Should thread lengths be limited?

Joe Blow · 29 March 2005

How does everyone feel about the length of threads?

After a while, a long thread can take a long time to read through and becomes a bit unwieldy. I can see how they may look intimidating to a newcomer.

The question is, do we limit the length of threads? If we do limit the length, what number of posts is appropriate for a maximum length? 250? 500? 1000?

If we were to introduce a thread length limit I imagine it would work something like this: when the post limit on a thread was hit I would start a new thread along similar lines with an introduction that included a link to the old thread. The old thread would then be closed (so no new posts could be added) with the final post being a link to the new thread.

Of course, we could just leave all threads open forever. After all, there's no reason we can't start up multiple threads about a stock or several threads on different aspects of a particular stock.

Let me know your views!

TjamesX · 29 March 2005

I don't think it is worth the trouble and can become confusing if you want to know the history of a discussion.

As a default on long threads I go to the last page to read the most recent posts - if I want to know more I go back to the earlier posts.

On another forum I read - they try and limit specific discussions of a stock to one thread for each stock - with the name of the stock on the heading of the thread - this can create large threads, but it is also helpful in that people don't create multiple threads on one specific stock and there is usually only one thing being discussed about a particular stock at one time. So long discussions about a stock can be tracked back for months with lots of very useful hindsight information about what people thought would happen and what did happen. I think this would be useful for ASF - but maybe another poll for this

TJ

Joe Blow · 29 March 2005

TjamesX said:
On another forum I read - they try and limit specific discussions of a stock to one thread for each stock - with the name of the stock on the heading of the thread - this can create large threads, but it is also helpful in that people don't create multiple threads on one specific stock and there is usually only one thing being discussed about a particular stock at one time.

I actually like multiple threads on a particular stock as long as they serve to focus the discussion.

i.e. XXX - another director selling?
or XXX - will they beat revenue forecasts?
or XXX - production difficulties at XYZ mine.

The great thing about this software is the 'similar threads' feature at the end of the thread which links you directly to threads on a similar topic.

I'd be interested to know if members use this feature.

son of baglimit · 29 March 2005

joe - as long as it didnt inhibit my ability to ramp NMS i'm ok with whatever - hang on, i dont need to, everyone else is doing that for me......

RichKid · 29 March 2005

Joe Blow said:
I actually like multiple threads on a particular stock as long as they serve to focus the discussion.

i.e. XXX - another director selling?
or XXX - will they beat revenue forecasts?
or XXX - production difficulties at XYZ mine.

The great thing about this software is the 'similar threads' feature at the end of the thread which links you directly to threads on a similar topic.

I'd be interested to know if members use this feature.

Does this mean that anyone who wants to short, say ZFX for example, could start a thread on it (eg 'ZFX- going short') and then Chicken would have to post twice as many posts as he does now to 'bump' his thread? If it's a quality discussion it's fine, otherwise it's just a long ramp imho.

Have to admit I don't use the similar threads feature as much as I use the search tool but I'll keep it in mind.

I prefer TJ's idea about one thread per stock unless it's something special otherwise you end up with too many threads and we end up discussing the same issue several times, I prefer the format of other forums where you can easily find a stock you're after as they each have one thread alphabetically listed but these forums are still young so it's not a hassle yet. Generally the more searching you have to do on a particular stock or topic the more of a hassle it is- hence less attractive for beginners and people who use multiple forums.

Just my thoughts, not fussed eitherway.

Joe Blow · 30 March 2005

RichKid said:
Does this mean that anyone who wants to short, say ZFX for example, could start a thread on it (eg 'ZFX- going short') and then Chicken would have to post twice as many posts as he does now to 'bump' his thread? If it's a quality discussion it's fine, otherwise it's just a long ramp imho.

Have to admit I don't use the similar threads feature as much as I use the search tool but I'll keep it in mind.

