by the forum software. And you don't have to hunt for the post within each page that contains the magic link; you can go forward or backward in a series of pages just by clicking on a number in a convenient array across the top or bottom of each page.
Also, it's damn awkward (especially with this forum software) to quote from post #99 in a closed thread in order to respond to it in a new thread. It also makes it damn awkward for anybody who wishes to go back and see the quoted words in their original context.
I don't know how anyone can seriously say that with a straight face, let alone declare it as a "strong belief".
The flow of discourse is not something mechanical and predictable. It is determined by the participants themselves, in their almost infinite permutations. Some threads don't even start to become interesting until after the 80th post; some threads lie dormant for months or years with 65 posts, and then because of current events they get revived and a whole new discussion starts. Starting a new thread in that case would remove historical and informational context.
Some threads don't have much discussion at all, but are chock full of useful information and sources - e.g. the Afghanistan: Still Losing the War series, or some of the Climate Change threads. And some heated discussions go on for multiple threads - e.g. the Zimbabwe elections series or the Russia-Georgia series. Now anyone who wants to go back and find something in particular faces a massive research task reassembling those threads.
It should not be that way.
This is not the same community. This is not the same software. This is hardly even the same millennium.
No moderator has ever been able to explain this statement to me. If it's easier for babblers to use pagination, then it should be easier for moderators to do so as well. Don't moderators face the same prioblems we do, having multiple unlinked threads on the same topic? What special concerns apply to moderators that don't apply to the rest of us?
Bingo. You just proved my point.
The following is a real tagline. Please read it carefully, and then ask yourself: What useful thing could I have achieved in the ten seconds it took me to read and digest this material?