Should threads on Vcom stop at 100?
Threads on Vcom no longer have an automatic cut off at 100 posts.
Do posters to Vcom like the current system, or the old where they stopped at 100 posts?
Posted under my own name in accordance with the rules of Vcom.
I see no problem with the continuation of certain threads which elicit opinions on controversial subjects such as shoulder rests. (a smile).
I was jesting in that long thread when I said I was afraid we would use up the internet. I see no reason to limit it unless things get nasty which can happen in short threads too.
Given that every other forum I am on allows threads to go as long as people want to post, I don't see what the problem is, organizing it into pages, if the software allows, might be better though.
Yes, by all means lets use up the internet on violins! Peace.
I liked the old system of cutting them off at 100.
6 months? 1 is probably enough, or even shorter, to encourage keeping the activity current.
There's no point limiting the characters. Can always just post another separate one to continue it.
No, why impose an artificial limit on a discussion?
No; If the thread is "alive", it should continue, IMHO.
We're always experimenting to see what works and what we'd like to change. I do like the feedback! Sometimes old threads can be really valuable, sometimes less so.
I don't mind either way.
We're already seen what happens when you limit the replies: someone keeps the topic alive by posting a new thread and calling it something like "Are expensive bows worth it redux" or else the topic dies for a while until someone who hasn't read the other posts about shoulder rests or plain gut strings or modern vs old posts what they think is new.
Laurie, can you remind us the reason/original intent behind 100 post limit?
Yixi, I'll hazard a guess that the limit goes back to the days when storage capacity in servers and the like, or perhaps database software, wasn't quite what it is today.
It was really more to keep things fresh. Also, it goes back to days when there were more flame wars. Oftentimes, when a post exploded to that many responses, it had simply turned into a flame war and was time to cut it off.
Also, I really don't mind having a new discussion about an old topic or a very common topic. I don't really buy the idea that "It's been said, no need to say it again" We'd never say anything in life then, would we?
When there's no limit on the length of a thread, we can repeat what we've said and refer people back to where we said before in the same thread if necessary. It makes search easier at a later time too -- you don't need to go through a whole lot of similar discussions to read about what have been said about a particular subject, such as SR, strings, rosin, etc.
Laurie, your example made me laugh.
IMO, I think there should be a limit. I’m not sure what the magic number should be however. When the current debate on the statistically irrelevant “double blind” study done in France reaches the thousands, it will become too unwieldy to read or use. I think it would be better stopped and restarted in a second part well before that.
I suggest 2^7 (or 128) as the magic number, in keeping with today's binary-based technology.
on my buddhist forum they have threads that have gone over a hundred pages, but breaking it up into pages really helps. Is that possible with the software, Laurie??
May be a button to close the thread would be alright. The original poster could mark his thread as solved and close it.
Well, Tim, I am afraid once a thread starts, it'll grow like a living tree but it's not in the control of the OP, nor it should IMHO. OP starts a question in the public can't take ownership to the discussion, just as OP can't be responsible for what people will discuss on the thread. To impose such obligation on the OP wouldn't be fair. If the discussion takes a new turn, it would be rude for OP to shut it down, especially when thoughtful discussions are taking place. I keep coming back to v.com precisely for the reason that there are some highly qualified folks who are kind enough to put in the time and energy engaging in these, sometimes "off the topic", discussions.
Verbose buddhists? What?
I'm in favor of the longer threads, although I wish there were some navigation links -- to go to the last unread message, or just skip down to the bottom so you can scroll up rather than down. Pagination is useful when it gets really long.
Also, Laurie, why was the thread on the new Larsen Il Cannone strings closed? It was entirely productive, I thought, and now that the strings have been out long enough for people to receive their sets, people had started reporting back on how the strings were treating them.
I'm with Lydia on this one. Would make sense to have new reports on e.g. strings in the same thread even if it is some months old. Or even a year so reports on lifespan could be included.
Wouldn't it be possible to number entries in a thread? People could refer to those numbers "as xy said in entry 1098...." and it would make it easier to go back to the point where you stopped reading.
@Eva. That is a good idea!
Please close the thread on the Paris experiment! I am in favor of the 100 limit, it is large enough to get the various points accross, and if a follow-up is needed, a fresh thread can be created. The main problem with neverending threads is that people start using them as a kind of superthread, and the neat division in discussion topics will be hollowed out.
