DU usability question: After how many replies does a discussion thread start to become too long?

[Skinner]

FYI: I just posted this poll in GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1957455

[NewJeffCT]

1. It depends on the thread

When people are reporting/commenting on a current event (somebody testifying to Congress), I think sometime after 100 replies, it is time to start a new thread.

otherwise, just let them be...

[yellowdogintexas]

7. definitely. some of the silly trheads in the lounge can go up to 300

but current events should be fewer per thread.

More importantly, not so many repeat threads on same current event topic.

[Sugar Smack]

2. I'd say about 300.

I have dial-up, too. After that, I believe there should be a continuation thread.

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

4. I second that.

But there some be exemptions if its a well wishing threading. Like to wish someone goodluck or offer thoughts and prayers.

[Sugar Smack]

5. I MISSED YOU.

:hug: How ya doing, sweetheart?

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

35. I am doing fine :)

:hug: Everything is alright on my side.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. 200

[Hugin]

9. That's about right, lioness!

It takes quite awhile to load more than that...

[mainegreen]

6. Going to implement paging or something? Please don't put paging on the thread tree.

Sure, if someone clicks 'view all' pages might be a plus for both your and the user's bandwidth, but the thread tree at the top really should stay whole. That damned thread tree is one of those features that make DU more usable than any other forum out there!

[terrya]

8. 300

[SteppingRazor]

10. 200

After that, any comment that is made in the thread has already been made by someone else elsewhere in the thread.

[Shell Beau]

11. If it is in the high 100's, I usually won't even click on it!

[crim son]

13. Me either. Even around 150, I assume the subject has been done to death.

I wonder if we're considering limits here on DU.

[flvegan]

14. Skinner said that they aren't going to impose a limit

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1957455&mesg_id=1957526

[crim son]

16. Thanks. I didn't see that thread.

:hi:
on edit: and apparently I didn't read the OP very carefully either.

[Hugin]

12. Here's a little suggestion...

Why don't you make a recce like 'kick' option or make a recce kick the thread to the top?

That would reduce the clutter considerably due to the fact there aren't as many K&R type posts.

[Hosnon]

17. Good idea. We should be able to kick without responding. (nt)

[baby_mouse]

30. Excellent suggestion. NT

[KitchenWitch]

15. I echo the 200 someone else said

The threads become unwieldly after that

[Swede]

18. I'd say let it go til it fizzles.

If the discussion is reasonable,and still going,let it.

[El Fuego]

19. Zen answer: Every thread is exactly as long as it should be.

[dembotoz]

20. hate it when someone has a better answer than i do

but i tend to agree with the zen thing

[Gidney N Cloyd]

21. 21.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

22. When

a thread gets to the 3 digit point I usually stop looking at it --- There have been exceptions but not many.

[nickgutierrez]

23. In terms of usability, around 300.

In terms of the length of the discussion, I'd have a hard time believing it can be too long provided that it's relatively civil and there is new information that is being brought to the table - that is, they aren't rehashing the same points, over and over again.

[Oeditpus Rex]

24. It isn't simply the number of posts

It's the linearity of the thread — or, the lack of it. Threads of even 100 posts become quite cumbersome when they become a catacombic series of sub-, sub-sub- and even sub-sub-sub-threads. It's hard to keep track of who's arguing with whom and how a particular face-off relates to the OP — rather like reading a newspaper starting with the jump page.

But, since I don't suppose there's much that can be done about that (socially or technically), I'd say any thread of more than 200 responses is starting to get unwieldy.

[PeterPuck]

25. If there was a way to sort by posting time...

then there would be no issue. However it is hard to follow long threads since responses to responses often get lost in the mess.

[Magrittes Pipe]

26. 19

Once that "view all" thing pops up, I lose interest.

[sundog]

33. you're so wise whoisalhedges

[EstimatedProphet]

27. Depends. In GD, about 2

More than that and it's a flamewar.

GD:

[charlie and algernon]

28. what did "Delete" get up to?

3000 or something?

[Lance_Boyle]

29. I was hoping this was a poll - I'd bid $1, Bob.

Seriously, tho' - around 100 to maybe 150. Many more than that is unwieldy.

[bigwillq]

31. 100 (nt)

[Bucky]

32. If it's about Kudzu, it can never be too long

I hear it's going places.

[matcom]

34. SKINNER WANTS TO KILL KUDZU!!

:cry:

[underpants]

36. FRESCA!

[matcom]

38. File > Close

File > Open

>find *.xls

:rofl:

:hi:

[underpants]

40. View > pagebreak

Head explodes :nuke:

:bounce:

[matcom]

41. oh GAWD!

:rofl:

>Window >Freeze Panes

[underpants]

43. He knows how to do that

He doesn't DO IT but he does know about it.

I discovered that he has at least 5 summary spreadsheets... lots of duplicity

[Bassic]

44. Hell yeah!

:thumbsup:

[Lil Missy]

37. For some threads, about 5 posts

[LaurenG]

39. Kudzu was too long

what was that about 500 or 1000?

[Deja Q]

42. If I was a 56k modem user, 150 responses would become irritating...

I am also on medication for ADD, but nobody's perfect...

(I used to have a 56k modem and once the response count got up there, it did take forever... that was something like 4 years ago, of course...)

[KG]

45. 42

unless it's a canidate thread, which after 2 replys, it's all cut and paste repitition. :hi:

[Myrina]

46. Between 80-90...

... depending on how many OT sub-threads start going on ...

:shrug: