[Andrea Pratt]

So I've been a member of this community for a while now and I have to say I love the community here. It has especially fantastic moderators who are fair, don't abuse their power and especially active. The one thing that always stuck out about this community is the locking of threads with 200+ posts in them. At first I was interested to see how it would play out and didn't really mind it, but the more closely I use this community the less interesting and the more annoying it is.

I searched for a poll on this topic and couldn't find one so I'd like to see if the people that browse this community enjoy that rule.

As we all know the reasons for the rule are stated in http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/724862-forum-rules-and-general-information/ and they are:

I'd like to offer a few counterpoints to why I think this rule is counter-productive and needless:

1. It generates massive amounts of repeat threads.
I've never seen a forum so pervaded by repeat threads. Typically when someone posts, "Should there be horse armor in Skyrim?" the mods or grizzled vets of the forum post a link to an old thread on the topic that contains all the information the OP wants. Now it's very difficult to do that because that thread is locked and it'd be silly to tell someone to use a locked thread. This creates an incredible amount of spam on the forum that makes using it repetitive.

2. It hinders informational threads from existing. Everytime big news comes out about Skyrim someone creates a thread to contain all the information about it in the OP and people use it as reference. Quickly the thread 'fills up' and is locked and the information needs to be copied. Eventually the information gets lost in the process as it becomes old news and nobody wants to create new threads with the information even though people are talking about it. Other forums have threads like http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/615803-the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/59376990 or http://www.thenexusforums.com/index.php?/topic/286552-skyrim-information/ where information can be compiled without getting lost by a lock.

3. It's a waste of time for the mods and users. We have great and diligent mods here who are very active, but continually browsing threads and locking them wastes their time and forcing posters to copy and paste threads wastes their time.

4. It makes finding information impossible. Who here thinks that navigating 1000 posts in 5 threads is easier than navigating 1000 posts in one thread? Anyone?

5. There's no technical limitation that requires it. A forum I moderate has 56,658 posts in one thread. Think it's unbrowsable? Tell that to the 52,853,453 hits its gotten and the 800ish people browsing it right now. Another thread has 23,316 replies and has more data attached to it than BGS' entire game library. Including Rage. Creating moderation policies to hide defects in forum software is bad enough, keeping moderation policies to hide defects that don't exist is ludicrous.

6. It ruins conversations. I've had several threads I wanted to answer or ask questions on but they were locked and I didn't want to go through the hassle of creating a new thread just to answer a question. I'm sure a week later the thread will be recreated by someone with no knowledge of the previous thread and the exact same stuff will be said in the new thread.

Still think people will just create new threads if the current one is locked? Go look at the most recently locked threads in the skyrim forum. Many are extremely busy until they are locked and few are remade. Just because someone wants to discuss something doesn't mean they are willing to make a thread on it. Fact is most people on a community are lurkers, a larger minority are posters and a small minority are topic creators.

7. Threads don't wander offtopic as much as the reasoning seems to indicate. I just looked at the last five topics locked in the Skyrim forum and none of them were offtopic in the last page before they were locked. In fact the only offtopic discussion was on it being locked soon and working out who would make it.

[Etta Hargrave]

Nope. I wish this policy would go away as well, because so much information ends up being lost. When the 200+ thread is locked, it can no longer be updated, all that info is pruned off the active conversation, and falls to the bottom of the pile and eventually gets purged, so even linking to it in the new thread doesn't help.

Example: There's a three-year old thread in the Oblivion CS forum that has unique finds in it that have never been posted elsewhere (the Gotchas thread.) It will hit 200 soon.

Does anyone know the original reason why this was implemented? Technical limitation?

Edit: I wonder if this thread will be locked in far fewer posts than 200.

[marina]

its dumb but it's not going to change because mods cba to go through a thread that takes more than 5 minutes to read

[Conor Byrne]

I hate it too, but I cba rewriting the same post every time. There are thread post limits in other forums, but it's nowhere near 200 posts. Anyway, it's pretty useless to complain because nothing will change.

[Riky Carrasco]

I like it. I am capable of switching between tabbed conversations, and using the search function.
It's also easier from a moderation standpoint to manage threads limited to 200posts.

[BlackaneseB]

I would not remove the limit, but increase it. I would be content with 500 or 1000.

[Sheila Esmailka]

I like it. I am capable of switching between tabbed conversations, and using the search function.
It's also easier from a moderation standpoint to manage threads limited to 200posts.

Cause they have too short-term memory to remember that the last time they moderated a thread, they were at eg, post count 156? Sloppy moderators then

[Isaiah Burdeau]

From my prospective, it keep folks on topic. Keeps topics fresh and makes it easier to find specific posts in a thread.

For newcomers, it's a bit overwhelming to read through an entire thread of 2000 posts. Important information doesn't get lost in the mess and can be added to the OP when a new thread on the same subject is posted.

I've many more reasons but they are spelled out in the pinned rules.

