A suggestion for the "session" posts

[GrandmaStabone]

I'm not sure how long the session review posts have been running, but I just discovered the experiment last night. First off, I think it is a terrific idea. I personally do not have a single friend who plays limit hoild'em so the opportunity to review a session by another micro player is an opportunity I would not otherwise have.

The problem is that I am a obviously a few days behind on this post. I have just reviewed session 1a and had a couple notes I wanted to address. For instance I was curous about the coldcall in hand 65. I was going to make a post about it but I do not know if it was covered earlier. A search for the words "hand" and "65" is obviously useless. Scrolling back I cannot see anything but cannot really be sure.

SO, in my opinion we have a great idea with sub-optimal organization. I do not see why we do not keep the posts referencing the session in the session thread. If there were to be a session 2 post, with 80 hands in one post and the second 80 in a subsequent post, why not keep them confined to one post?

For example, if I wanted to discuss hand 65 in session 1a, I would (in THREADED mode), see if anyone has replied to the thread with the subject line "Hand 65", if there was, I would join the discussion, if there were not, I would start one. This approach would cut down on traffic on the main page, and be much easier to reference. As long as you viewed it in threaded mode, you would know what hands were being discussed by the subject line (Hand 65), and easily see all replies on that hand (ie "RE: Hand 65").

It's worth a try anyways...

[irishpint]

hmm ok let me get this straight. in the hand post, if you're the first you reply with the number, and everyone who wants to comment on it replys to you. that way it'd all be in one post, and organized, too. it's so crazy it just might work.

[GrunchCan]

I think I like the idea of each hand (or concept, as in this case) being in it's own thread. Some of these threads have become very active, and I'm in particular thinking of some hands from the session 1 post. If all of these active discussions were to be in one thread, that thread would quickly become unwieldly.

However, I think it's pretty improtant that by keeping each hand in its own thread, we all follow some standard rules, such as:
<ul type="square">[*]One hand or once concept per thread. Putting multiple hands in a thread makes it hard to find things later.[*]Review threads should all be named the same, to make searchine easier. 'REVIEW Hand XX : A K' seems good.[*]Review threads should have the hand(s) in question at the beginning of the thread. [/list]

[irishpint]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I like the idea of each hand (or concept, as in this case) being in it's own thread. Some of these threads have become very active, and I'm in particular thinking of some hands from the session 1 post. If all of these active discussions were to be in one thread, that thread would quickly become unwieldly.

However, I think it's pretty improtant that by keeping each hand in its own thread, we all follow some standard rules, such as:
<ul type="square">[*]One hand or once concept per thread. Putting multiple hands in a thread makes it hard to find things later.[*]Review threads should all be named the same, to make searchine easier. 'REVIEW Hand XX : A K' seems good.[*]Review threads should have the hand(s) in question at the beginning of the thread. [/list]
[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, i like the idea. All the hands would be under one main heading, and then say I had something tosay about hand 56, I could reply with "56" as my title and anyone who had comments would reply to it.

The hard part about making each an individual thread is that if you're gone or something you miss out. AK13 just started a thread on a hand we had already done. That's just extra clutter and is surely going to happen at least once or twice for each set of hands. I do agree, however, that each hand needs to be by itself and not 4 hands per post. But that makes the front page littered w/ MP hands, since over the course of 100 hands surely there are more than 1 or 2 that you want to discuss. Keeping them all in one thread would elimate front page noise and make it easy/acceptable to post thoughts for a variety of hands at the same time.

[Greg J]

This idea of having the session posts in all one thread was something I initially considered doing. After some thought I concluded having them all seperate, but specified by hand number, was better, basically for the reasons that Grunch outlined.

One drawback is the occasional duplicate post. What AK13 did was an honest mistake, and really not that big of a deal IMO. I should probably add another guideline though: search before you post on a hand. Other than that, this board really does, IMO, a pretty good job of running itself. If someone pollutes the brd with too many hands, we just ask them to stop and they comply. (The main thing I do, besides making the occasional sticky, is to delete spam threads. Despite being a die hard liberal, I think I am pretty laizze faire with regards to this brd.)

I like the thoughtful comments though.

[GrandmaStabone]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I like the idea of each hand (or concept, as in this case) being in it's own thread. Some of these threads have become very active, and I'm in particular thinking of some hands from the session 1 post. If all of these active discussions were to be in one thread, that thread would quickly become unwieldly.

