[Tormod]

Lately, several threads have grown to extreme sizes (one is rounding 300 posts as I write this).

The way these forums are built, there is currently no way to sort messages in a way which makes it easy to follow a single thread within a thread (ie, who has responded to which post).

There are some options, like the "View" pulldown menu at the top of each topic page. If you choose "Branch" you get a correctly listed clickable message list on top, but the main message display is still unsorted.

When a thread reaches a certain limit this becomes a major problem - it is difficult to navigate this threads, and they take a long time to download.

Another problem is that really long threads would usually be better off if people could try to make new threads when they have a new idea, instead of letting threads evolve into something new all the time (this is a moderator problem - I really need more moderators!).

My proposal is to limit the amount of threads in any single topic to 50 messages. when this limit is reached, the thread is closed and a new one must be started.

Note that most threads only get about 1-5 replies, so this is just to solve those extreme cases.

Please vote in the poll. If you have comments, post them here.

Tormod

[Freethinker]

I do not follow posts based on threads. As you say, they do not display well as threaded here. I follow them strictly linearly.

It becomes a matter of topics. Discussions tend to cross over from one thread to another. When yoou are in discussion with Joe Smith in 3,4, ... threads, the topics tend to blur and items that are relevant to X wind up in Y. To some extent this is always going to happen. Some areas tend to work across boundaries regardless.

Perhaps a greater level of control over staying topical. More work for you Tormod. Moderating posts to the extent of reminding posters if they try to move a topic around too much.

Is there some technical (dir size, archival complications,... ) reason to stop longer threads? It seems simple enough for me to just go to the end of the thread and see how far back I last responded. It's not like I am forced to step thru every post to tget to the end.

However it would be just as easy to go to a new thread which is a continuation of the old, if a few of the old threads last messages could be migrated?

[Tormod]

The technical reasons are a matter of resources. If you choose to use a branched view, for example, large threads tend to overwhelm the server. Since the threads with the most posts also are the most frequently read, this *can* become a problem since Hypography is in a shared hosting environment and I could get kicked out.

I don't have the time to moderate everything myself, especially now that the forums are so busy.

Most forums work exactly the way our forums work (every new post end up as the last), and people actually have a choice of how they want to view the threads, so it is really a matter of what we want. Users can also choose to see more than the default 10 postings on each page by changing their forums profile.

The new version of the forums, which I am testing right now, have the exact same functionality when it comes to this - except that you also get a "Page 1 2 3 4 Last" in the topic list when you enter a category, so that should simplify things a bit.

Forcing people to move on when a thread gets too long could perhaps be automated in some way, I would have to look at ways to do that.

For the record, I think it is great that people discuss things, and I don't mind heated debates, but I would like to see people start more new threads when things really get out of hand. The "GOD" topic and "Evolution vs" topics are good examples of threads which could probably be split into ten different topics.

Tormod

[Freethinker]

The only problem with starting new threads is continuity. I spend a fair amount of time having to go back in a thread to show someone how they answered a question previously in order to force consistancy, or at least expose the inconsistancy. If that included having to research back to other threads, the job would multiply.

I also know that I am as guilty as anyone. I find religion to be tied into all aspects of a person's thought process and as such it tends to enter into all topics. Esp when a posters "style" is based on their ideology and thus may or may not be structured appropraitely for the topic.

e.g. the dino evolve thread. It could have been discussed based on probablity and evolutionary advantage. But if one of the posters rejects evolution, or wants to restrict it's level of influence, then the discussion has to expand to include the additional topics. Should those then move out of a strictly Evolution based discussion? Or duplicate discussions in GOD thread?

[geko]

Ban all religious argument from all forums apart from philosophy - this would help sort out religious arguments in the evolution forum me think

Im definately up for encouraging people to stay on topic like you said - i shall make more of an effort myself from now on.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker
e.g. the dino evolve thread. It could have been discussed based on probablity and evolutionary advantage. But if one of the posters rejects evolution, or wants to restrict it's level of influence, then the discussion has to expand to include the additional topics. Should those then move out of a strictly Evolution based discussion? Or duplicate discussions in GOD thread?

Good point. I guess the few threads that get long and heated are worth the time it takes to catch up by reading the old posts.

Tormod

[Dark Mind]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Lately, several threads have grown to extreme sizes (one is rounding 300 posts as I write this).

The way these forums are built, there is currently no way to sort messages in a way which makes it easy to follow a single thread within a thread (ie, who has responded to which post).

There are some options, like the "View" pulldown menu at the top of each topic page. If you choose "Branch" you get a correctly listed clickable message list on top, but the main message display is still unsorted.

When a thread reaches a certain limit this becomes a major problem - it is difficult to navigate this threads, and they take a long time to download.

Another problem is that really long threads would usually be better off if people could try to make new threads when they have a new idea, instead of letting threads evolve into something new all the time (this is a moderator problem - I really need more moderators!).

My proposal is to limit the amount of threads in any single topic to 50 messages. when this limit is reached, the thread is closed and a new one must be started.

Note that most threads only get about 1-5 replies, so this is just to solve those extreme cases.

Please vote in the poll. If you have comments, post them here.

Tormod

I'd love to be a moderator! I am also quite against the posting of multiple topics in a single thread, especially one I start. This is frustrating because users usually start arguing amongst themselves about whatever it was that got them started off. I have seen very few influential posts in my thread "Perpetual Motion:Super Conductive Magnets, Something's Gotta Work!!!". The users have gone off on theory problems on why it shouldn't/won't work and have given me very little enthusiasm for continuing checking my own thread. However if they were to debate in a "Debate" forum it would be much easier to navigate )

[pgrmdave]

Originally Posted by geko

Ban all religious argument from all forums apart from philosophy - this would help sort out religious arguments in the evolution forum me think

I think that religious arguments are fine, so long as people are thinking logically, and thoughtfully about the subject. I believe that roughly half the members here believe in some sort of higher power - I seem to remember a poll that showed that. To refuse religious argument would deny half of us from posting about something that we beleive to be true.

[zadojla]

Originally Posted by Tormod

My proposal is to limit the amount of threads in any single topic to 50 messages. when this limit is reached, the thread is closed and a new one must be started.

I don't think this would be an improvement. It would potentially derail interesting (at least to some) discussions. If the participants are interested in chasing their tails in endless circles, breaking up the threads would just make it worse.
What you need is more moderators willing take control, which might also chill interesting threads if the moderator were too heavy-handed.

[Tormod]

This topic should have been closed, sorry. We agreed last year that closing topics was not the way to go and instead enlisted moderators...like Zad says.