Thread Cap in JCC

geez, with PBoy gone, is farraday now the next mod to get pounded for bringing issues to the forefront without clouds?

As Bane said, it's coming sooner or later, but all your fav threads will start disappearing with auto pruning by snowboards. We're all just lucky that Jedi Greg Maddux has volunteered to archive the threads we nicely ask him to archive for us, or we can do it ourselves.

Splitting hairs here isn't going to make the JC smaller; we all should be glad that we are growing and that people want to come here to be part of our JC family. Given the size limitation set forth by snowboards, we must learn to adjust and adapt. Archiving is still the best idea.

 

---

we need to start trimming the fat and dead threads.

---

The 5000 plus threads are obviously not dead, and when you want to trim bit of fat you generally don't lop off a leg.

 

Ok so if you've already got a great thread running, what's the matter with making a new thread? You've obviously got a little thesis to how the things going right? And if it's got a crowd then the fanclub will run over there to it would seem. We're all supporting the administration right? We want things to RUN smoother right? If the thing is having difficulty running one would think we would want to help it. This is what they've come up with in a difficult situation, be a little nicer to farraday! It's just a thread with an idea. So what if the idea has to move?

 

---

We're all supporting the administration right?

---

Let's just say that the admins don't exactly have a good track record for a lot of folks.

 

Pruning will probably become a reality in FanFic...with a vengeance!!


Wow, Bane, you sound like you just absolutely can't wait to start nuking fanfic.

How many pages of off-topic threads have been deleted from fanfic in the last week? Rather than spouting half baked ideas, fanfic has been actively doing something to "reduce the fat."

I'll give you a for today.

 

It's just a thread with an idea.

Ummm, no it isn't. From what I've read this is now a policy been enforced by the administration. As farraday said here:

From now on in the JCC, upon reaching 5 thousand posts members of a thread have one week to start a new thread before the old one is locked if they wish to continue with the discussion.
Current threads over 5k have one week to start anew.

This has been aproved by both the moderaters and the advisory council.
Thank you for your support.

(since I don't post much in the JCC I will not make any further comment)

 

"Ummm, no it isn't. From what I've read this is now a policy been enforced by the administration."



Yeah I hear it's a policy. However what I was talking about is that it seems alot of people are very attached to some threads. These threads were based on an idea/thought, another words it had some sort of goal in mind right? So that goal can be moved somewhere else, with ease I would think. Why are people crying about this? It seems simple to me.

 

Ahhh, I understand now. Now the 'So what if the idea has to move?' part of your post makes sense.

 

"Why are people crying about this? It seems simple to me."

Because people gain certain attachments to threads that they either started or really enjoyed. It hasn't happened to me yet, but I understand where they're coming from. Losing 5000 posts is quite a loss of history for some people.

Amazing.

 

So why not have Snowboards lock/prune inactive threads with more frequency? Why not after 4 months instead of 6 or whatever? Wouldn't that clear up a lot of space?

 

As I recall, the chief programmer quit.

 

So why not have Snowboards lock/prune inactive threads with more frequency?


That almost sounds crazy enough to work.

 

Hermie, then it'd be too easy.

 

Or we could put all the JCC mods to work deleting old threads. Just deleting what's locked now would free up more room than locking the threads over 5k. Plus you wouldn't have to wait 6 months to get your space freed up.

 

Speaking of mods, where have they gone?

 

Oh, hell...they've made up their minds, Hermie. This discussion was declared "over" by farraday 50 posts ago.

 

That's precisely what I had brought up in my original post here about the thread pruning rules. I don't know if the programmers have to change them, or if there is a certain class of moderator that has access to those controls. From past threads on the subject, I was under the impression that "Managers" could change the pruning rules to a certain degree. In their current state, I submit they are built more for smaller boards and don't suit the JCC quite as well.


At any rate, keokiswahine, it's gracious of Jedi Greg Maddux to offer to archive threads. As long as we have a few days, we'll be able to deal with our Sanctuary thread on our own though.

 

Since it seems rather apparent, to me at least, that this policy will be policy, wouldn't it be more valuble to provide reasons for the policy not to be implemented?

No, you see, I think first we need to see some reasons why the policy should be implemented. All the ones provided so far have been rather poor. The burden of proof lies on those who want to change the status quo.

I follow, but the point is, that one thread, given no limit, will end up taking more space than the other threads that would break down into it and the reason there is a post count discrepancy is because the smaller threads would probably gross less posts than the one large thread that us more condusive to spam and +1/up posts. At least, that is my experience.

On the other hand, starting a new thread is sure to provide a temporary boost in posting rate. Look at the new Light Side of the Force thread. If anything, I think splitting threads up would lead to more total posts.

AND look at it this way: you have a 17,000 posts active thread taking up space vs a 2,000 posts active thread, a 5K locked thread and two pruned 5k threads that no longer take up space. I think farraday tried to make this point earlier, but he worded a bit awkwardly.

Two pruned 5k threads. That would be when, at the end of this year? That doesn't address the issues we're facing now.

If there are server space issues, we need to come up with a way to address them, and make it clear to the members so that they can prepare for the changes. This idea completely fails to address the issues facing us now. The mods need to be willing to put in the effort to come up with a viable solution to the problems instead of making a worthless policy change like this that will only serve to upset members and will do nothing to free up server space now. What we have here is a case of the administration trying to create new rules in places where there is no need for them. This is a phantom solution to a real problem, and if this policy is implemented I can only conclude that the mods are ignoring the real problem and ignoring the valid concerns of the JC's members. I would lose a lot of confidence in the administration if this is allowed to go through.

 

"Or we could put all the JCC mods to work deleting old threads. Just deleting what's locked now would free up more room than locking the threads over 5k. Plus you wouldn't have to wait 6 months to get your space freed up."

I think that's a great idea. Save more space, prevent more drama. I actually offered to do this, but my proposal apparently fell on deaf ears.

 

SotS, I know that something similar to what you mention is being done in fanfic to clear out all the non-story stuff that isn't allowed there anymore.

Why couldn't it be done with Community. Sure it'd be a helluva lot of work, but doing it gradually, a little bit every day would make the load easier.

 

Funny thing about all the "drama" is, this could have been completely prevented if the initial post would have just said something simple like this:

We've run into problems with the JC forums taking up too much server space. Unfortunately, a number of large threads have already been deleted at the request of the server owner to address immediate space concerns. This doesn't fully address the problem, however, as the JC forums are constantly growing. In order to prevent further growth spurts, we regret to inform members of the JC Community forum that we will have to enforce the following policy for threads that grow larger than 5000 posts...

etc. etc. etc.

A little diplomacy.

It works.

It would've worked here.

 

Well, no, Riley Man, I don't think that's the case. I would still have all the same problems with this idea that I do now. Also, I don't think "a number of large threads have already been deleted at the request of the server owner to address immediate space concerns" is accurate. I don't think we really know what happened. It would be nice if we did, so we could come up with a better strategy to stop it from happening again.

 

"Why couldn't it be done with Community. Sure it'd be a helluva lot of work, but doing it gradually, a little bit every day would make the load easier."

Right, there's no reason why it couldn't be done. And I definitely think it should be done. Yes, I know it would be a lot of work, but being a moderator isn't supposed to be easy. In the end, it would free up much more space to delete dozens of inactive small threads than to delete these 5 or so active large threads.

 

Good points, all.

The 5,000 post limit could work, but I still think it won't be enough. There aren't all that many threads with over 5,000 posts (although it seems like it since most of them are almost always located in the first three pages).

I agree, the deletion of old threads should work wonders. It'll clear up much-needed space and these old threads can still either be "upped" or archived. Either way, both the mods and the members win.

Also, while this might not be as effective as a more regular pruning, the deletion of long-abandoned forums and usernames could free up some extra space. Removing 10 or 15 FanForce forums in which there is hardly any activity (see my signature below for an example) and reducing member count from 60,000+ to 45,000 would be nice.

Basically, the 5,000 thread cap is a solution, and a reasonable one at that, but what the JC needs more is an immediate cure, not a vaccination.

 

1. For any of you not paying attention, we're are heading towards episode 2. Recieving 10000 posts a day is now the norm instead of the exception. Some days we get over 100 new UIDs. A policy of capping threads should be started now, before there are 20 threads over that size.
2. In the EUC and several of the threads that have started over here there has been an increase in quality posting. You may not realize it but the Sanctuary and the Cafe are not typical of large threads. Because they consist of not only older member but have active mod participents the rules are followed much closer then that which is normal.
3. There can be no exceptions. If a rule is made it is made for the entire JCC, not just the threads I don't like, or that I do like, or just those threads starting with the letter k. You've complained in the past about the rules being open to interpritation, well this oen wouldn't be, so stop complaining that it treats everyone equally.
4. This is not a quick fix. Nor is it the only means that would be used. A faster pruning deadline would probably also be set up. I am not looking for a solution which will mean we will face the same problem in 6 or ten more months.
5. The official JC archives are most likely a failure. It is about time everyone realized this and stopped expecting mods to take care of it. You want the history of the JC saved then do it, do what JGM and Riley are doing, before it's to late. We are stuck wioth snowboards for now and even if we do switch one day in the future I would remind you older members of all the problems the move to snowboards caused.
6. To Watto, debo and the rest of you who think I'm a lousy miserable mod. You have the right to your opinion.