Organisation for the discussion groups

9 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sat, 2001-07-07 00:17

I belong to two discussion group communities. One is ABCtales and the other is on an ex-pupils website from my old school.

While I find the ABCtales message board hard to keep track of, the ex-pupils discussion groups are a joy to belong to. This is simply because of the natural organisation. Whenever somebody posts a thread then that discussion group goes straight to the top of the list, and so on. So all I have to do is log on, check the message at the top of the list to see if anybody's added anything, and then work my way down until I recognise something I've read before. I then know that nothing new has been added to anything below that point. The process is very fast and there's no danger of any good topic being lost in the fluff.

For instance, someone can join the site, start reading down the message board section and revive a discussion that may not have been touched for a few months. And we all know about it because it goes straight to the top of the list.

If something similar happened on ABCtales - perhaps to a discussion that a few of us really enjoyed a month or so ago and has now run it's course - none of us would ever know about it. This is a shame, because a good topic could well be revived.

There are a lot of valuable threads being started here, but I suppose I personally only have the time for about a dozen of them. However, I soon lose track of those because they get lost in the fluff and I can't remember which discussions I've joined in or not.

So, Diana, is it possible to get more organisation to these threads, whereby as soon as soon as someone added a comment that discussion automatically goes straight to the top of the list?

Appreciate all your hard work,

Karl

P.S. The ABCtales message board is far superior in content to the ex-school one.

Wed, 2001-07-11 16:51

Emily Dubberley

We've started looking into alternative software following on from this discussion. I'll keep you updated Cheers Emily

Sat, 2001-07-07 00:25

robert

good idea. you *can* get to the older ones by clicking Older Topic, but i don't very often cos they run on to about 4 pages now, and if you post there no-one's likely to see

Sat, 2001-07-07 14:36

Karl Wiggins

My point exactly. We could all be missing out on good conversation because nobody's aware that someone's posted a recent message.

Sat, 2001-07-07 16:24

Liana

As the site grows in membership, and there are several new postings everyday, something has got to change, or there will just be new threads on the page, with no replies ever showing. It seems to be a maximum of 30 threads per section - that just isnt enough anymore. Each thread seems to have an unlimited amount of postings within it, so that isnt a problem. I guess the answer is to have more sections than the 5 that we have already - or have unlimited threadheads showing on each. I'm willing to be that within the next two months, there will only be an average of ten replies on each thread, as they all disappear into the "cavern of lost conversations" Sad :o(

Sat, 2001-07-07 18:44

stormy

Have to agree with all the above posts - especially liana's point. In a "do you remember this?" conversation I was having with another site member last night, we ended up hunting through the threads to the very early ones. It was quite a surprise to be reminded of how long each thread lasted. Muzzy's web soap and the worst opening line (congrats to Gabrielle btw) are fine examples. Two superb threads that wouldn't last more than a few days now. We've been moaned at in the past for changing the subject during a thread but that's the idea isn't it? Threads within threads. That's what the threaded view link above is for. There is no reason why two different threads cannot run within the one, if you follow me. If it's a major change of subject, then fine. But many of the new threads could easily have been written within existing ones?. Just look at how many have only 1 or 2 replies (if any).

Sat, 2001-07-07 22:31

Gabrielle

Thanks Stormy. I can't seem to open 'older topics' and have to search them out using the search facility. Its interesting that its mainly the general discussion and the writing from ABC forums get the most postings and yet the subject matter could easily have gone in elsewhere. I think we post into general in order not to be missed. Sometimes however its best to be missed.

Sun, 2001-07-08 23:13

Emily Dubberley

Hi, We tried to show 50 threads at a time but the software didn't like it so we had to change it back. The way it currently works is that the newest posts show up first. Then come the older posts that have had a mesage posted to them recently. Normally you should find any recent posts in the first two pages. Gabrielle, can you mail me off list with details of the browser you're using and I'll ask our techies to investigate. Cheers Em

Sun, 2001-07-08 23:17

Karl Wiggins

I think it would be a simple procedure for some technical whizz type intelligent bloke to arrange for the discussion groups to be posted in order of latest reply. Sometimes a thought may occur of a contribution I'd like to make to an old thread. But even though I make the effort I never really believe anyone's going to read it. If we could push that thread to the top of the list, we'd stand a far greater chance of keeping the conversation alive.

Topic locked