Locked Threads

[Tempus Fugit 213]

No, what's ridiculous is closing your eyes and ignoring the junk and pretending it's not there.

 

Better to deal with it and give the forum a good spring clean.

It's not a question of "closing your eyes and pretending it's not there". My god, you're speaking about old threads as if they're crimes against humanity!

 

Just leave 'em. If you don't want to read them, ignore them. Then, they're there if others do want to read them. Who knows, maybe one day they're regain relevance. Like the Don Knotts thread.

The Don Knotts thread has always been relevant, that kind of thread most certainly shouldn't be deleted.

[in eternum+ 20]

No, what's ridiculous is closing your eyes and ignoring the junk and pretending it's not there.

 

Better to deal with it and give the forum a good spring clean.

It's not a question of "closing your eyes and pretending it's not there". My god, you're speaking about old threads as if they're crimes against humanity!

 

Just leave 'em. If you don't want to read them, ignore them. Then, they're there if others do want to read them. Who knows, maybe one day they're regain relevance. Like the Don Knotts thread.

The Don Knotts thread has always been relevant, that kind of thread most certainly shouldn't be deleted.

You're only saying that because its relevance has come to the fore; he's died, therefore it is now relevant. If he had simply faded into obscurity for the next five years, you'd probably be arguing for its' deletion.

[Tempus Fugit 213]

No, what's ridiculous is closing your eyes and ignoring the junk and pretending it's not there.

 

Better to deal with it and give the forum a good spring clean.

It's not a question of "closing your eyes and pretending it's not there". My god, you're speaking about old threads as if they're crimes against humanity!

 

Just leave 'em. If you don't want to read them, ignore them. Then, they're there if others do want to read them. Who knows, maybe one day they're regain relevance. Like the Don Knotts thread.

The Don Knotts thread has always been relevant, that kind of thread most certainly shouldn't be deleted.

You're only saying that because its relevance has come to the fore; he's died, therefore it is now relevant. If he had simply faded into obscurity for the next five years, you'd probably be arguing for its' deletion.

The Don Knotts thread was never on my list of junk, I did recommend that it be merged with another already existing Don Knotts thread, but that is only common sense.

 

The thread of any serious potential DeathListee should never be deleted.

[in eternum+ 20]

The Don Knotts thread was never on my list of junk, I did recommend that it be merged with another already existing Don Knotts thread, but that is only common sense.

 

The thread of any serious potential DeathListee should never be deleted.

You keep a list? That strikes me as a bit obsessive, TF.

 

... and thus I descend into flippancy.

 

Having been away from this thread to make myself a snack, I return not really remembering the point of the argument. Needless to say I defer to your expert opinion Mr Fugit. Unless it's about deleting threads, in which case I disagree vehemently.

[Canadian Paul 93]

If people disagree with deletion, which in all fairness is something I understand, we could have one big "junk thread" thread too. That way nothing gets lost, but they don't pile up at the bottom of the forum either.

 

And before anyone else says it "But we already have the Dicky O thread!" Just so that no one sneaks a free post in with that comment.

[Star Crossed 33]

This thread has wandered so far off-topic that I feel I'm on-topic by staying off-topic, which is now on-topic.

 

1) IF this thread had anything to do with its title, it should be merged with the J.D.Salinger thread in the 2006 names.

 

2) I agree with in eternum+ re: thread deletion/locking; ("hey! teacher!") leave old threads alone!

Thread popularity and/or relevance determines thread ranking. If old threads get dredged up for some reason (or no good reason), they will, by means of natural selection (it's late and i'm tired, bear with me), either fall back down the rankings or stay at the top.

There is no point dredging up old threads just for the sake of saying "hey, this is old!"; that smacks of post-whoring, a recent bug-bear of mine. I agree with CP and TF that some threads aren't interesting to the majority of DLers, but I don't see why we can't just let forum gravity take effect and let them sink back to the bottom (or just stay there in the first place). Also, the argument re: slowing the search facility is spurious, given our ability to limit search criteria.

 

Long story short, let's not start some sort of old-thread pogrom*. Hopefully every thread finds its level in the end.

 

* unless it becomes a server-space issue, in which case Admin team/Mods should get involved to delete/archive the really old non-used threads.

[Canadian Paul 93]

This thread has wandered so far off-topic that I feel I'm on-topic by staying off-topic, which is now on-topic.

 

1) IF this thread had anything to do with its title, it should be merged with the J.D.Salinger thread in the 2006 names.

 

2) I agree with in eternum+ re: thread deletion/locking; ("hey! teacher!") leave old threads alone!

Thread popularity and/or relevance determines thread ranking. If old threads get dredged up for some reason (or no good reason), they will, by means of natural selection (it's late and i'm tired, bear with me), either fall back down the rankings or stay at the top.

There is no point dredging up old threads just for the sake of saying "hey, this is old!"; that smacks of post-whoring, a recent bug-bear of mine. I agree with CP and TF that some threads aren't interesting to the majority of DLers, but I don't see why we can't just let forum gravity take effect and let them sink back to the bottom (or just stay there in the first place). Also, the argument re: slowing the search facility is spurious, given our ability to limit search criteria.

 

Long story short, let's not start some sort of old-thread pogrom*. Hopefully every thread finds its level in the end.

 

* unless it becomes a server-space issue, in which case Admin team/Mods should get involved to delete/archive the really old non-used threads.

 

1. It doesn't. We were thinking of merging it with locked threads and keeping that as a discussion forum for this issue.

2. Too many threads clogs up the search engine and makes DL less navigable. Having a lot of useless threads does make the search engine and the server slower. I suggested that we merged all questionable threads into one big thread. Nothing is lost, but efficiency is maintained.

 

I'm not exactly sure what "post whoring" is, but if it refers to that little number next to my name known as "post count" then let me assure you that I couldn't care less if that number was one or a million. I post when I feel like something needs to be posted, no more and no less. A little number under a picture of Larry Storch doesn't define me in the least, and I think everyone on DL knows the difference between people who post just to increase that number and people who have insightful things to say. I recall in an earlier thread I noticed a poster by the name of Arnold had only 14 posts, yet he was highly respected for his posts. That's what I strive for but cannot obtain. So I try to post whenever I feel it's important and hope that every now and then I hit a good chord. Maybe not all my posts are gold, in fact I'm sure most aren't, but I'm just as sure that the vast majority of them aren't pure crap either. Cleary, by resurrecting some old threads, I've brought to the forefront an important discussion and an issue that needs attention and consensus discision. As Deathlist Forum Membership grows, it's best to decide what to do with arguably pointless or off-topic threads, or else Mods are just going to be pissing off newbies and old members alike when they post what the Mod believes to be crap. Let's agree to standards and procedure now, so this issue doesn't grow any further.

[in eternum+ 20]

I agree with in eternum+ re: thread deletion/locking; ("hey! teacher!") leave old threads alone!

Thread popularity and/or relevance determines thread ranking. If old threads get dredged up for some reason (or no good reason), they will, by means of natural selection (it's late and i'm tired, bear with me), either fall back down the rankings or stay at the top.

There is no point dredging up old threads just for the sake of saying "hey, this is old!"; that smacks of post-whoring, a recent bug-bear of mine. I agree with CP and TF that some threads aren't interesting to the majority of DLers, but I don't see why we can't just let forum gravity take effect and let them sink back to the bottom (or just stay there in the first place). Also, the argument re: slowing the search facility is spurious, given our ability to limit search criteria.

 

Long story short, let's not start some sort of old-thread pogrom*. Hopefully every thread finds its level in the end.

Hear! Hear!

 

Too many threads clogs up the search engine and makes DL less navigable. Having a lot of useless threads does make the search engine and the server slower. I suggested that we merged all questionable threads into one big thread. Nothing is lost, but efficiency is maintained.

Although in the deadchat CP justified this point to me, I disagree with it. I may be naive and un-anorak deserving, but I can't imagine that the small number of threads falling into the category under debate would ever cause mass transit chaos on the DL site, regardless of the number of new members. The crappest of the irrelevant threads ge deleted anyway, so what's the issue here? I don't see how merging all the less-than-immediately-relevant threads into one giant thread would be a change for the better. Wouldn't it just get really random and confusing?

 

Cleary, by resurrecting some old threads, I've brought to the forefront an important discussion and an issue that needs attention and consensus discision. As Deathlist Forum Membership grows, it's best to decide what to do with arguably pointless or off-topic threads, or else Mods are just going to be pissing off newbies and old members alike when they post what the Mod believes to be crap. Let's agree to standards and procedure now, so this issue doesn't grow any further.

Again I question the logic behind establishing standards/procedures/quality etc. Surely the fact that some threads fall to the bottom of the pile due to lack of posting is procedure/quality control enough. I would not be happy if I started a thread that I thought was relevant, only to have it deleted by some upstart. Case in point: I recently started a thread which I thought was relevant/appropriate. Turns out it was less so, and so it is currently drifting down towards the bottom of the pile. As far as I'm concerned, that's fine. Who knows, maybe some day it'll be more useful/relevant. Maybe not. I am willing to put myself at the mercy of the discriminating bunch that are the DL members. However, if said thread had been deleted, I might well have been really annoyed.

[Captain Oates 21]

I tend to agree with those who believe that it is better to leave threads to find their own level but also agree that some forum housekeeping is necessary.

