Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 04:05 PM

Non comprendo, señor Kevin.
¿Qué es esto, non-plan plan?

Well, we have to convince Greg that the New Mudcat loads eaier because it has less overhead, and that he actually can load more messages than he used to be able to...

-José-

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 03:55 PM

It's a non-plan plan.

One thing - Joe said "we have the number set low enough that even TV-Internet people shouldn't have trouble loading". I know that Greg Stephens who uses a cableTV connection has said, in some thread, that he has trouble once a thread gets over 40.

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: SharonA
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 01:23 PM

Sounds like a plan to me!

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 01:06 PM

So we can expect threads to give birth to "chapter 2" and so forth from time to time - but of course each chapter might be long enough to have several parts...

I knew it was all going to get complicated. I think the best way is not to try to plan it out in advance, but just to let things work out as and how it happens. And then at some point if need be, to tidy it up according to the rules and customs that have developed, taking account of problems that have cropped up.

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 12:05 PM

Well....I worked for the U.S. Government for 25 years.
But my boss was a hundred miles away, so I remained relatively unscathed.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 11:55 AM

In that case, Sharon, when in doubt kick it upstairs and never volunteer!

~S~

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: SharonA
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 11:55 AM

Oh, wait a sec, my uncle on my mother's side was in the Coast Guard, too... Is it any wonder my initials are SEA? :^)

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: SharonA
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 11:52 AM

...Come to think of it, my aunt on my mother's side worked for the US government, too, so I get it from both sides of the family. Go, Navy!

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: SharonA
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 11:49 AM

Joe: No, but my father did, so it's all in my upbringing... *BG*

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 11:14 AM

Sharon, do you work for the Government???
...just asking...
[grin]
I'm sure Wizzy works there.

No, we have the number set low enough that even TV-Internet people shouldn't have trouble loading. And if they really, truly find that our threads are still too long for them to load, they can tell us and we'll deal with it.
So no, we don't want bifurcated discussions unless it makes editorial sense to bifurcate them.
-Joe Offer-

---

Actually, there is an answer to Sharon's question. In lengthy discussions that are divided into chapters, make sure the chapters have a common, distinctive element in the title. Then we can put an index at the top and bottom of each chapter, like this:

---

Search for "Bush, Iraq" threads

---

If you see series of threads that need indexing like that, let me know by personal message.
Oh, and you'll find examples of closed threads in the links at the top of the River to Pray threads. Closed threads are readable, but can't be added to.

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 10:07 AM

My comments are only for consideration; I am sure Joe or Jeff will be along to clarify.

Waiddamminnit-- You know who oughtta start Part Two threads? People who have trouble loading threads. (Wait-- I'm not just being a cablemodem snob, I have a point! *G*) It isn't just the number of posts, it's the length of the posts, as I understand it-- the amount of text. They ought to be in a position to know when something is about to get too damn long-- and I know they are because I've seen some giving input on where the page-break ought to occur. Maybe this isn't everyone else's problem (tho being nice has its place), but is something simple they can take on for threads they care to follow. Especially with the linkmaker available now.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: SharonA
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 10:02 AM

Susan: Oops, I missed seeing your 2nd post. Yeah, that's what I meant in my first post to this thread, when I talked about linking to the first page – page one – of a split thread, rather than the last page.

The URL of page one of a split thread ends with &page=1 while the URL of, say, page three ends with &page=3. In order to link to a particular page, that part of the URL must be included in the HTML of the link.

At any rate, I do think that whenever we post links to ANY other Mudcat thread over 50 posts, we should link to the split-thread version so that anyone and everyone can load it!

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 09:58 AM

No, on the threadlist, the link that is the asterisked number of posts, which is the gateway to the split pages.

For this thread:
PermaThread™ Unanswered Requests       89*

The *89.