[gandalf]

makes it easier to find specific posts in a thread.

not if said post was like 5 threads ago and when you go looking for it the thread has been deleted

[Bethany Short]

From my prospective, it keep folks on topic. Huh? From what I've seen, people just copy+paste their posts from the previous thread into the new one, just as if the thread had no limit. Keeps topics fresh and makes it easier to find specific posts in a thread. How is it easier to find a post in a different thread than just eg. page 13?

For newcomers, it's a bit overwhelming to read through an entire thread of 2000 posts. Important information doesn't get lost in the mess and can be added to the OP when a new thread on the same subject is posted.
Important stuff could still be added to the original post in the same topic. Simply by clicking that topic you could see the updated version. Reading through older threads can have links to out-dated information which could have been updated in a newer thread.

I've many more reasons but they are spelled out in the pinned rules.
I have many more counter arguments to those. You can find them scattered all over the forum, good luck finding them, there's only a few hundred. :goodjob:

[SWagg KId]

OP, I agree with many of your points and do think, at the very least, the post limit should be raised. Removing it completely isn't the best idea, in my opinion, but raising it to at least 400 or 500 would be far preferable to just locking them down at 200. Depending on the topic, 200 posts can come rather quickly.

[Dragonz Dancer]

There was a http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1211864-lock-after-200-posts/ not that long ago (and it got nowhere near 200 posts) Perhaps reading through that will enlighten the OP - or perhaps I should just merge them?

It is a system that works well on these forums, especially as they require heavy moderation, and the majority seem happy with it - or are not bothered either way. Perhaps on forums where there is little, lax or no moderation an infinite post count may work but I can't see it working here.

[SUck MYdIck]

@xaxxiron777: Just FYI... the moderators here are unpaid volunteers, ie fellow fans. They aren't Bethesda employees, so they don't make the policies.

[Juliet]

Don't really care. It's nice to have a place to end the conversation and start afresh (or keep it dead, as the case may be).

[matt]

In theory, not really: I understand the pros and cons, but I'm not a fan.

In practice... hard to say. I think not locking them at 200 posts might be a case of "be careful what you wish for."

[lucy chadwick]

Cause they have too short-term memory to remember that the last time they moderated a thread, they were at eg, post count 156? Sloppy moderators then

When threads have to be merged and pruned of quibbling, not to mention photo threads, 200 post limit works well.
As for lazy, it has been my opinon that many forums are populated with those too incompetent to use the search function, instead, starting a topic on the same subject ad nauseum, contributing to board clutter. As for linking to to locked topics, the point is to read and digest the information previously discussed, moving up to the current thread, and commenting.
That said, I'd never want to moderate here, it would take all the joy out of visits.

[Luis Reyma]

Will always be repeat threads... as long as people have the yearning to be heard there will always be.

No one really reads every reply so going over 10 pages for a thread would be a hassle for most unless those that use a search function for specific information

[Yonah]

it can no longer be updated, all that info is pruned off the active conversation, and falls to the bottom of the pile and eventually gets purged, so even linking to it in the new thread doesn't help.

I agree. This is the most damaging thing about the practice. The modding community has lost much valuable information over the years, due to locked threads and forum purges.

[Blessed DIVA]

I really don't mind it, there are reasons for having it and I've gotten use to it.

[cosmo valerga]

It doesn't really matter.

Although, sometimes it does abruptly interrupt a good conversation or a debate that might still last a few pages but is not worth a new thread -- which is unfortunate and sometimes even annoying. I'd think 300 or 400 posts would be a better limit, but as said it doesn't really matter.

[Natasha Callaghan]

I know a very well moderated forum where the record (well, the one I know) thread currently sits in at 765251 posts in a massive 19132 pages at default settings. Granted, it's more of a specialized offtopic chatroom thread


Locking 200 post threads is annoying. It breaks the reading flow when it happens because this forum software suddenly forgets what was the last post to read and there's no info given where the discussion continues, if it even continues. Besides, I suspect moderators spend far too much time closing and reopening threads than they should because of it while not making the rest of their job easier. I'd really like that annoying limitation to be lifted.

[Roy Harris]

I couldn't care less, and besides, their reasons for locking threads are legit enough.

[Max Van Morrison]

It doesn't really matter.

Although, sometimes it does abruptly interrupt a good conversation or a debate that might still last a few pages but is not worth a new thread -- which is unfortunate and sometimes even annoying. I'd think 300 or 400 posts would be a better limit, but as said it doesn't really matter.

I suppose one problem with that is that people who are new to a thread won't read through 300 posts to see where the conversation is at, so you get posts replying to the first post even if the discussion has moved on.

[Greg Swan]

Doesn't bother me. I usually can't be bothered to read threads which are more than a few pages long anyway.

[OJY]

It took some getting used to. At first I thought it was strange, but now I wish that every forum adopted this policy.

What I've noticed about threads that grow really big on most forums is that it ends up being such an overwhelming amount of information that no one bothers to read even one or two pages back. As a result, questions often get repeated that were answered on the previous page.

Threads that are 10 pages or less are still enough of a manageable chunk that people tend to review what's been posted before weighing in.