 

Might it not be possible to create a whole new forum where elderly and neglected threadscould go into retirement? If the topic were to become particularly relevant it could then be moved back to the main Deathlist Forum. I know that this shifting of threads can be done, as it has been done to me on another site when I started a topic in the wrong place!

 

I have often wished that there was a Special Forum where certain posters could be exiled/deported to!

[Star Crossed 33]

Cleary, by resurrecting some old threads, I've brought to the forefront an important discussion and an issue that needs attention and consensus discision.

 

Or... you've just created an argument from nothing, for no good reason, with little substantiating weight other than your own opinion. From the quality content of the majority of your posts, CP, I would imagine you've more to contribute than advice for the Mods/Admin on how to handle the thread volume/content.

If you'd like to change the site, maybe PM the Admin team, who could put a poll to the membership if one is deemed necessary.

 

My suggestion would be that we let the Admin and Mods administer and moderate the site, whilst the rest of the membership stick to making relevant/funny/educational posts in whatever threads they find appealing.

[Tempus Fugit 213]

The Don Knotts thread was never on my list of junk, I did recommend that it be merged with another already existing Don Knotts thread, but that is only common sense.

 

The thread of any serious potential DeathListee should never be deleted.

You keep a list? That strikes me as a bit obsessive, TF.

 

... and thus I descend into flippancy.

 

 

"He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;

And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed."

 

Obsessive? Moi? Au contraire.

[in eternum+ 20]

"He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;

And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed."

 

Obsessive? Moi? Au contraire.

My goodness! What a thing to wake up to... Mr Fugit prancing around to The Mikado. Would never have pegged you as a G&S man, Tempus.

 

Now I'm gonna have that bloody song in my head all day!

[Lady Grendel 139]

"He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;

And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed."

 

Obsessive? Moi? Au contraire.

My goodness! What a thing to wake up to... Mr Fugit prancing around to The Mikado. Would never have pegged you as a G&S man, Tempus.

 

Now I'm gonna have that bloody song in my head all day!

 

Perhaps 'Behold the Lord High Executioner' may be a more appropriate Mikado song for the DL?

[BrunoBrimley 85]

When I logged on from the 2006 DL the thread didn't bear much relation to the great man and his works. I know hideous consumer excess in a vacuous society is a Salinger theme but surely Ms Wlidesteen's appearance on his thread is a mistake.

I don't think the links are quite working yet. He does have his own thread ripe for the picking though. It's called "Catcher in the Rye" floating around somewhere.

I'ts in the expectations list for t2006.

 

 

 

and why hasnt this mergeds been with that one?

[Canadian Paul 93]

From the quality content of the majority of your posts, CP, I would imagine you've more to contribute than advice for the Mods/Admin on how to handle the thread volume/content.

 

I agree, which is why I'm not going to be dredging up anymore threads. I feel a little bad about my 27 posts yesterday, over half of which were of substandard quality. I will say though, I've often been told that I have a long-term eye. I used to moderate a forum where the admins would constantly encourage me to do housekeeping because their server was absolute shite, and probably couldn't even handle the volume of threads we have now!

 

I'm just hoping to avoid future problems, but I've made my point and there's no need to do anymore dredging, at least not for a while.

[Tempus Fugit 213]

Merging this old thread with the Salinger thread doesn't work, it now makes no sense at all.

 

Far better to have left it as a seperate thread but change the title to something relevant like "Old Threads Discussion".

 

_________________________________________

 

This merge works well though, thanks.

Edited March 1, 2006 by Tempus Fugit

[Tempus Fugit 213]

Merging this old thread with the Salinger thread doesn't work, it now makes no sense at all.

 

Far better to have left it as a seperate thread but change the title to something relevant like "Old Threads Discussion".

Hold your horses TF! I was in the process of doing that, but there were a few posts in the beginning that were relevant to the Salinger thread.. Have you ever heard of the following phrase?

 

"Patience is a virtue"

 

Regards,

 

ff

Sorry ff, I should have known better than to doubt your good sense.

[millwall32 114]

I know i was among those who threw a sh*t-fit at its being locked but can we do something to get the Richard O'Sullivan thread at least on topic. I ask primarily because I hate the idea of the old boy googling himself and finding that rather than hosting a thread ernestly disscusing his imminent death we are in fact good-naturedly recalling 1970's TV personalities.

I'm not saying "lock-it" just asking , when a thread has gone way off topic is there any non-contreversial way of getting it back on?

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

I know i was among those who threw a sh*t-fit at its being locked but can we do something to get the Richard O'Sullivan thread at least on topic. I ask primarily because I hate the idea of the old boy googling himself and finding that rather than hosting a thread ernestly disscusing his imminent death we are in fact good-naturedly recalling 1970's TV personalities.

I'm not saying "lock-it" just asking , when a thread has gone way off topic is there any non-contreversial way of getting it back on?

Selective pruning.