Which is:
http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=36576&messages=89&page=1

Using the link maker it becomes this:
*89

But you would not display the link like that, you'd do this:
Continued from PermaThread™ Unanswered Requests I.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: SharonA
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 09:52 AM

Susan: You mean the "make a link" clicky? (I thought that was just for automatically creating the HTML to copy-and-paste into one's post.) Please explain!

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 09:49 AM

(the clickie that is the number with the asterisk, in other words page one as a split thread)

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 09:48 AM

Maybe link to the split-thread clickie itself then. Use an HTML practice thread and try it out.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: SharonA
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 09:40 AM

Spaw: I'm not trying to make it difficult (please note the part of my post where I said "I know it's not a big deal..."!), just trying to make it convenient for those folks for whom loading even a 50-post thread is still a time-consuming task. I'm just trying to be nice!!!

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 09:32 AM

Awferchissakes..........

PATTERSON'S LAW: The simplest thing to do is to take a simple thing and make it difficult.

I am convinced that if you gave some people a simple job, ie., "Push this button once an hour," within a week there would be an entire 3 inch thick manual on button pushing. In this case, just link back to whatever you think you have to, IF you have to and go on! Thanks to Jeff and Max we will rarely need a multi part thread so just use some judgement and let it go at that........

Spaw

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: SharonA
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 09:16 AM

In those cases where there will continue to be Part 2 threads (as Joe suggests, "second chapters", that may concentrate on a separate aspect of a larger discussion), I have a protocol question about linking:

When one links back to the Part 1 thread, it makes sense to link to a page of the split thread rather than to the entire un-split thread (for the convenience of those whose computers or IPs can't handle over-long threads), but to which page of the split thread does it make more sense to link – to the first page, or to the last?

Linking to the last page (page 3 of 3, for example) seems logical in that it contains posts that are most likely to pertain to the continuation of the discussion in Part 2... but if enough people post to Part 1 after the link from Part 2 is posted, that link won't go to the "last" page anymore (in my example, it would be page 3 of 4!)!

Now, if one is linking from a Part 3 thread to a Part 2 thread, linking to the first page of the split thread (the top of the un-split thread) would mean that any previously posted link to Part 1 would appear on-screen, which some folks might prefer.

I know it's not a big deal to click on whatever page one wants to read once one has loaded a split thread, but of course that means waiting for the desired page to load. I'm just asking which page of a Part 1 thread most people would want to see first when they're linked from Part 2, and what the Mudcat protocol should be.

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 11:19 PM

Joe, that will be GREAT!

~S~

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 10:07 PM

Well, actually, Amos, that might be a case where a "part 2" might make sense. If it's making a second part just to keep a thread from getting over-long, don't do it. If it makes editorial and logical sense to start a second chapter with a variation in the name, maybe that makes sense.

The novel names of some of the "part 2" threads are fun - and sometimes they can help us remember and find memorable parts.
In those cases where there is a "part 2," you may want to ask me or Pene to close part 1, so the progression continues and we don't have people posting to both parts. I'm going to close and index most of the early parts of continued threads.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 07:36 PM

Dang! I gotta throw out that whole list of colorful titles I was going to use to continue the Mudcat CD thread! :>)

A

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 07:34 PM

No, we don't need "Part 2" continuations any more. The scenario Amos suggests is not likely to cause a huge problem, so I think we're better off not starting continuation threads.
If I see short continuation threads, I will generally delete them and move their messages into the earlier thread. I won't bother if the continuation thread is long.
Now, I realize that there may be times when a "part 2" is reasonable, but I think that should be the exception, not the rule.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 07:29 PM

We don't have to but, at present, when other servers are down the one IP number that works still uses the old page format, without the thread-splitting. Not sure what the plan is for that -- Jeff?

A

--- It will go away soon. ---
---Jeff

Subject: RE: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 07:27 PM

No

Spaw

Subject: Tech: Do we still need 'Part 2' threads?
From: Marion
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 07:23 PM

Hi all. Now that the longer threads automatically break into pages, are we still supposed to start sequel threads after 100 posts?

Marion