Should there be a thread limiter set in place...?

[robsterman1]

Perhaps it should be up to the site admin to put the limit on thread size. A reasonable limit such as 1000 replies before thread locks should be considered as sometimes very large threads can't be opened.

[Stevonez]

Originally Posted by dar512

The limit should be on quality, not quantity. And since software is not yet capable of making that distinction, we rely on the judgement of the posters. With the fallback being UT - when posters show no discernable judgement.

I happen to agree with that... that's also why I used the technology set in place to form the question I asked... as others have said if there was a limit to how many threads one could make in say a weeks time... it would at least cut down on the number of ill formed or wasted space that few or any would even reply to... having said all that... some of these types of threads have done quite well for theirselves it would seem...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by robsterman1

as sometimes very large threads can't be opened.

I don't think that's a problem here.

[robsterman1]

Thanks, Happy Monkey...some boards with very large threads (particularly ones that put all replies on one humongous page) threads can't be opened. Looks like here that is not a problem

[Torrere]

Originally Posted by dar512

The limit should be on quality, not quantity.

What would be a good limit on quality? How about, say, no more than 10 minutes of thought and writing per post?

[Kagen4o4]

do i have to post the video on posting rules again? it seems we have a few "little Billy"'s here.

ive grown to just avoid threads with titles i couldnt give a flying fuck about. eg "is it better to ban someone from a message board?" or "American Idol - Country week" or even "Stevebsjb"

just pass over the crap and get into the good shit