Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

No further replies, etc.

Nov 7, 2004 11:13AM PST

Has it been suggested that a wording change to "No further replies will be accepted" such as "No further replies can be accepted"? When first encountering these it can sound rather coarse if one does not know what it means. It might look as if the poster is wanting to reject any responses. Thanks

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Why not reword it to tell
Nov 8, 2004 3:21AM PST

simply that they should reply to the intial post in order to move the indentation all the way to the left margin.

The "No further replies" is simply extremely poor and totally incorrect wording, sounds as if someone from Microsoft wrote it.

Maybe "posts indented too far, please reply under
the initial post with a note that it a reply to this post."

Or tell them how to change the numbers as everyone in Speakeasy seems to know, so that they can all ignore the rules, even to defeat locked threads.

- Collapse -
Re: Why not reword it to tell
Nov 8, 2004 5:41AM PST

Could simply say Message limit reached

- Collapse -
Totally misses the point
Nov 8, 2004 8:16AM PST

The message limit has NOT been reached.

The indentation has moved things so far to the right it has simply gotten to the point to not allow enough room for the subject line. The designer simply set an arbitrary limit and used convoluted language that confuses the issue.

All that needs to be done is move the next post to the left margin. Simplest way is to make the next reply to the very first post.

- Collapse -
But what happens
Nov 9, 2004 8:24PM PST

is that subtopics are often created and these lose all continuity if reattached at the trunk.

- Collapse -
Not actully because
Nov 13, 2004 3:19AM PST

they are still physically further down the trunk than the one that had the stupid message.

Most people don't change the subject. For this type of transfer they should simply note in the subject line that they are responding to****

How anyone can think that the present wording is correct English is well beyond my fourth grade learning.

- Collapse -
Re: Totally misses the point
Nov 15, 2004 3:23AM PST

Hmmm....what the Forum FAQ states; Can click on the FAQ in the right margin of these posts or:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4002-7600_7-5083783.html

(Scroll ? of the way down)
Quote:
"Maximum thread layers

1. How many layers deep can I post comments?

1. How many layers deep can I post comments?

When you are replying to another person post and receive the note: "No further replies to this post will be accepted", it means that you have reached the maximun layers of threads allowed. The forum discussion thread technology is limited to twelve layers and in the chance that you get involved in a discussion that reaches that limit, you can just post a new second-level reply to the main discussion thread to continue your conversation." Unquote.

There has been no ban on using the "5224 replacement for 5204" to continue a reply EXCEPT there is a ban on using to continue a reply on a thread that has a PADLOCK.

Yes, as the original poster (Steven) indicates, "can" would be a better word than "will" in the
"No further replies will be accepted" IMHO.

JR

- Collapse -
Then why doesn't simply
Nov 15, 2004 7:06AM PST

say that the maximum number of layers has been reached, post a new second layer reply to continue.

Why use different terminology? Or,since it is so well documented where no one goes, why not post that entire message there. Or why not post the 5224 to 5204 info. The message is as bad as some of the MS dialog boxes.

As for the way the SE people violate locked threads et al I leave to the SE people.

- Collapse -
Re: Then why doesn't simply
Nov 15, 2004 9:16AM PST

I have no management authority in CNet Ray.

Err....as far as I have observed, SE people do not violate a padlocked thread. I personally do not see posting a 5224 is a violation of a LOCKED thread nor has anyone I know been told it is a violation of the TOS or a Forum rule made up by a Mod.

- Collapse -
Then why defend their softwares weenies
Nov 15, 2004 11:25AM PST

terrible use of the English language??? They use one terminology in one area and a different one somewhere else. That is terrible writing.

I didn't intend to relate 5224 to locked threads.

- Collapse -
FYI: People cannot override the locked thread with 5224
Nov 16, 2004 5:14AM PST

anymore, this has been fixed.

- Collapse -
Re: FYI: People cannot override the locked thread with 5224
Nov 16, 2004 4:48PM PST

Thanks Lee, I didn't know it was fixed so that someone could not use the 5224 to post in a PADLOCKED thread.

We, (or is it I am) talking about two types of LOCKED Threads.

1) Padlock Thread = a locked thread showing a padlock (The lock has been place on the thread by a Mod or the Administrator)

2) Locked Thread = "No further replies to this post will be accepted" (A notice by a machine that cannot understand what the verbage is all about(yet)).
Some Newbies regard this (have seen in a Help forum)
as being locked by a human for violations of something they said, or a Mod just doesn't like what they are saying.