@Eva. I also agree that is a good idea. It shouldn't be too difficult to implement, and it would be easier to see if a post has been deleted.
Can we blow this one over 100 posts.
I think it would be humorously ironic if the thread about going over 100 posts ... goes over 100 posts.
Now that these threads have no end, and I am in no danger of wasting a post, does anyone want to see a picture of a kitten playing with a ball of wool?
I could have sworn this was already at 500 posts. Mandela effect?
I don't have a problem with taking out the 100 post limit. That way it will minimize multiple discussions on the same topic. I've noticed the threads with the 'personal attacks' tend to draw the most traffic. ;)
No, the threads should keep going.
I've stumbled on more than one thread that's been archived or hit the post limit where I had questions that were not answered but still part of the subject matter, would be nice to be able to continue the conversation within that same topic.
Do we really go right through a long discussion before commenting? Many threads lose their way completely.
Can we keep this going and get this thread up to at least 101 ?
Personally, I see the benefit of a 100 (be it a random number) post limit. Ive been in forums where posts go on and on. Although their advantage is that interesting points can be added indefinetely, it causes a bit of psychological wear and invites (or rather invites the development of )more friction and, contrarily, the development of cliques which I dont enjoy because that in itself creates too particular a space for newcomers.
I plan on writing #99.
Carlo- " does anyone want to see a picture of a kitten playing with a ball of wool?"
The problem with a very short limit on the number of posts is that if you have not been active for a few days you can miss something entirely.
I don't mind having larger threads, but do wish for some features found in mass produced forum software, such a Vbulletin, etc.
I agree with this as well concerning more features added to the forum.
I believe the software for v.com is all custom-written by Laurie's husband.
The alternative is to do what news sites do and crawl into bed with Facebook. Ew.
Coupled with the real name requirement that wouldn't be horrible, however I think the current software has more features than what Facebook integration provides.
Thanks Timothy! And thanks for pizzacato. And yes, Robert has written all the software for the discussion forum, so anything new is something he'd have to code.
You are very welcome Laurie and I hope v.com stays around for a long time.
If it's not been said yet, I can't wait for this thread to get over 100!
The "double blind" post is now over 700. My older iPad is struggling to reload the file size. Anybody else having trouble?
No, my Samsung Galaxy (Android) device does not have this issue. It is not top-of-the-line either, it's a cheap one. On the other hand, I do not dare check that thread on my LG Android phone.
The Moiriae were three sister goddesses in the theogony of Greek mythology whose function was to decide a person's fate. One of them, Atropos, had the particular task of irrevocably cutting the thread of life with scissors in response to the decision made by her sisters.
I don't have an opinion on limiting thread length, or letting them go on. When they were limited, there could be some maneuvering to "have the last word". I learned a couple of ways, when I was trying to figure out how others seemed to be pulling it off.
Paul. I may take your advice! Maybe my technology is telling me when to shut up...
I've noticed that the "monster of a thread", currently with 870 posts (and climbing), is now taking a noticeable time to download, although not embarrassingly slow, and that is with 112mbps cable broadband (I've just measured it on my system). Note that this file has a number of very long individual posts. Once the file is downloaded I have no problems in scrolling it. However, slower download speeds won't improve matters, neither will slower computer systems with limited memory. A practically useful size limit may therefore be in sight.
Nobody is forcing anyone to click on the link for the thread.
Anyone going to start the should-threads-stop-at-1000 thread?
Bud, put a zero behind that remark!!
Although I would be interested in the topic, no way am I going to oenn a thread of >900 posts. In principle, I approve free length, but there are exceptions. W/o pages or any other navigational assistance...it's too much.
The very first thing I would click on is the one with 900+ posts because I would want to know what the hell all the excitement was about. Then I would cherry-pick a few of the comments made by others and proceed directly to posting my own lengthy, irrational tirade, liberally salted with personal insinuations.
I agree with Timothy. This site feels like it's from 20 years ago.
I, for one, am kind of glad that this site doesn't have the look and feel of CNN or the usual thing that your local newspaper has for online comments where it goes through Disqus or Facebook or Wordpress.
While I like being agreed with as good as anyone else I didn't say that exactly. I think the site has a bit of class even if limited in some areas.
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.