Thread locking and moving

jaydee · February 3, 2000, 09:44 AM

I would like to request that the moderators & administrators post the link to the original thread when they open a new thread that follows a locked one, to reference back to it... Also, maybe a link to the new thread when the old thread locks...

Just pop a new browser window open, and cut-n-paste the urls into each as part of the process...

The locked threads gradually find there way down the list, and can't get BTT'd with a new post... Just would make it easier to refer back to the original if you came in late...and find the new one if you were following the original.

Thanks!

[This message has been edited by jaydee (edited February 03, 2000).]

Coinneach · February 3, 2000, 12:18 PM

Jaydee, I've noticed that most of the mods/admins explain where and why the thread is being moved. Yeah, I'm slackin' on the why part.

The thread title remains the same, so it shouldn't be hard to find.

------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson

Dennis · February 3, 2000, 05:56 PM

Please don't say, "BTT". That's one of my pet peeves.

Members only load the threads which interest them. Moderators load thread after thread and the BTTs add nothing but wasted time for the Moderators.

If there's interest in a thread, it will stay where it belongs.

If there's NO interest in a thread, let it sink into obscurity.

If someone MUST see everything from the last week, let him be the ONLY one who brings up more than two days of threads on each forum.

Just my $0.02.

Dziekuje.

Coinneach · February 3, 2000, 06:03 PM

Please don't say, "BTT". That's one of my pet peeves.

(where's that sheepish grin emoticon?)

Dziekuje.

Your *WHAT* hurts?!

------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson

**Rich Lucibella** · February 3, 2000, 06:41 PM

Jay Dee-
You bring up a great point and I agree. Follow up's should always contain a link to the previous Part.

Since the Mods don't generally start the Part II, they can't link the Part I thread until after Part II's been opened...if this makes sense? Even then, it's of limited value.

As concerns a Member starting a Part II in follow up to a locked Part I, I think it's incumbent on the Member to include a link to Part I. Staff shouldn't have to do this for them.

Still, the spirit of the request is appreciated and understood. Thanks.
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited February 03, 2000).]

[email protected] · February 4, 2000, 12:28 AM

Now that page breaking is turned on, there really shouldn't be a need to lock threads.... once the thread moves past the 2nd page, you can move straight from the first to the third, fourth, fifth, etc.

Hopefully one of these days UBB will include the ability to go directly from the topic list to the thread page you want, but that's not scheduled any time soon.

Spark

**Mal H** · February 4, 2000, 01:32 AM

But the page breaks come after a certain number of posts, currently set to 50 it appears. That doesn't relate directly to load times. For example, there are some large threads on Handguns that have around 30 or 40 posts and yet are over 150K. And as we have seen before, if graphics are added by a member, the byte count can go sky high.

There is no good solution currently other than locking the big uns based on absolute length and starting a part 2. If you lower the post count page break, it mildly po's folks because you always have to go to another page when a thread is opened for viewing. It also makes it hard to do a search for a particular keyword or member - you know it's there, but which page is it on?

**Rich Lucibella** · February 4, 2000, 07:16 PM

Thanks, Spark.
I'd already considered the page break issue. But Page 1 loads automatically, so I'd just as soon continue doing it the way we have in past.

Rich

jaydee · February 5, 2000, 12:40 PM

I think Rich is kinda seeing what I am... The link on a "Part2" should be referenced back to Part 1, but it seems that the moderator isn't starting Part2.

I guess what I am missing is when Part 1 gets locked, do the moderators just wait for a member to open part 2?

I would guess that the process would be as follows...
Thread size appears to be getting larger, so moderator decides to lock it.

In doing so, moderator brings up original (part 1) and copies the URL, then starts part 2, and pastes the URL into the new thread, and lets it continue.

Then, moderator copies the url for new thread, and returns to part 1, pastes URL for part 2 into the final post for the part 1 thread, and locks it down.

Maybe I am missing something... I am a professional webmaster responsible for almost a dozen corporate sites, so the admin & management seems pretty straigt forward...

I only brought it up as it would be helpful to the members who are either following a thread, or looking for the history behind a continuation to get up to speed... Not that I want to create 'more work' but the work entailed seems minimal. I guess I like continuity ~

Again, just an observation... Enjoy!

[This message has been edited by jaydee (edited February 05, 2000).]

[email protected] · February 5, 2000, 02:56 PM

Seems like a straightforward situation to me - if the threads are getting too long to download before they page break, then lower the number of posts before they break.

Yes, the first page does have to download completely before the person can get to 2 or 3 or X, but the bandwidth savings come in by their *not* having to download pages 2-X in addition. They don't have to download the 25+ extra posts as well, before they go to the page they want.

Compare - Threads that break when the posts hit 75 per page have 1/3 the number of pages of threads that break when the post reach 25 per page. Smaller pages overall, less downloading because you can skip ahead. Faster download times as well, making the process seem a lot quicker.

Just my 2cents, but it seems that locking the threads and telling them to start part II tends to kill the discussion in question. If it's not, and I'm mistaken, my apologies...

Just a minor bitch on my end, pay no mind.

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com
www.bladeforums.com

February 3, 2000, 09:44 AM	#1
jaydee Senior Member Join Date: January 25, 2000 Posts: 154	I would like to request that the moderators & administrators post the link to the original thread when they open a new thread that follows a locked one, to reference back to it... Also, maybe a link to the new thread when the old thread locks... Just pop a new browser window open, and cut-n-paste the urls into each as part of the process... The locked threads gradually find there way down the list, and can't get BTT'd with a new post... Just would make it easier to refer back to the original if you came in late...and find the new one if you were following the original. Thanks! [This message has been edited by jaydee (edited February 03, 2000).]

February 3, 2000, 12:18 PM	#2
Coinneach Staff Alumnus Join Date: February 23, 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,272	Jaydee, I've noticed that most of the mods/admins explain where and why the thread is being moved. Yeah, I'm slackin' on the why part. The thread title remains the same, so it shouldn't be hard to find. ------------------ "If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance." -- Samuel Johnson

February 3, 2000, 05:56 PM	#3
Dennis Staff Emeritus Join Date: November 23, 1998 Location: a small forest in Texas Posts: 7,079	Please don't say, "BTT". That's one of my pet peeves. Members only load the threads which interest them. Moderators load thread after thread and the BTTs add nothing but wasted time for the Moderators. If there's interest in a thread, it will stay where it belongs. If there's NO interest in a thread, let it sink into obscurity. If someone MUST see everything from the last week, let him be the ONLY one who brings up more than two days of threads on each forum. Just my $0.02. Dziekuje.

February 3, 2000, 06:03 PM	#4
Coinneach Staff Alumnus Join Date: February 23, 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,272	Please don't say, "BTT". That's one of my pet peeves. (where's that sheepish grin emoticon?) Dziekuje. Your WHAT hurts?! ------------------ "If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance." -- Samuel Johnson

February 3, 2000, 06:41 PM	#5
Rich Lucibella Staff Join Date: October 6, 1998 Location: South Florida Posts: 10,229	Jay Dee- You bring up a great point and I agree. Follow up's should always contain a link to the previous Part. Since the Mods don't generally start the Part II, they can't link the Part I thread until after Part II's been opened...if this makes sense? Even then, it's of limited value. As concerns a Member starting a Part II in follow up to a locked Part I, I think it's incumbent on the Member to include a link to Part I. Staff shouldn't have to do this for them. Still, the spirit of the request is appreciated and understood. Thanks. Rich [This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited February 03, 2000).]

February 4, 2000, 12:28 AM	#6
[email protected] Wise Guy Join Date: October 10, 1998 Posts: 665	Now that page breaking is turned on, there really shouldn't be a need to lock threads.... once the thread moves past the 2nd page, you can move straight from the first to the third, fourth, fifth, etc. Hopefully one of these days UBB will include the ability to go directly from the topic list to the thread page you want, but that's not scheduled any time soon. Spark

February 4, 2000, 01:32 AM	#7
Mal H Staff Join Date: March 20, 1999 Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia Posts: 16,955	But the page breaks come after a certain number of posts, currently set to 50 it appears. That doesn't relate directly to load times. For example, there are some large threads on Handguns that have around 30 or 40 posts and yet are over 150K. And as we have seen before, if graphics are added by a member, the byte count can go sky high. There is no good solution currently other than locking the big uns based on absolute length and starting a part 2. If you lower the post count page break, it mildly po's folks because you always have to go to another page when a thread is opened for viewing. It also makes it hard to do a search for a particular keyword or member - you know it's there, but which page is it on?

February 4, 2000, 07:16 PM	#8
Rich Lucibella Staff Join Date: October 6, 1998 Location: South Florida Posts: 10,229	Thanks, Spark. I'd already considered the page break issue. But Page 1 loads automatically, so I'd just as soon continue doing it the way we have in past. Rich

February 5, 2000, 12:40 PM	#9
jaydee Senior Member Join Date: January 25, 2000 Posts: 154	I think Rich is kinda seeing what I am... The link on a "Part2" should be referenced back to Part 1, but it seems that the moderator isn't starting Part2. I guess what I am missing is when Part 1 gets locked, do the moderators just wait for a member to open part 2? I would guess that the process would be as follows... Thread size appears to be getting larger, so moderator decides to lock it. In doing so, moderator brings up original (part 1) and copies the URL, then starts part 2, and pastes the URL into the new thread, and lets it continue. Then, moderator copies the url for new thread, and returns to part 1, pastes URL for part 2 into the final post for the part 1 thread, and locks it down. Maybe I am missing something... I am a professional webmaster responsible for almost a dozen corporate sites, so the admin & management seems pretty straigt forward... I only brought it up as it would be helpful to the members who are either following a thread, or looking for the history behind a continuation to get up to speed... Not that I want to create 'more work' but the work entailed seems minimal. I guess I like continuity ~ Again, just an observation... Enjoy! [This message has been edited by jaydee (edited February 05, 2000).]

February 5, 2000, 02:56 PM	#10
[email protected] Wise Guy Join Date: October 10, 1998 Posts: 665	Seems like a straightforward situation to me - if the threads are getting too long to download before they page break, then lower the number of posts before they break. Yes, the first page does have to download completely before the person can get to 2 or 3 or X, but the bandwidth savings come in by their not having to download pages 2-X in addition. They don't have to download the 25+ extra posts as well, before they go to the page they want. Compare - Threads that break when the posts hit 75 per page have 1/3 the number of pages of threads that break when the post reach 25 per page. Smaller pages overall, less downloading because you can skip ahead. Faster download times as well, making the process seem a lot quicker. Just my 2cents, but it seems that locking the threads and telling them to start part II tends to kill the discussion in question. If it's not, and I'm mistaken, my apologies... Just a minor bitch on my end, pay no mind. Spark ------------------ Kevin Jon Schlossberg SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com www.bladeforums.com