- Collapse -
Re: thanks for the laugh JR
Nov 16, 2004 2:09AM PST

#Yes, as the original poster (Steven) indicates, "can" would be a better word than "will" in the
"No further replies will be accepted" IMHO#

i thought to myself, 'i wonder if 'can' is interchangeable with 'will'...

"Can you, *insert name* take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife?"


ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


jonah

.

- Collapse -
Re: thanks for the laugh JR...Welcome Jonah..and
Nov 17, 2004 6:12AM PST

perhaps that 'can' should have been used in one or two of my marriages. Happy

I also get some good chuckles from some of your posts in SE as well as this one.

- Collapse -
I agree with you Steven, it does seem a bit abrupted
Nov 16, 2004 5:48AM PST

So to all: In two short sentences, what should the wording be? (First sentence should address the limitation. And the second sentence should tell user how to respond to this message.)

How about something like this:

"Message thread limit has been reached. Please post a new reply to the main discussion topic to continue your discussion."

Your suggestions/feedback are appreciated--dice and slice as you please, remember this is really a note to give a new user a heads up--who may be unaware of this limitation.

On this note, I will not be promoting the 5224 tweak. It is a bug, which was fixed btw, but rolled back, because I decided to leave it be, so that SE could have more room to play. Outside of SE, we very rarely ever see a forum topic that spills over 12 layers.

Thanks everyone!
-Lee

- Collapse -
It seems to me that the "limit"
Nov 16, 2004 7:59AM PST

is really due to the depth of the indentation. So why not just use the statement that uses that meaningful word [indentation]???

Simply want to move the next post to the far left [change indentation to provide more space]. Please stop calling it a "limit" unless it is clear that the limit is only the fact of how far the post has moved to the right.

Maybe the software weenies know of some imbedded limit that really causes the "limit" , but to we humans that view the posts the indentation is the obvious effect.

Maybe, in the "limit" post. [in bold or???] "Please reply to this post by ++++ your words**** to move the post to the left margin, for better readability".

Thanx, at least for listening, regardless of your final decision.

Again, how can one even conceive that "message limit has been reached" is even close to being a valid description of the condition????

And again calling it layers one place and a limit somewhere else [changing terms for the same thing in one connected area] is something that I spent 32 years trying to stop my Engineers from doing in their white papers.

- Collapse -
Re: It seems to me that the "limit"
Nov 17, 2004 10:30AM PST

Hi Ray,

I am sorry you seem to have taken this suggestion to task as maybe you misunderstood my reasoning. It was largely to a reply I saw by someone who seemed "offended" when seeing a reply by another to his message that had the statement below it. He felt that someone was deliberately singling him out to prevent a response. It was his own misunderstanding but I could see how this could happen by the wording. Yes, I also think it's often a small thing or being unreasonably sensitive. Obviously, not everyone reads or understands every line of the FAQ. A change in wording, I thought, could be more "friendly". Citing that it was an internal message limit would serve to let new or uninformed folks know it was nothing they did. Again, "user friendliness" was my reasoning. Regards.

- Collapse -
What's your point?? The phrase
Nov 18, 2004 10:16AM PST

is, in fact, terrible and certainly can't be fixed by changing one word.

I am not worried about the one place that you happened to notice. It has confused many others and probably caused some to leave forever, thinking that they had fouled up.

Why do feel the need to apologize to me for taking it to task?

- Collapse -
Re: What's your point??
Nov 19, 2004 10:51PM PST

Ray, you have more posts in this thread (at this point) than anyone. It must be important to you to challenge my suggestion. I made no suggestion of any exact wording that should be adopted....only a notion that the wording had been misunderstood and that I could understand why. I am thinking that's one thing this forum is about. Your point in taking so much time rebuking my simple suggestion is what I do not understand but I see no further point in arguing it. Regards.

- Collapse -
That's fine with me, but if you
Nov 19, 2004 10:59PM PST

will look, Lee Koo asked for suggestions. Thus I continued.

- Collapse -
Re: I agree with you Steven, it does seem a bit abrupted
Nov 17, 2004 10:33AM PST

Thank you, Lee. It seems this generated some fuss. Possibly the message limit was in jeopardy here. I just though it would be friendlier to the oversensitive or new folks who encountered it and wondered what they might have done wrong.

- Collapse -
Suggestion
Nov 19, 2004 11:20PM PST

I'd say keep it short/succinct..somethink like

"Internal message limit reached."
"To continue, repost to main discussion (with link) if desired"

If a poster wanted continuity, they could link to the last message in that thread. I know this can be awkward.