I read through all the 70 Minecraft threads even with the stupid Roman numerals at the end (Damn you Bone.)

I prefer this system but I agree with Defron just for symmetry (and he is always right...) we need 300.

I only made this thread because in the Skyrim forums, regarding technical issues, the enforcement of this rule HINDERS discussion and makes important threads drop off the front page. Having 3 or 4 separate threads regarding the same topic does NOT provide any of the "pluses" people here are claiming. More repeat threads are created and offtopic discussion occurs regardless, often due to the 200 post limit.

As I stated, the logic behind the 200 post limit, although sound and helpful in theory, FAILS in practice. Every other forum I goto that allows threads to stay their course and grow, seem a lot more productive then locking and reopening a thread every 200 posts. If you ignore the majority of a 50 page thread and only read the first and last post, you'd be doign the same thing with a megathread that's chopped up 5 times ANYWAYS.

and to top it off, its not automatic, and involves redundant work from the moderators who have to enforce it.
Even raising it to 500 posts would alleviate the unnecessary work from mods, and cut down on THAT many more repeat threads by half. This thread was created because that's what the moderators told me to do. If I could create it in the Actual skyrim forums, I would, but it'd most likely be, locked, or moved here anyways, seeing as it's "off topic".

In regards to the mods. What you want to wade through 50 pages to see if people are breaking the rules? Because I sure wouldn't and it seems to make their jobs a lot easier with this post limit.

I believe it is for purposes of pruning. when they delete old threads, they lop them off by the creation date instead of the last post, which makes sense because some people will bump threads for weeks and it will end up missing a rollover. There is also the reason of easy coding on some parts. The ability to just lop off a group of threads could be done much easier using some simple Perl and running the script server-wide. http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/regular_expressions.png says it well enough.

Also it DOES make it easier for mods to check threads. I also have been on forums with thousand-page long threads and if you are looking for a specific post, then it makes it a NIGHTMARE!
We could probably raise the limit to 300 posts, but i do not see why we should as it will just put more stress on mods to search through looking for flame wars and inappropriate dialogue. 200 is just about right so you can get a relly good conversation going without making it very hard to find something in there. Threads generally do not reach 200 posts very quickly, especially in CD, so what would the point be besides the "300" movie quote?

i too would like the limit raised a little however. only because it would allow more people to contribute to a discussion, espeacially now that the post limit cool down (if there is any at all any more), only makes it easier for a few people to hijack a thread with a disagreement.

5 threads with 10 pages, or 1 thread with 50 pages results in the exact same amount of "wading". It doesn't make a difference. Also, I'm not asking for the post limit to be completely removed, only raised. Maybe if people read my first post they would stop using examples of mega threads or anything above 50 pages.

When a topic is deemed "important" in the technical subforums, they actually STOP applying the post limit for a very specific reason, and even sticky it if need be. because locking and reopening an important thread hinders it, and older posts will drop off the front page. The moderators and administrators allow it to go up to 40 or 50 pages because its better then having 5 repeat threads.

having a thread chopped won't help me find an old post that I don't know about anyways, I'd still have to wade through every single page to read the whole topic, and to top it off I'd have to use the search function to find every part of the thread. That only wastes more time.

Wading through a topic takes less time when it is cut up. It is easier to find something split into 10 pieces than it is to find one thing in a large mess. The threads may have a tendency to go off topic after awhile and the refresh helps bring it back on track. Like I said before, it also makes more sense to delete topics by the creation date because it is static, unlike the last post. it easier to make a script that deletes items by their creation date and the post limit allows bgsf staff to run a script to prune everything than have to go and delete all threads by hand, ignoring the ones that are still being posted in. Also, I would much more rather read the latest 7 pages of a thread to get the idea of a conversation than read one large 1000 page thread because if you skip pages, you miss things. The conversation continues uninterrupted. This is not as easily found in the limited threads because each thread is a new conversation. All in all, it's easier on the data systems engineers. It saves time.




(null)

by what exactly do you mean when you say a thread is hindered? if you mean for example a thread you make closes because of post limit, and then when making a new continuetion thread hardly any one posts in it; that has more to do with the thread not being as interesting and people moving on to some other topic. the fact that a new thread is started to continue a previous line of conversation does not prevent members of the forum from making posts, if not as many people make posts its because not as many people care.

Make a petition.

"Wading through a topic takes less time when it is cut up. It is easier to find something split into 10 pieces than it is to find one thing in a large mess"
That ONLY applies if you're looking for a specific post. If you're looking for a specific post on a specific page, favourite it. but if you're coming across a 20 page thread for the first time, if you want to read through the whole thing, or at least scan each page, flipping through 1 single thread is MUCH MUCH easier then goign through 7 pages, then reaching a post limit lock msg, and then having to go into the next thread and continue reading from there, and then the next thread after that.

"The threads may have a tendency to go off topic after awhile and the refresh helps bring it back on track."
Except when it has had the opposite effect, and people begin discussing forum rules and posting limits. New members bring the same old questions and complaints.
no amount of mentioning the forum rules is goign to change human nature on the internet. People tend not to read the rules of forums they join.