I prefer TJ's idea about one thread per stock unless it's something special otherwise you end up with too many threads and we end up discussing the same issue several times, I prefer the format of other forums where you can easily find a stock you're after as they each have one thread alphabetically listed but these forums are still young so it's not a hassle yet. Generally the more searching you have to do on a particular stock or topic the more of a hassle it is- hence less attractive for beginners and people who use multiple forums.

Just my thoughts, not fussed eitherway.

You make some good points, RK.

My view is as long as someone can present some sort of justification for their position then I'm satisfied with that. Everyone is at a different level of understanding and I think allowances need to be made for that. Some people understand stock market concepts and terminology very well, some don't.

I completely agree with you about maintaining the high level of discussion. That's something I view as very important and am always working at. I'll admit, sometimes it's hard to call a line ball and I'm sure occasionally I make errors of judgement.

In my view as long as multiple threads don't cause too much repetition or confuse the issue too much I am in favour of them. It does tend to keep the discussion fresh and focussed. I guess it's a fine line and we'll have to wait and see how things go. The one problem I have with one thread per stock is you can have too many conversations going at once in the same thread and it can get a bit convoluted and hard to follow. But again, I guess that's a matter of personal taste.

Hopefully the 'similar threads' and search features will assist people in finding the information they're after quickly and efficiently.

Am interested in hearing more views.

Joe Blow · 2 November 2005

Thought I would bump this thread as the MUL thread is at around 1000 posts. It is temporarily closed.

If there is anyone who hasn't voted, could you please do so now.

Should we cap threads on stocks at a particular number of posts and then start another thread on the stock with a link to the old thread... or should we let threads run ad infinitum?

I'm interested in your thoughts.

tarnor · 2 November 2005

I really like having it all together, its easy to find old posts.. and see how peoples comments have panned out over along period of time.. the mul thread is great in that way.. don't see why you would want to end it

I wish thier was some way i could set it to always starting at the last page of a thread,,,

actually what would be really kewl is to inbed significant announcements in between threads, just a one line block descriptions.. like
20m contract with such and such...
or 2m capital raising 30c..

lot of stuffing around tho but would be kewl :/

doctorj · 2 November 2005

I'm not convinced of the validity of the arguements in favour of restricting thread lengths.

If you were to cap at 1000 posts then sure enough there would be a MUL Pt2. The conversation from the original would continue in the new thread and those wanting the full story would have to go back and find the old thread anyway. Having it in one thread makes no material difference aside from larger page numbers and making things easier to find and less confusing for the reader.

Unless your suggesting that there should not be more than 1,000 posts on any individual stock to prevent any more suckers/investers giving MUL a go... :

doctorj · 2 November 2005

tarnor said:
I wish thier was some way i could set it to always starting at the last page of a thread,,,

Use this

button to go straight to the last post. It's next to the last poster's name.

krisbarry · 2 November 2005

Not too concerned about the length of threads, as some threads have so much to offer, more concerned about the length of posts. But if you are happy to read lengthy posts then thats kewl with me.

Joe Blow · 2 November 2005

doctorj said:
Unless your suggesting that there should not be more than 1,000 posts on any individual stock to prevent any more suckers/investers giving MUL a go... :

Nah... hehe... just wondering what things were going to be like in 2015 when people opening the MUL thread for the first time to find the first post (of a 6000 post thread ) made in 2004.

The argument for capping stock threads at XXXX posts is that it keeps the threads fresher and more manageable... and those who are really interested in what happened years ago can trawl back through the old threads themselves.

Of course, I will go with the wishes of the majority, but I thought I'd throw it out there as the MUL thread turns over to 1,000 posts. Figured the issue might be worth revisiting briefly for the benefit of those who have joined us recently.

Julia · 2 November 2005

TjamesX said:
I don't think it is worth the trouble and can become confusing if you want to know the history of a discussion.

As a default on long threads I go to the last page to read the most recent posts - if I want to know more I go back to the earlier posts.

