Threads too long

[Quarkhead]

I haven't been around for a long while, and just started browsing here again. The first thing I noticed is the prevalence of threads that are over ten pages long. As someone who hasn't been here in a while, or for a newcomer, that's just too long to get started in debate. On a few, I enjoyed the opening post, and felt I had something to contribute - but I don't want to repeat what others have said, so I have to read through 12 pages of posts. Then I find that by the time we get to page 12, the thread has morphed and my points would seem off-topic.

Just a suggestion - close threads sooner; it doesn't have to be the end of the topic - just close it and say that if anyone wants to start a similar topic, or continue the debate, to start a new thread. That will let the sometimers participate without spending hours playing catch-up.

Thanks!

[otseng]

Hi Quarkhead, welcome back!

I'd like to open it up for general discussion about your idea. How does AD handle long threads? Even if a thread was closed and a new one started, wouldn't it still have the issue of new people possibly bringing up issues that have been already addressed in the old thread? What should the page limit be for a thread? Does anyone know of forum that has a mod to make it easier to read long threads?

[Quarkhead]

Over at AD we close them if they get too long, and encourage opening a new thread if someone wants to. Frankly, there's really nothing one can do about possible repeats - they are bound to happen, anyway, even in shorter threads.

Now, one thing about page counts - different people have different settings. So the number of pages depends on how many posts per page you are set to. Therefor I think it makes more sense to have threads with a post limit rather than a page limit. That said, I couldn't really say what that number ought to be. All I know is, it struck me when I came here and saw interesting looking threads - but to start getting into them I would have had to read through 12 or more pages! Yeah, so I'm lazy!

As for a mod, you might PM Mike...

Oh, and Hi Otseng! Thanks for the welcome.

[juliod]

As someone who hasn't been here in a while, or for a newcomer, that's just too long to get started in debate.

I agree with this assessment.

I think that one of the chief problems with recruiting more members is the lack of new, fresh threads. I suspect that many people view the site, but decline to register since they don't see an opprotunity to join in. I know I looked at this site more than once before joining, and only did so since I have already tried every other theology debate site.

This is a very well run site, but it is bordering on extinction, I think. There are just too few voices. One problem I see is the discouragment of posting "the same old questions". New people, predominantly, are going to want to discuss these questions, perhaps over and over again. I don't see that as a problem, even though I have been online since 1988. But when they are directed to a thread with 100+ old posts, they are not encouraged to stay and participate.

DanZ

[harvey1]

Just a suggestion - close threads sooner; it doesn't have to be the end of the topic - just close it and say that if anyone wants to start a similar topic, or continue the debate, to start a new thread. That will let the sometimers participate without spending hours playing catch-up.

Hmm... Tough issue. I personally like the fact that I can debate with a few individuals about some serious subjects. It would get very old quick if my previous arguments were archived in one of the previous threads that I couldn't remember which thread I had that discussion. At the same time, I empathize with those who are newcomers to a discussion.

Ideally, one solution would be to keep a thread active, but "hide" the previous months posts from the causal reader. In that case, there would have to be some kind of summary as to what had come before.

In a perfect world I could visualize a moderator posting on the lengthy thread that much of the thread is about to be hidden and that summaries of their arguments should be made. This note from a moderator would request the poster to provide a summary of their points on the thread (or, if they wish, they can edit their last summary). By providing this summary, the starting post and the summary post would not be hidden. You only get one summary post per user. That summary post stays active for the entire thread and should be in response to the opening post to the thread (which also stays active). Each user can update summary without fear of it being "hidden."

So, when a new participant sees the thread, they will see that it is an active thread, but they will see only the summaries at the top. From that point they will see the most recent postings. If they want to read the previous posts going back weeks, months and years then that's their prerogative.

In order to implement this function, there would have to a "summary button" at the bottom of a post. It would replace the previous summary or add that post as one's summary. If you wanted to edit your summary, then it is just like editing a normal post.

One additional advantage to this would be the benefit of summarizing one's position. Often that doesn't occur in a forum site, hence it is really difficult to know what are the main items of their argument.

(Btw, another function on my wish list is being able to link to a previous post without a whole lot of hoopla in doing that. When you open a thread, it would be nice if there were a button on the side of the screen which allowed you to "save the link." If you open the other window you could press another button "retrieve the link" and then you would have the link available that you just saved. This would help in creating summaries of one's position since you could just provide links to the summary.)

[israeltour]

As a new member, I agree that really long threads are discouraging to participate in. However, I notice that often the thread morphs (as alluded to above), and that's the reason the thread is so long. If we were all more diligent in noticing when this happens, and continuing the new topic in a new thread, then it would probably help.

[otseng]

I contacted Jaime over at AD and she said that they don't close threads solely based on length. Rather, it is one of several factors such as getting off-topic or getting too old. However, I would tend to agree that long threads are intimidating for new posters to participate in.

Ideally, one solution would be to keep a thread active, but "hide" the previous months posts from the causal reader. In that case, there would have to be some kind of summary as to what had come before.

Interesting idea. But the programming required to do this would take too much time for me. However, I have a modification of your idea that would not require any new features.

The long thread under consideration to be closed would be sent a warning message that it would be closed due to its length. Then participants of that thread would post their summary statements in that thread. The posts would have some clear indication that it is a summary post. Perhaps simply putting "Summary" at the top of the post. Then, those summary posts will be split off into a new thread with a copy of the first post from the old thread and a link to the old thread. The old thread will then be closed with a link to the new one.

(Btw, another function on my wish list is being able to link to a previous post without a whole lot of hoopla in doing that.

This I could probably program. I'll add this to the list of things to do.

However, I notice that often the thread morphs (as alluded to above), and that's the reason the thread is so long. If we were all more diligent in noticing when this happens, and continuing the new topic in a new thread, then it would probably help.

This is true. Though threads do tend to wander, it is encouraged to start new threads when they wander off too far.

I think that one of the chief problems with recruiting more members is the lack of new, fresh threads.

For now, let's do it this way. If there are threads that are deemed to be too long, post a request here to close that thread. Then we'll consider "molting" that thread.

[juliod]

From my point of view, it's not the keeping open of threads, but the discouragment of the creation of closely-realted threads when one already exists.

What I've seen happen here at least twice is this. A newcomer starts a thread on some topic that has been discussed before. A moderator points out that it has been discussed in some older thread, with many posts. No one responds to the new thread, and the newbie goes away.

It's perfectly proper to stop people from starting repeated threads on the same topic. But that's not the situation we face here. What (I think) we need to do it bring new people into the discussions, and the only way to do that is allow them a chance to express their views in fresh threads, even if those topics are old hat to we oldies.

It will take time to attract new people, but what I see as the problem is that we don't have a "critical mass" of participants to self-sustain the discussions.

DanZ

DanZ

[otseng]

Btw, another function on my wish list is being able to link to a previous post without a whole lot of hoopla in doing that.

I've added something to make it a little bit easier to copy links. More info at Added Post URL as BBCode.

[BeHereNow]

juliod: What I've seen happen here at least twice is this. A newcomer starts a thread on some topic that has been discussed before. A moderator points out that it has been discussed in some older thread, with many posts. No one responds to the new thread, and the newbie goes away.

Yes, before I was a moderator I did the same thing thinking I was helping. The long threads do not bother me, but I’ve gotten used to them and some boards are much worse. I think it is a good idea to allow newbies to plow the same field thinking they are breaking new ground. We might be replacing one problem with another of course, but this might reduce the irritation problem of the long threads.
I do not like the idea of limited length.