Locked threads and other BS - Page 2

BoBtheBLOGGER · #11 07-13-2005, 11:54 AM

Maybe a thought for next year, but was any consideration given to creating subforums for each day that could be locked and archived after the fact? Given the amount of traffic coming here, and that Raymer was doing well and is still in the thing, you might want to accomodate visitors. If Raymer hadn't won last year I'd probably never visited this site (found it googling Raymer's name).

Creating subforums can not be that difficult and would allow the ease of navigation and reduce the clutter the tournaments forum would experience.

BoB

Zetack · #12 07-13-2005, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe a thought for next year, but was any consideration given to creating subforums for each day that could be locked and archived after the fact? Given the amount of traffic coming here, and that Raymer was doing well and is still in the thing, you might want to accomodate visitors. If Raymer hadn't won last year I'd probably never visited this site (found it googling Raymer's name).

Creating subforums can not be that difficult and would allow the ease of navigation and reduce the clutter the tournaments forum would experience.

BoB

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Bob, we've already got too many Bob's around here. You'll have to change your name.

Try "Spike", I think that one's free.

razor · #13 07-13-2005, 12:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When checking back several times a day and the sticky has 120 new posts since last visit, it is tough to know where to start.

[/ QUOTE ]

uh... FLAT MODE

click on the thread and you will be taken to the first unread post...

AngusThermopyle · #14 07-13-2005, 12:21 PM

9:18 Pacific...3 hrs before day 5 begins and the "official" thread already has 70+ posts.
FWIW

benfranklin · #15 07-13-2005, 12:27 PM

I agree with Dynasty about the megathread, and I have not seen him lock any WSOP threads that were really on a separate topic. We don't need a new thread for every player knocked out or every post-break chip count. Without a moderator, every time a top pro gets knocked out, you have 8 guys trying to be the first to start a new thread announcing it. If you read the megathread every few hours, you know where you left off, and can catch up quickly.

[ QUOTE ]

2) Posters can also post less drivel

[/ QUOTE ]

The biggest problem here is that many posters are not aware that they are posting drivel, and are probably not capable of posting anything else.

Example: Poster A posts a 4 paragraph discussion of why Player XYZ is a donkey. Poster B reads it, doesn't understand it all, but also thinks XYZ is a donkey. So he just quotes the first post and posts it without comment, implying that he would have said the same thing if Poster A hadn't said it first. Poster C reads B's post, agrees, and quotes the whole thing, adding a profound one-word comment, like "Word!"

Asking some here posters not to post drivel is like asking a 3-year-old to stop babbling. It's pointless, because that's what 3-year-olds do.

Twitch1977 · #16 07-13-2005, 12:30 PM

I agree with the OP in that I would rather sort through 40 or 50 topics which contain maybe 10 or 12 replies relavent to them and read the ones I'm interested in rather then having to sort through 700 replies in one mega-thread, 90% which I don't care about.

T

PITTM · #17 07-13-2005, 12:39 PM

i agree with dynasty on this one, but its pretty close. if youre using threaded mode the new way makes it impossible to get wsop news. however, if you switch to flat mode like ive done its a nice discussion on the wsop. however, i have to commend dynasty on letting a critique of him stay open. i made a post like this on another forum a month ago after a moderator locked it for no reason and i was permanantly banned for critisizing the moderator. in the end, anything thats posted on the forum is in that thread anyways, check it out.

rj

razor · #18 07-13-2005, 12:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the OP in that I would rather sort through 40 or 50 topics which contain maybe 10 or 12 replies relavent to them and read the ones I'm interested in rather then having to sort through 700 replies in one mega-thread, 90% which I don't care about.

T

[/ QUOTE ]

40-50 topics is wishful thinking... there would likely be many more threads... with multiple threads on the same topic... poorly named threads... all manner of nonsense.

Twitch1977 · #19 07-13-2005, 12:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the OP in that I would rather sort through 40 or 50 topics which contain maybe 10 or 12 replies relavent to them and read the ones I'm interested in rather then having to sort through 700 replies in one mega-thread, 90% which I don't care about.

T

[/ QUOTE ]

40-50 topics is wishful thinking... there would likely be many more threads... with multiple threads on the same topic... poorly named threads... all manner of nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously if people took more care in posting reasonable topics it would make everyone's life easier. But I just find it a lot faster to go through pages of topics rather then trying to gel out information from one mega post.

In Firefox it's very easy to fly down the list of threads opening the ones that might be interesting into a new tab, then after that it's easy to flip to all the open tabs close the ones that are junk and go through the ones you want.

Just my 2BB's, each to his own [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

T

razor · #20 07-13-2005, 03:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously if people took more care in posting reasonable topics it would make everyone's life easier. But I just find it a lot faster to go through pages of topics rather then trying to gel out information from one mega post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree in principle... however, experience tells me that people generally take most every opportunity to mess things up. *Official* threads are a response to people's inability to take a bit more care and use some commonsense.