General discussion

Hey! Isn't circumventing the

Mar 5, 2006 9:57AM PST

thread depth limit a violation of some sort. I recall we were instructed to stop doing that. We don't want to break the forum further, or do whatever it is that would happen if we keep using that workaround.


Discussion is locked

Reply to: Hey! Isn't circumventing the
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Hey! Isn't circumventing the
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Where do you see it used??
Mar 5, 2006 10:22AM PST

I think what everyone is doing is going back to the main post in the beginning thread or sub thread and replying from there

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) It's been happening more and more.
Mar 5, 2006 10:26AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Where???...Put a link up.
Mar 5, 2006 10:29AM PST
- Collapse -
You asked
Mar 5, 2006 1:03PM PST
- Collapse -
Mar 5, 2006 9:07PM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Thank you
Mar 5, 2006 9:14PM PST
- Collapse -
I recall we were asked not to use it ...
Mar 5, 2006 9:42PM PST

... a few updates ago, because it would prevent proper display of the thread. I'm not talking about running off the page to the right, but preventing the full loading of the messages in the thread. That bug has apparently been fixed.

Recently I noticed quite a few here were using the workaround -- including at least one moderator -- as several times I had to track back a couple of posts to add a reply without the workaround. Others used it and it didn't mess with the thread, so I figured the workaround was OK and started using it again occasionally. "More often" of late because of the nature of the threads, but no "more often" than other members. Some people just have nothing better to do than grouse I suppose. Sad

I find the vertical discussions to be most annoying. At least with the workaround I can follow a discussion, and have the post to which I am responding when composing a reply. Perhaps the best solution would be for the FIRST person that runs out of room to continue the subthread at the bottom on a consistent basis. However for all sorts of reasons, it's probably not feasible to expect this will happen consistently, so we're back to square one.

Of course CNet could get rid of the stupid thread limit, but I'm done dreaming that they will do those simple fixes that actually address the desires of the membership. Ah well Grin You get what you pay for!

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
You mean like where it says..
Mar 5, 2006 11:04AM PST
Note: Due to the depth of this discussion thread, no additional replies can be accepted. If you have comments to make, please reply to the original post at the beginning of this thread.

- Collapse -
My best answer
Mar 5, 2006 8:56PM PST

Yes, it was asked of us that we not use the work-around.

It was also asked that we start a new thread to continue the "conversation".

However, we were also told that a locked thread should not be continued by starting a new thread. That is a definitie no-no.

So, there is a difference.

Many of us (including me) have used the work-around, especially in threads that have produced a lot of interest and, for the most part, civil discussions. Also, as is our habit, those threads often spin off into related and unrelated sub-threads.

Maybe one day the software will limit the number of posts, then more new threads will be started to continue those that exceed the limit.

As SE is different from the specific Help forums, we have not chosen to cut off by locking good threads. At times we attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff by deleting the chaff, and by "closing" a sub-thread that is veering off course.

Many here have been members long enough to know the difference between what is a violation, and what is not. They also know that what can cause the most trouble are personal battles between members, and inviting responses the posters know will follow their comments. They also know those are common reasons why a thread is locked.

The majority of our threads do not exceed the limit.

Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email

- Collapse -
Mar 5, 2006 10:27PM PST

Should we be doing it, or not? I'll use it if it is acceptable. If there are good reasons for not doing it, lets stop the practice.


- Collapse -
Mar 6, 2006 12:11AM PST

We all have to keep in mind that the forums are only a part of CNet.

I'm not tech savvy, but my guess- and my guess only- is that the "space" in 5228 might one day be used by CNet for another purpose.

As to this community, I also guess that SE is the only forum that has used the work around, and for the reasons I described before. Also, there are not that many times that discussions have merited "more time". so I have to disagree to your previous statement that it is happening more often. The request that the work around not be used has, for the most part, been honored.

We have had a very few times in which somebody has said, "Let's set a new record in the number of posts." That doesn't qualify.

As things stand now, it has been used judiciously as to posting comments that contribute meaningfully to the discussions at hand. But getting into personal sniping does not qualify.

To be honest, and in my opinion only, there aren't that many threads that do qualify for extended time. So many times a thread starts going south. So many times a personal battle begins. No extended time for that.

Surely you can judge if your post submitted per the work around is valuable enough to the discussion.

Each member here has a responsibility as to the "health" of this forum. My best answer to your question is to for all to let their conscience and good sense be their guide.

Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email

CNET Forums

Forum Info