Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Customer Service' started by Huss, May 11, 2004.
I think Bison should. He reads all those threads anyway...
is this for all boards now or just the FFA?
We have a Feyenoord thread going that we would like to let run through the next 7 days or so, the end of the season. Then we can start a new thread after the last game is done if that's okay.
I knew you were (thanks for taking the bait), but wasn't 100 percent sure about Maxim. I'm fine here - just want to get on with my pathetic life.
I don't think we'll need mods to self police ourselves, but it may be good to have one for other things. The example I'm thinking of is when we want to sticky fantasy league or tailgating info or BSSM gathering info or something like that.
I thought this was just for the big FFA threads. If that's the case, this would fit right in a Panic's Coolest sub-fora, I think
Excellent. I have been covertly campaigning to make Bison a mod for a couple of weeks now.
And by 'covertly campaigning', I mean tossed up the idea once and sat back on my ass.
Man, words gets around on that "coolest" thread
Geordienation just started a new "Dream Team" thread in the Fox Sports zone. Guess it was a premature move, but that's okay.
She says that to me, too.
We have Buff.
that's true. But the other groups don't.
Actually, I just did that so I could type "Electric Boogaloo".
Sucks for them.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmeissen0 again.
I, Kryptonite, being a non-Jim, think Jim's idea is worthy of my approval.
Especially the jello bit.
If the problem is 1000 page NSR threads, then why is Foos closing 53 page soccer threads, without warning or discussion, and announcing that it's now policy?
I like Foos but it appears he's making it up as he goes along.
That aside, I do have an idea, idiotic as it might seem:
On a long thread (not a little dinky Foos-hating 50 pager, but something with real girth, say 500 or more) why isn't it possible to just delete the first half of it? Leave the tail end up but shorten it? Forum mods could do this maintenance a couple times a week.
I'm sure this has already been rejected as unworkable or impossible or retarded, but I wanted to mention it.
why is deleting half a thread better than closing it and starting a new one? makes no sense
Jim's solution is SwissGCZ's idea.
Hand over the royalty...
My inner packrat disapproves of deleting threads or parts of threads.
I posted a variant of this idea on the mods forum.
I don't see a problem with the threads being around, more that they're being accessed frequently. Huss wants these threads accessed less (less of a server strain), other people want long threads, or whatever else.
I don't see why posts should be deleted if they're not against TOS.
So.... my idea is to have an "active" thread XYZ, then have an archive of thread XYZ. Every so often (weekly, 20 days, etc.), simply move a pre-determined chunk of the active thread on to the tail of the archive. Do it by page, for all I care. Everytime the thread reaches 200 pages, add everything from page 1 through 180 to the archive thread.
This way, the posts are around, in a long thread, yet aren't being accessed as much. And the active (accessed) thread stays relatively current. The two threads would simply be named XYZ - Active and XYZ - Archive. Heck, lock the archive so it can't be added on to.
Fixed and agreed.
I still would like some sort of explanation as to why we've been having 1000 page threads for over three years in BSSM, and yet apparently only recently are there any server problems as a result of these threads. Wouldn't server problems have begun three years ago? Wouldn't this issue have come up much sooner?
Other than that, I'm reasonably happy with the compromise (although I like Ulmo's compromise much better -- let us try 200 page threads, or even 100 page threads, and if it still takes up too much server then we can keep decreasing the page limit until we find the best solution for everyone involved, by trial and error).
I would furthermore like to apologize if I insulted Huss in any way. I don't think I did, but I don't remember very clearly, so I'd better apologize just to be safe.
I would just like to note that Splarg does post on our thread, so we have no Supah Mod, but the FFA mod works too.
I actually kind of like this idea, because it would allow the threads to flow without chopping and changing. The only slight point is that it kind of limits keeping up with the conversation to those who can visit every couple of days.
It'd be nice if the first half could be split off and locked, so it didn't interfere with what's going on at the business end. I guess that's a bit complicated though.
Yeah, an archive and an active thread. I posted such on page 13. The archive grows (but it's not accessed as much) and the active thread stays short and frequently visited.
What he said.