ADMIN: One Thread per Person per Day?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

This suggestion was made (by me) on the Neccessary Post thread.

The presumption is that there are too many threads now and so perfectly good ones get overwhelmed by the silly ones. There is real actual scientific evidence (see other thread) to show that the number of new threads is shooting up while the amount of overall activity is pretty much the same.

(My experience backs this up too - if I'm away from ILE for even a day now than about half the small-but-interesting threads I was following will have fallen below the 100-thread cutoff, which makes reading it more frustrating.)

One thing we can do is adopt a one-thread-per-person-per-day guideline - this worked for a while on ILM. ILE's circumstances might be different, though.

The argument against is that it removes some of the spontaneity from the boards.

So - do people feel that there are too many threads on ILE? What can we do about it if there are?

(This is my thread for Friday obv.)

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:39 (twenty-three years ago)

I think that the people who post pointless threads must know who they are. If we all agree that we would prefer fewer pointless, ur-cliquey, abusive, punning, kitten-centric threads, and I can't really see who wouldn't, then those people can make specific efforts to restrain themselves. No?

― Mark C (Mark C), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:43 (twenty-three years ago)

as long as it's a suggestion and not a rule I don't see the harm.

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:44 (twenty-three years ago)

I think it's a good idea. yes.

Mark, are you engaging in your irony? the threads you lambaste are part of what makes this board great.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:45 (twenty-three years ago)

I liked it when Nick or Ronan or whoever comes on and starts 5 threads in a row, because it usually seems like they've been thinking about ILx. I do think people need to think a bit more about whether threads will fly though, ie whether there's a discussion to be had or just a list of disjointed answers to the question or puns or whatever (something I've not being doing much lately).

Or what Mark C said.

(Maybe having an Ask A Question link on every page isn't such a good idea, and we should hide it a bit like on Greenspun)

― Graham (graham), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:46 (twenty-three years ago)

How I see the guideline working - if you post other threads a little message appears at the top of 'post a thread' reminding you of it. Other than that nothing happens.

(It's like Filepile files, if anyone's familiar with that - there aren't any actual rules but posting loads of files in a row, or in one day, is frowned upon a bit.)

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:46 (twenty-three years ago)

If Mark C can't see who wouldn't prefer fewer pointless, ur-cliquey, abusive, punning, kitten-centric threads, then he must be reading a different ILX.

That said, freiwillige Selbstkontrolle is nearly always good.

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:47 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't really think someone should be able to dictate what constitutes a pointless thread. Some people come on ILE to discuss big life issues, some to discuss politics or music or lit, and some just to enjoy some virtual companionship.
I can't be the ONLY person who has increased happiness levels looking at picture threads and posting my finds. I can understand a limited number of threads for each day, but maybe 2 instead of 1? Or 3 a day max? And then, as per usual, if you are not interested in pix of kittens, you can just refrain from opening those threads. No need to hate on any of the thread topics. There is something for everyone. If there isn't, then one can post his/her own thread.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:48 (twenty-three years ago)

I really don't mind when someone starts more than one thread a day, but when it gets to the point where there are endless parodies of other threads it gets kind of tiresome and is in a way rude to the person who posted the original thread.

― Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:49 (twenty-three years ago)

What if before you post you get this on your screen?

http://www.utaka.org/misc/kitten.jpg

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:50 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree that so long as it's not a hard-and-fast rule, then an average of one a day is something to aim for. But as Graham suggests, sometimes people have a handful of decent questions in a day and you wouldn't really want to stop that.

― James Ball (James Ball), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:52 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with the idea of a guideline: if someone has three ideas for threads they can either (a) post all three if they are U&K or (b) decide which is U-est and K-est and save some for the next couple of days, giving each a little more time and exposure.

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:53 (twenty-three years ago)

picture threads are great even though I have no idea how to post to them

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Sarah: the problem as I see it is that the more threads get posted, the less chance any individual thread has of lasting a long time on the new answers page. That isn't as much of a problem if you're posting "Cover Connections X" because there'll be a "Cover Connections XI" along in a minute. But minor-interest threads can be completely swallowed before the 2 or 3 posters who might have really wanted to contribute even see them.

Tim is OTM - when ILM did this it was good discipline for me at least.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:54 (twenty-three years ago)

that does happen - I hate having to use the search option for a thread that's only a day old

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:55 (twenty-three years ago)

Picture threads are great, as are kitten threads.

But yeah, I think one thread per person per day is a good thing, as long as its a guideline and not rigidly enforced.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:56 (twenty-three years ago)

they are dangerous [picture threads]for those of us with our backs to the office. And I could safely go a long long while before I saw another cute kitten.

― chris (chris), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:56 (twenty-three years ago)

yes, this idea that there are "pointless threads" which are somehow wasting space on the boards is basically fascism by another name. If people don't like reading threads about kittens, then don't read them. Otherwise the terrorists have already won.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:56 (twenty-three years ago)

What is U & K?

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Hey, I love cats, but do people ACTUALLY like seeing lots of pictures of them? I thought was just a longrunning injoke!

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Sarah, U&K = urgent & key, sorry.

Of course if more people followed my example and didn't start threads at all, then we'd have a thriving community.

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:58 (twenty-three years ago)

Should I remove/increase the default number of threads on the New Answers page?

― Graham (graham), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:58 (twenty-three years ago)

Maybe a suggested limit on number of threads one may start in a day might lead to more thread revivals, which would be a good thing. I admit there are already a crazy number of cat pic threads gathering dust.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:59 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah sorry, the opening paragraph should read:

The presumption is that there are too many threads now and so perfectly good ones get overwhelmed by the silly ones (which are perfectly good too)

The thing is that if you have massive numbers of threads some of them lose out, whether it be kittens or iraq or soul-baring or anthony's latest art interest.

Graham you could do but I don't think that's the point - it's much easier to navigate using the top 50-100 or so anyway.

I think ILE's mix-it-all-up interface is a terrific thing but if there's much more noise than signal (by any individual poster's definition) it's a real nightmare to look through.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:00 (twenty-three years ago)

yes, this idea that there are "pointless threads" which are somehow wasting space on the boards is basically fascism by another name.

With all due respect, there's a world of difference between a moderated internet message board and a fascist government.

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:01 (twenty-three years ago)

is there a graham-programmed way that threads with pics in can AUTOMATICALLY be signalled b4 they're opened?

(my main worry abt kitten pix per se is that my co-worker who can see my screen is obsessed with cats and gets instantly vocally gushy as soon as she sees one, which generally causes me to start talking abt kitten barbecues in psychic self defence) (but i have no prob at all with sarah m's threads being started)

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:01 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes yes revivals!

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:02 (twenty-three years ago)

It's like Filepile files

Tom is there any way I can get into this (you can no longer register new logons)? Would you email me about it?

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:02 (twenty-three years ago)

This world's gone mad.

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah I suggested that on Ronan's thread, reviving is great and lets newer people (like me) see stuff they previously haven't. I always search, and anyway I've started like 15 threads or something ever (that's what it feels like, probably wrong)

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, an internet message board with just Tim H., Spencer and me would be quite dull.

― felicity (felicity), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:03 (twenty-three years ago)

they are dangerous [picture threads]for those of us with our backs to the office

Which is why there's the feature that identifies them with a hollow bullet, of course.

Personally, I think Mark C is right in that most threads are started by a small minority of posters, particularly the "frivolous" ones. I also think that self-restraint is the way to go, because sometimes you can get someone posting several interesting threads all at once - however you're defining "interesting". All we need is a method of creating a self-restraint culture, I guess.

Do people not know about the hollow-bullet-for-picture-threads thing? Surely it's U&K for anyone (like me) whose boss can see their screen all the time.

― caitlin (caitlin), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:05 (twenty-three years ago)

The 'eternal life' of threads is the main format thing that sets ILX aside from other messageboards I think.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:06 (twenty-three years ago)

With all due respect, there's a world of difference between a moderated internet message board and a fascist government.

it starts with moderated internet boards.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:07 (twenty-three years ago)

are there really that many newly-started kitten threads?

― Alan (Alan), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:07 (twenty-three years ago)

Look! I wasn't to know no-one had played Metal Gear Solid 2. Sheesh.

― Cozen (Cozen), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Good for ILX! Actually Tom it was prob you that said "REVIVE REVIVE" I don't remember, it was two hours ago

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:09 (twenty-three years ago)

The 'eternal life' of threads is the main format thing that sets ILX aside from other messageboards I think.

nyeh... the Bowlie Forum has threads which last forever and move up and down a new answers page, just like here. And the Bowlie Forum software is widely used for internet forums, so such things must be fairly standard.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:09 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't think it's about the kitten threads. It's about giving threads more of an opportunity to 'breathe', so to speak.

Actually - *are* any of the people who are feeling pissed off with or not enjoying ILE as much feeling that way because of the thread logjams? Because if not there's not much point in all this.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:09 (twenty-three years ago)

We need "thread-starting green cross code". Summat like - Stop! Think! Search! Post!

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:10 (twenty-three years ago)

Shows how out of touch I am DV.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:10 (twenty-three years ago)

I wish y'all'd bring back the color coding so you'd know which threads you were reading. It would be very helpful in this era of 'nobody reads all the threads anymore anyways'.

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:12 (twenty-three years ago)

Having a lot of threads makes it hard to see what I'll find interesting or not. I don't think having less threads on the New Answers page would help, really. What would be useful would be an "ignore thread" option so I could see at a glance which threads I'd decided probably wouldn't be worth reading; and maybe a page like New Answers but sorted first by category.

― caitlin (caitlin), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:13 (twenty-three years ago)

Actually - *are* any of the people who are feeling pissed off with or not enjoying ILE as much feeling that way because of the thread logjams?

I am.

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:13 (twenty-three years ago)

Also, more secret messages although it occurs to me there maybe one about me right now in which case I am hurt and wounded but turnabout is fairplay so whatcha gonna do.

and more logos maybe.

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:14 (twenty-three years ago)

the hollow bullet doesn't work in mozilla or way-old netscape i don't think (but yes, sorry, i'd forgotten it had been implemented already) (ps i'm not going to change browsers probably)

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:14 (twenty-three years ago)

ooh ooh ooh, echoing something posted elsewhere - more of those cool ILX graphs Graham had.

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:15 (twenty-three years ago)

I think ILE is at its best when everyone is bored enough to read all the threads. One way of doing this is to have less threads.

Yes graphs please.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:16 (twenty-three years ago)

To repeat what I said on Ronan's thread, I don't think we need anything more than a link to the search page on the Ask A Question page. People who want to start a new thread to start a new thread will anyway. And I really don't like the idea of even a soft quota.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:16 (twenty-three years ago)

Am I the only person who finds threads with hundreds of messages harder to wade through than hundreds of threads?

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Skipping 146 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2002-06-02/cliff.JPG

He's about 400 years old you know.

― smee (smee), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:18 (twenty-three years ago)

Okay, what's worse: the idea of seeing his ur-skeletal naked frame or THAT BLAZER AND TIE??????

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:26 (twenty-three years ago)

I rather see him oiled up, in a gimp suit with an orange in his mand and a greedy look in his eyes than NAKED.

― Lara (Lara), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:29 (twenty-three years ago)

(The real crime is that the blazer would be really fucking cool without that tie. Or that head, actually.)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:30 (twenty-three years ago)

uh... who is that guy?

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:30 (twenty-three years ago)

(and can Sarah eat him?)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:31 (twenty-three years ago)

(The real crime is that the blazer would be really fucking cool without that tie. Or that head, actually.)

Are you Sting?

― Lara (Lara), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:32 (twenty-three years ago)

FITE!!!!!!!

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:36 (twenty-three years ago)

*Lara looks on puzzled as Dan takes the tantric fighting position*

― Lara (Lara), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:37 (twenty-three years ago)

Alright, I took the time to read a couple of posts up to find out that it is Cliff Richard. So, who is he?

― Sarah mclusky (coco), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:38 (twenty-three years ago)

He was meant to be the british elvis but is infact a repressed gay god botherer who sings.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:40 (twenty-three years ago)

Cliff Richard is the Peter Pan of Pop!

― Lara (Lara), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:42 (twenty-three years ago)

I met Cliff Richard once. He seemed pleasant enough. If only he'd fucking stop making records. You'd think he'd have grasped that if he hasn't made a good one after 45 years or whatever it is he probably isn't going to.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 19:02 (twenty-three years ago)

But he thinks they *are* good! They must be, cos he sells lots of copies of them.

