After how many posts does a thread become unreadable?

[StetsTerhune]

I'm trying to come up with a personal rule on what not to click on.

It seems like somewhere in the 40-80 range of posts, every thread devolves into intractable, arcane discussions. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm sure people are having fun arguing about the precise meaning of the word "rich,"  but it's hell to read for everyone else.

So what is the number of posts that I should see on a topic and not bother clicking? I'm thinking 50.

Obviously this would excluding topics that are soliciting stories or polling answers. Overheard at work, etc.

[arebelspy]

It depends on the topic.

I've missed some good topics because I didn't click because they were so long, and only found out later.

Many others I ignore based on title, and then have to go in and moderate, and am glad I was ignoring it.

Other topics don't interest me.

There are journals I'd like to read, but they're just too long to start now (it's nice sometimes when people start fresh, so you can stop following if you don't want to anymore, or start if you wanted to but it was too long).

So a blanket "avoid over X posts" is silly, to me. It very much depends.

It's easy enough to close a topic you don't care about or where a thread derails. Just click the X. ;)

[brooklynguy]

I don't follow your logic.  Even assuming for the sake of argument that your premise is true, shouldn't you still click on long threads but just stop reading after the first 40-80 posts?

In any event, I don't agree with the premise that long threads become "hell to read" for everyone not actively participating in the discussion, unless you expand your list of exceptions so broadly that they swallow the rule.  Some threads become exceptionally long because they become the central clearing house for discussion on a specific topic (like the "how bad is it for your FI date to pay off your mortgage?" thread), which, in my view, is preferable to having the discussion fragmented and disjointed across multiple threads.  Some threads become exceptionally long because new events and new perspectives keep trickling into the discussion (like the "robots and their impact on the future" thread).  Generally speaking, every exceptionally long thread becomes exceptionally long because, for one reason or another, the momentum of the discussion never dies down, which usually means either the discussion is productive (in which case it is worthwhile reading) or the discussion is blatantly nonproductive (in which case it usually gets locked by the moderators).

[GuitarStv]

I've seen some posts that were unreadable from the original comment on. . .

[justajane]

Generally speaking, every exceptionally long thread becomes exceptionally long because, for one reason or another, the momentum of the discussion never dies down, which usually means either the discussion is productive (in which case it is worthwhile reading) or the discussion is blatantly nonproductive (in which case it usually gets locked by the moderators).

That's how I feel. Long threads are my favorite threads. But then I like splitting hairs. If that's not your thing, then it's probably best to avoid them.

My least favorite part about long threads is when people don't abbreviation prior quotes in any way. Then it just gets damned hard to read.

[brooklynguy]

My least favorite part about long threads is when people don't abbreviation prior quotes in any way. Then it just gets damned hard to read.

Yes, needlessly duplicating entire posting histories through quotation (which often ends up exponentially expanding thread lengths with Russian nesting dolls of embedded quotes) is a pet peeve of mine too.  But you need to be careful in your abbreviation of prior quotes, lest you run the risk of being accused of intending to obfuscate through selective quotation.

[elaine amj]

When the discussion is no longer interesting to me. It's pretty easy to stop reading whenever it suits me and move on to something else.

I usually like longer threads but if the discussion goes on and on about things that no longer interests me, i bow out. Or if the arguing goes around endlessly in circles. That said - I still sometimes can't resist reading/commenting :)

Sometimes, there are endlessly long threads that remain endlessly interesting. There was one on another forum that was several years old by the time I discovered it. It went on and on and on and on for hours and I was literally ROFL'ing from the comments. I even woke my husband up because I was laughing so hard. I was sorry when the thread finally ended.

[StetsTerhune]

My least favorite part about long threads is when people don't abbreviation prior quotes in any way. Then it just gets damned hard to read.

Yes, needlessly duplicating entire posting histories through quotation (which often ends up exponentially expanding thread lengths with Russian nesting dolls of embedded quotes) is a pet peeve of mine too.  But you need to be careful in your abbreviation of prior quotes, lest you run the risk of being accused of intending to obfuscate through selective quotation.

I actually kind of like the Russian nesting dolls sometimes. When thread split off and have 5 different conversations happening at the same time it can be very difficult to follow exactly who's respond to who responding to who responding to whom, in which case it can be really nice to have the whole subconversation quoted each time.

And, yup, that's me splitting hairs on a thread that I started complain about arcane discussions.  A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

[justajane]

That's true. You can more easily be accused of obfuscating or pulling something out of context if you don't quote the entire exchange. Like in this post, sometimes I don't quote the prior exchange at all, since right now there are only a few people in the thread thus far.

So, StetsTerhune, at what point are you going to bow out of your own thread? ;) I have to admit there is only once that I have done that in a thread I started myself, and that was because I was just done. I had gotten the advice I needed, the situation in my real life was over anyway, and someone was annoying me. So I said my thank yous to everyone who helped and haven't commented again. Once every few weeks, the "debate" over my original post continues and I just think, "Oh, no, not THAT again." But I don't think it's useful for the OP to lock a thread, even though I understand why some people do.

This is somewhat related - I have found comment sections of major newspaper articles to be unreadable -- not only because many of the commenters are just not that intelligent and clearly don't know how to argue -- but also because people get into these side arguments that have nothing to do with the article. Sometimes I have to scroll through 100s of replies to even get to the next comment. Slate comes to mind. It's maddening. I know comments can't necessarily be moderated but too many people are commenting these days with dumb banter to even make it worth my while.

[big_slacker]

What's the rich guy out of touch thread at right now? Cause I've abandoned ship and I was part of the reason it spiraled out of control, lol!

I don't think there is any set number of posts but rather whether it's degenerated into circular arguments that become too hard to follow. You could have a forked rather than linear discussion tree for forum software so people could continue arguing a definition, but then the main discussion would end up referencing that and it would probably be worse.

Decide for yourself what's reasonable, it's your free time after all. :)

[brooklynguy]

Yes, needlessly duplicating entire posting histories through quotation (which often ends up exponentially expanding thread lengths with Russian nesting dolls of embedded quotes) is a pet peeve of mine too.  But you need to be careful in your abbreviation of prior quotes, lest you run the risk of being accused of intending to obfuscate through selective quotation.

I actually kind of like the Russian nesting dolls sometimes. When thread split off and have 5 different conversations happening at the same time it can be very difficult to follow exactly who's respond to who responding to who responding to whom, in which case it can be really nice to have the whole subconversation quoted each time.

I agree -- when nesting quotes facilitates readability, it is not done "needlessly."

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

I like that.  And on that note, seeing as how this thread has now reached the ten-post mark, it's time for me to bow out.  Cheerio!

[StetsTerhune]

So, StetsTerhune, at what point are you going to bow out of your own thread? ;) I have to admit there is only once that I have done that in a thread I started myself, and that was because I was just done. I had gotten the advice I needed, the situation in my real life was over anyway, and someone was annoying me. So I said my thank yous to everyone who helped and haven't commented again. Once every few weeks, the "debate" over my original post continues and I just think, "Oh, no, not THAT again." But I don't think it's useful for the OP to lock a thread, even though I understand why some people do.

Yeah I definitely have done that. Topics (even those I started) take off on some unpredictable tangent and become uninteresting to me. No reason to lock it or anything, but I've stopped looking closely at things for sure.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

I like that.  And on that note, seeing as how this thread has now reached the ten-post mark, it's time for me to bow out.  Cheerio!

It's Emerson, just to be clear that I'm not taking credit for that one.