This discussion has been closed.
Posted by payshentnemesis (U9774375) on Monday, 3rd May 2010
is this consistently implemented? if so, it would be appreciated if the bull had a clean-up.
thanks!
On this board it has been 2000 but actually on other boards this limit is not implemented and I have definitely seen Central Communities say that it is not necessary. (Perhaps Tayler could confirm that.)
Here's a thread on POV - started by a Host - which is closing in on 20,000 posts.
Whatever happens I am wondering why you would want a 'clean-up'. What purpose would that serve? Popular threads will just start anew.
Tue, 04 May 2010 09:56 GMT, in reply to payshentnemesis
Six threads in excess of 1,000 posts in the first 200 threads, at the time of writing, does not strike me as excessive - and axing them would not make The Bull any less cluttered.
However, as has been said, the guideline periodically enforced by Keri was 2,000 posts, not 1,000 - and there are no threads in the first 200 in TB that would qualify for euthanasia with that as the limit.
, in reply to message 3.
Posted by one who posted here once (U4064841) on Tuesday, 4th May 2010
Tue, 04 May 2010 16:49 GMT, in reply to Mustafa Grumble in message 3
I agree with all of that but thought (could well be wrong here) that Keri said threads needed to be closed (not merely abandoned and replaced by another) otherwise there was no point in replacing the old thread?
Hope Tayler sees this thread.
Fri, 07 May 2010 14:55 GMT, in reply to flo in message 4
thought (could well be wrong here) that Keri said threads needed to be closed (not merely abandoned and replaced by another) otherwise there was no point in replacing the old thread?Â
No, it's a technical problem with the board's software that, the longer a thread gets, the more system resources it takes every time someone accesses it. Rather than rewrite the software to fix this they brought in a rule that threads which reached an arbitrarily long length (currently 2000 posts) would be closed. Starting a new thread isn't a problem until it gets up around the 2000 post mark again...
, in reply to message 5.
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Friday, 7th May 2010
Hi all
I do keep an eye on threads that get close to 2,000 and will close any that go over. If they're abandoned just under 2,000, I tend to leave them - it's simply that they're easier to spot once they hit the 2,000 mark, and I don't have to open up each and every one to check if they need closing.
Tayler
It's all very confusing. In this post CC say that long threads only "sometimes" cause problems and here they are reopening one which has 20,000 posts.
I imagine it's up to Hosts to decide what to do but it doesn't seem that there's anything 'special' about 2,000 posts and certainly nothing for posters to panic about if a thread gets longer.
I hate rules and I hate it when people are pedantic about them. Cant do anything about all this law abidingness, so just thought Id mention how I feel about it.
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.