(the fact that he can only get a record in the charts by sending a free copy to every priest in the country and asking them to advertise it in their church services is clearly irrelevant)

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 21:33 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, I know that really. I still wish he would stop it.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 21:48 (twenty-three years ago)

I think this one thread per person per day rule has killed the board.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 21 February 2003 13:12 (twenty-three years ago)

People have been obeying the rules?

― Ed (dali), Friday, 21 February 2003 13:16 (twenty-three years ago)

i have :(

i think it wz the mocking of superhero powers that killed the board

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 21 February 2003 13:17 (twenty-three years ago)

To be fair I have had many thread ideas in the last couple of days, just wait till the war starts.

― Ed (dali), Friday, 21 February 2003 13:19 (twenty-three years ago)

ILE is soooooooo much better now than last week.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 21 February 2003 13:21 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 21 February 2003 13:24 (twenty-three years ago)

It is only better because no one is *fighting* this week!

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 14:10 (twenty-three years ago)

YOU TWATMUNKS.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 21 February 2003 14:50 (twenty-three years ago)

it isn't better. I want to have reasons to verbally abuse other posters. gimme a reason!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 21 February 2003 14:51 (twenty-three years ago)

(Do twatmonks have to take a vow of celibacy? Where's the fun in that?)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 21 February 2003 14:51 (twenty-three years ago)

they're twatmUnks - like chipmunks, only different.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 21 February 2003 14:59 (twenty-three years ago)

So, instead of nesting in chips, they [FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SOMEONE STOP ME]?

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 21 February 2003 15:01 (twenty-three years ago)

this has turned into a bad thread.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 21 February 2003 15:56 (twenty-three years ago)

What thread doesn't, eventually? And that is why we love them so.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 21 February 2003 16:29 (twenty-three years ago)

There is no such thing as a bad thread. WE DECIDED THIS ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT, YOU TWATMUNK.

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 16:29 (twenty-three years ago)

How long before TWATMUNK becomes a fixture on Graham's meta-graph?

TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK TWATMUNK

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 21 February 2003 16:33 (twenty-three years ago)

Seven minutes?

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 16:40 (twenty-three years ago)

there is no such thing as a bad thread

*insert comic circus music denoting sarcasm here*

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 21 February 2003 16:50 (twenty-three years ago)

There's circus music that denotes sarcasm??

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 21 February 2003 16:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Ronan is a bad man.

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 16:58 (twenty-three years ago)

Since he couldn't even turn up the FAP that produced this decision, he's banned from the Dublin hivemind. Any of the rest of you guys want him?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:04 (twenty-three years ago)

You are lucky you're getting out of the city this weekend, Farrell!

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:05 (twenty-three years ago)

Hey, Navan is applying for city status!

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:15 (twenty-three years ago)

YOU FOOL! YOU'VE TOLD HIM WHERE YOU'LL BE!!!

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Hey, Navan is applying for city status!

Hang on...

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Mega City Navan

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:42 (twenty-three years ago)

Don't all people living there have to walk upright and on two legs for it to become a city?

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:45 (twenty-three years ago)

But then Cork's a city...

― Lara (Lara), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:45 (twenty-three years ago)

Now Lara! you'll start off the Dublin-Cork ILX war again.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:51 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes Dan you know the Simpsons circus music? From Homer the Clown? It actually works very well in that way.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 21 February 2003 17:51 (twenty-three years ago)

A hidden benefit of the optional, self-imposed one thread per person per day limit is that you get a better sense of what other ILE people like to discuss.

― 34253, Saturday, 1 March 2003 04:57 (twenty-three years ago)

one month passes...

I'm afraid I still think there are 'too many' threads. And there are, of course, many more now than when this thread was started.

― the pinefox, Thursday, 24 April 2003 10:46 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't think one single person took this thread seriously, unfortunately.

― Nicole (Nicole), Thursday, 24 April 2003 12:22 (twenty-three years ago)

And what about reviving dozens of dead ones in a day, eh, The Pinefox? (Actually I really approve of that - Cozen has been in good reviving form too.)

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 24 April 2003 19:24 (twenty-three years ago)

four years pass...

ADFSDSSFDFDSFDSFSDAasdf

― am0n, Monday, 7 April 2008 19:12 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.