On another forum I read - they try and limit specific discussions of a stock to one thread for each stock - with the name of the stock on the heading of the thread - this can create large threads, but it is also helpful in that people don't create multiple threads on one specific stock and there is usually only one thing being discussed about a particular stock at one time. So long discussions about a stock can be tracked back for months with lots of very useful hindsight information about what people thought would happen and what did happen. I think this would be useful for ASF - but maybe another poll for this

I agree with TJ - if I'm thinking about buying something I find it really helpful to read through an entire thread on that stock to get some idea of how members have viewed it historically.

Don't really see any need to limit number of posts - easy to go to "last" and work back from there if that is easier than going from beginning.

Have been on this forum for a while now and it has never occurred to me to wish for limits on posts.

I think things are fine as they are Joe.

Julia

PS Hope you've all noticed I've got the correct icon this time! (I hope it is the thumbs up?)

bvbfan · 3 November 2005

I don't believe in limiting posts but maybe instead posts that are about technicals could be deleted after some time as they would no longer be valid
Same could be said of fundamentals but maybe given more time

And also the general chat in a topic

Happy · 3 November 2005

All you can do now Joe is pray for M U L to be de-listed, or at least have name changed.

If you want extra hand I am happy to make few chants myself.

RichKid · 3 November 2005

bvbfan said:
I don't believe in limiting posts but maybe instead posts that are about technicals could be deleted after some time as they would no longer be valid

TA theory holds that prices create recognisable patterns- studying past patterns can help with analysing the current pattern or future patterns so it's helpful to study previous technical snapshots, for that reason I think it important for previous charts to remain. Just a view.

kaveman · 3 November 2005

Not enough options for the votes
I rarely look at threads longer than 20. Anything longer than this tends to become repetitive or stoops to name calling as it has become a useless bitch session.

Smurf1976 · 3 November 2005

If were are discussing stock XYZ in 10 years time which already has a thread started then to me it would make a lot of sense to have started a new thread by then. Whatever was posted 10 years earlier, whilst certainly worth keeping for historical value, is unlikely to be relevant to the then discussion.

It needs more thought as to the specifics but I think that if there is to be a limit then it ought to be time-based rather than based on the number of posts.

Inactive threads archived (read only) after a period of no new posts? Just a thought.

brerwallabi · 3 November 2005

Joe Blow said:
Nah... hehe... just wondering what things were going to be like in 2015 when people opening the MUL thread for the first time to find the first post (of a 6000 post thread ) made in 2004.

Hi Joe sounds like you are ramping MUL here lol.

Pat · 27 March 2007

Hello Joe,
This Forum is the best I've used to date!
Not just due to content, but the ease of navgation and the fact that there is only one thread is the major factor. Other forums have multiple threads for each stock. Which is what I found confusing.
One thread seems the logical answer.

However, perhaps when we open a thread it could take us to the latest post instead of clicking on the "last" page and scrolling down.
Just a thought...

I'd also like to say the improvements are looking good, albeit with a few bugs, just have to wait till these sorted.

Should thread lengths be limited?

Should the length of threads be limited?

Yes, limit threads to 250 posts.

Yes, limit threads to 500 posts.

Yes, limit threads to 1000 posts.

No, don't limit thread length.

Joe Blow

Administrator

TjamesX

Joe Blow

Administrator

son of baglimit

RichKid

PlanYourTrade > TradeYourPlan

Joe Blow

Administrator

Joe Blow

Administrator

tarnor

doctorj

Hatchet Moderator

doctorj

Hatchet Moderator

krisbarry

Joe Blow

Administrator

Julia

In Memoriam

bvbfan

Happy

RichKid

PlanYourTrade > TradeYourPlan

kaveman

Smurf1976

brerwallabi

The Oracle

Pat

Similar threads

Should thread lengths be limited?

Should the length of threads be limited?

Yes, limit threads to 250 posts.

Yes, limit threads to 500 posts.

Yes, limit threads to 1000 posts.

No, don't limit thread length.

Administrator

Administrator

PlanYourTrade > TradeYourPlan

Administrator

Administrator

Hatchet Moderator

Hatchet Moderator

Administrator

In Memoriam

PlanYourTrade > TradeYourPlan

The Oracle

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency