OK, what is depth?

by Coryphaeus Apr 17, 2011 12:00PM PDT

This post:

http://forums.cnet.com/7723-12545_102-523918.html?messageId=5118120#message5118120

The second post/answer has this:

Note: Due to the depth of this Q&A discussion thread, no
additional replies can be accepted for this post. If you have an answer
to offer or need clarification of the original question, please reply to
the original post at the beginning of this thread.

Geez!! How many is too deep, or in this case excessive depth?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -

In short...

by John.Wilkinson Apr 17, 2011 2:22PM PDT

All threads, except Question threads, have a depth of 12, as we've had for years. Question threads, however, have a max depth of 3
1.) The original/root post (question).
2.) An answer or clarification request.
3.) A reply to the answer/clarification request.

I have already made my objections to the limitations known, and I will be intentionally avoiding nearly all Question threads as a result until it and a couple other issues are addressed. However, with the format already in place, it will probably take some strong member feedback to get more than minor adjustments given the work likely involved.

John

- Collapse -

OK, this is BS . . .

by Coryphaeus Apr 17, 2011 11:34PM PDT

Not you John, but the "improvements". I'm tired of it, dammit. All that was done was to try to get these perfectly working and simple to navigate forums "updated" to just BS add-ons, icons, font adjusters, tweats, share me, and other such BS. Gonna use one now, get ready, NO ONE ASKED FOR THIS!!!!! Did I miss the poll? Was my email broken when I was sent the questionnaire?

Let's be blunt here John. Who in the Hell decided to make these changes? Honestly, can you tell me. One person? A committee of jerks? Lee? Please tell me it wasn't Lee's idea!!

Really. Can you share who it was that made one decision for thousands of people?

- Collapse -

Not a question I can answer...

by John.Wilkinson Apr 18, 2011 11:12AM PDT

I doubt that any aspect of it was a unilateral decision, and am sure it was done to expand interest in the CNET forums among those who frequently participate in social networks and are accustomed to rating content - a substantial percentage of people. However, I do not know the specifics and I think their implementation is too cluttered Also, I support the rating of replies and threads, but my enthusiasm is tempered due to the limited benefits of the rating system at this time.

The design changes were presumably done to bring the forums in line with the design being applied to most of the site. Personally, I like it for the most part, though think a few tweaks are in order. Again, I think some aspects are too cluttered, and continue to hope for some tightening of the layout - a bit more minimalism would be a good thing.

Third, I like features such as the WYSIWYG editor, but the sudden loss of ability to post/reply to thread on a mobile device is a serious issue in my book. I will certainly be participating less as I can no longer do so while on the go.

Finally, I take major issues with the Q&A thread format, which I've detailed elsewhere and will try not to rehash.

Bottom line: There are several changes I appreciate, but a combination of bugs and unfavorable decisions leave me slightly worse off than before the updates, Nevertheless, I am hopeful that my concerns and objections will be addressed, and I will consider this upgrade a success and worthy enhancement if they are.

John

- Collapse -

Agree!!

by Rob10 Apr 19, 2011 2:00AM PDT

The new format is completely ********! The need to check a box as to whether or not something is a question, and then limiting the thread to three posts?? That's totally unealistic, since many questions require a back and forth to get ironed out. Please, if anyone who has a say in this reads this, change this requirement.

OK, what is depth?

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info