However, I think it's pretty improtant that by keeping each hand in its own thread, we all follow some standard rules, such as:
<ul type="square">[*]One hand or once concept per thread. Putting multiple hands in a thread makes it hard to find things later.[*]Review threads should all be named the same, to make searchine easier. 'REVIEW Hand XX : A K' seems good.[*]Review threads should have the hand(s) in question at the beginning of the thread. [/list]
[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, i like the idea. All the hands would be under one main heading, and then say I had something tosay about hand 56, I could reply with "56" as my title and anyone who had comments would reply to it.

The hard part about making each an individual thread is that if you're gone or something you miss out. AK13 just started a thread on a hand we had already done. That's just extra clutter and is surely going to happen at least once or twice for each set of hands. I do agree, however, that each hand needs to be by itself and not 4 hands per post. But that makes the front page littered w/ MP hands, since over the course of 100 hands surely there are more than 1 or 2 that you want to discuss. Keeping them all in one thread would elimate front page noise and make it easy/acceptable to post thoughts for a variety of hands at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is he way I imagine it working.

Addititionally, the thread would be available for future use. If someone comes across this thread six weeks from now and has opinions, it will be nearly impossible to find the random posts about single hands.

If the session remain in 2 parts w/ 80 hands each there will not be THAT many hands in an 80-hand post that require attention. Therefore the size/organization will not should not be too confusing.

It's at least worth trying in the second session to compare, IMO.

[Kumubou]

I have an idea regarding duplicate threads: In the original session thread, for each hand leave a space that would link to the thread dicussing that hand, if one has already been created.

Doing that, people would not have to use the Gord-forsaken search function on the forum. They could just peruse the session thread and see if a thread had already been created (within a sane timeframe, but any new threads should be near the top of the forum). It will also make archiving the sessions and dicussion easier later on, as all one would have to find is the session thread and all reveleant dicussion would come after.

-K

[irishpint]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I like the idea of each hand (or concept, as in this case) being in it's own thread. Some of these threads have become very active, and I'm in particular thinking of some hands from the session 1 post. If all of these active discussions were to be in one thread, that thread would quickly become unwieldly.

However, I think it's pretty improtant that by keeping each hand in its own thread, we all follow some standard rules, such as:
<ul type="square">[*]One hand or once concept per thread. Putting multiple hands in a thread makes it hard to find things later.[*]Review threads should all be named the same, to make searchine easier. 'REVIEW Hand XX : A K' seems good.[*]Review threads should have the hand(s) in question at the beginning of the thread. [/list]
[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, i like the idea. All the hands would be under one main heading, and then say I had something tosay about hand 56, I could reply with "56" as my title and anyone who had comments would reply to it.

The hard part about making each an individual thread is that if you're gone or something you miss out. AK13 just started a thread on a hand we had already done. That's just extra clutter and is surely going to happen at least once or twice for each set of hands. I do agree, however, that each hand needs to be by itself and not 4 hands per post. But that makes the front page littered w/ MP hands, since over the course of 100 hands surely there are more than 1 or 2 that you want to discuss. Keeping them all in one thread would elimate front page noise and make it easy/acceptable to post thoughts for a variety of hands at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is he way I imagine it working.

Addititionally, the thread would be available for future use. If someone comes across this thread six weeks from now and has opinions, it will be nearly impossible to find the random posts about single hands.

If the session remain in 2 parts w/ 80 hands each there will not be THAT many hands in an 80-hand post that require attention. Therefore the size/organization will not should not be too confusing.

It's at least worth trying in the second session to compare, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt even think about the future. but ya, if all the links were in one spot then each post would be SO valuble in the future. as it stands now the if you come across the main MP thread you wont have any idea what people have said about the hands. That's reason enough to put them all in one thread, below the original hands.

[GrandmaStabone]

Another Suggestion would be to add links to the various hand posts in the original session thread. Maybe have just one reply with a list of hand links. It would look like this:


Hand 12
Hand 31
Hand 72
Hand 75
ETC

My point really is that the post containing the session should be a hub for the discussion it generates. Otherwise the threads long term value will drop extremely fast. I foud this thread just a few days late and putting it all together is an unecessary chore.




IMO

[GrandmaStabone]

[ QUOTE ]
Another Suggestion would be to add links to the various hand posts in the original session thread. Maybe have just one reply with a list of hand links. It would look like this:


Hand 12
Hand 31
Hand 72
Hand 75
ETC

My point really is that the post containing the session should be a hub for the discussion it generates. Otherwise the threads long term value will drop extremely fast. I foud this thread just a few days late and putting it all together is an unecessary chore.




IMO

[/ QUOTE ]


I wrote this at work (read: slowly) and by the time I posted it similar suggestions had been made.

I like this idea tho.