"it also makes more sense to delete topics by the creation date because it is static"
Having threads that contain glitches and bugs being fragmented with earlier posts being deleted is not helpful. I'm not talking about general discussions and "what's your favourite colour" threads. I'm talking about the post limit being too short, especially spanning all these different sub forums.

"I would much more rather read the latest 7 pages of a thread to get the idea of a conversation than read one large 1000 page thread"
I'm not suggesting 1000 page threads. Why do I have to keep repeating this point? I'm suggesting a higher post limit. Just doubling it cuts down on repeat threads by 50%. and moderators having to check on threads reaching there limit or not.

"because if you skip pages, you miss things."
you just mentioned the forum deleting old threads. This creates an environment where fragmented threads having their begining being deleted while their later half keeps going. so the problem occurs EITHER WAY, just one is a bit more permanent. If a thread has 6 parts to it, people will skip things just the same, let alone even bother looking up and finding the original thread.

This isn't an argument about having smaller threads or bazillion page mega threads, and constantly brining up 1000 page threads is a bit of a straw man. nobody is suggesting 1000 page threads. I'm a suggestion to raise the ridiculously low POST LIMIT.

500 or 1000 posts. Because 200 is too low, especially in the Technical issues subforums, where important threads can get buried after being locked. Its not about what threads are deemed "interesting" to discuss, its about having important information not get lost and buried due to an arbitrary post limit, or have repeat threads get created, that just dilute the forum anyways.

@Shifty: Petitions are against forum rules...

This is traditional... and there are reasons why it was put in place. If you were here when Morrowind was released, you will understand why...

Just to say - we're probably not going to change our ways because new members will post in-thread to question things. That's always going to happen, and most of the time it's not about the post limit anyway.

No matter how things are run, that's going to be a fact of life.

I still get confused whenever I see a thread get locked on page 7.

The reasons why it was put in place are irrelevant now, as the rules clearly state the forum runs on different software, and larger threads can exist without any difference. (and already do in stickies)

1000 post limit would allow 40-something pages

500 post limit would allow around 20 pages.

I don't see these as giant mega threads, and a lot easier then having 3 threads floating around for the exact same topic, and cuts down on pointless redundant moderator action in having to lock threads, sometimes, having to open the new one themselves, and post a recap.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm not going to read through a 40 page thread..

300 posts would be good. That way we'd have 10 pages. An even number, yay! Not the horrible, horrible uneven number 7.

Papa looks at thread, see's 7 pages, thinks it's readable.
Papa looks at another thread, see's 20 pages, think's F that.

Its a lot easier to moderate small threads than it is to big ones, not to mention when the thread nears 200posts the last few slight into rubbish, sometimes.

Sure, a 10,000 post thread would be too long, but a 1000 post limit would be more adequate.

Having thread #765 is so stupid.

1. You can't read the first few pages because it's either purged or too far away.
2. EVERYTHING is repeated over and over again.
3. Only forum which I know that has such a short post limit, a clear indicator that something is wrong.

BUT, it is useless to argue this point. Nothing gets changed around here. Except for the board skin.

I like the 200 post limit. I don't like how there's 30 posts per page now. It's weird seeing threads locked at 7 pages.

I think the limit is good. Otherwise this forum would become a mess like alot of other forums that have hundreds of pages

In the fan-fic section, role-playing threads could at least have a limit of 300 posts. Don't you think?

The 200 post limit is one of the reasons I visit very few other forums. No one is going to read through a thread with a thousand replies. Whenever I see a thread with over 500 replies on a forum I just ignore it.

Starting over after 200 posts makes the thread a lot more accessible to newcomers and it can kill unnecessary arguments (people rarely continue to argue over multiple topics.)

Regarding 1 and 2, it's the OPs responsibility to create a summary of what has been said in the previous threads. If the OP does that then you don't have to worry about repeating things over and over.

Having thread #765 is much better than having a single thread with 153 000 replies.

I don't understand that logic. Just because the thread has been cut in tiny parts does not make it small! If a thread reached 400 posts, then those posts exist and happened. Are you saying that if the thread is in a single 400 post block you'll not read it, but if it was cut in two, youd read it? Meaning, you'd read both parts and so read the 400 posts? Or do you mean to say you'll read only the most recent part? What prevents you from just reading the last couple pages in a single thread model?


All that having cutoff points make is :
- greatly stifle any discussion that was going on at that point
- make quoting messages a royal pain
- promote offtopics discussion about the event itself
- make it THAT much harder to find information since you need to hunt all the tiny pieces and search inside instead of searching once
- litter the forum with locked threads
- make the "Follow this topic" tool that much annoying to use

And in the old forum software it made it impossible to read the new messages in the old thread because the forum would not let me click the "Show first unread message" link for locked threads

I'd read the summary in the most recent thread, and it should give me a good idea of what has been going on in the previous threads, then I'd read the posts in the same thread (the most recent one) and then post my reply.

I definitely wouldn't read all the previous threads unless I was looking for a specific post.

And so, what prevents you from just going a couple pages back from the end and reading that?