What's For Dinner - How to deal with older discussions
I'm hoping to get the attention of some of the regular contributors to What's For Dinner threads, since I have been doing some thinking about how to deal with older discussions.
At the moment, the way they are being dealt with is to put the word [OLD] at the end of them. I am curious about why we are doing this, and how important it is?
I'm guessing that the reason for it is because we want a way for users to post in the current discussion, and not in last week's or the week before....but I'm wondering if there's a way to do this without adding this word [OLD] to an already-long title.
I have some ideas, but I'm hoping first to get a sense of the history behind it, and what users are really trying to do.
The [old] suffix is rather elegant: It tells posters that a new thread has been started after 400 entries or so; grants closure to old posts; and promises a bright new day for regulars as well as offering a less intimidating environment for rookies to chime in.
Do you feel the current methodology is broken?
re: steve h.
I have to agree with steve. People can still post on the [OLD] thread if that's what they have in their feed and want to respond to posts (as I just did to steve's dinner last night, as I wasn't online to do so then), but then can find the new one by looking for the post/link at the bottom to start afresh.
I think it's helpful so that you start to post a new thread although I haven't noticed that it prevents people from still commenting on the old thread so it seems to work to round it out while starting a new thread.
To my mind, "OLD" is an alert to folks to let them know a newer thread exists.
By no means is it meant to discourage folks from carrying on with existing dinner conversations. The idea is to alert folks who want to post about new meals to do so on the most current thread.
At a certain point threads just get too long to continue, especially in light of the fact that we know conversations will continue (sometimes long after we've moved on). The current threshold is approx 400 posts I believe.
Dave you say you're wondering "if there's a way to do this without adding this word [OLD] to an already-long title." In my view, 3 letters aren't a big deal so if that's the issue, I'd say, if it ain't broke...don't fix it. I think Shakespeare said that, didn't he?
Breadcrumbs said what I was basically going to say. The term [OLD] is succinct and to the point. If it ain't broke….
As a poster who often finds that a couple days may go by between postings the [OLD] is a great way to let me know a new thread has started. Some days I have the time to go back and peruse the old threads, others I don't. Having a quick way to see that a new conversation has started so I can jump right in very beneficial.
Of course one option is make WFD its own category and we could house the numerical posts in one place. However that said unless, someone is paying close attention to those numbers (ala room 222) I can still see people posting to old threads if/when they resurface.
I agree with all the above posters - Sometimes when a thread gets too long, it's hard to search for what you are looking for. I still post to old threads if it is relevant, otherwise I'd rather post to a newer thread. When it gets to more than 400, it's harder to load (some of us have slower computers you know, unless you are willing to send me a new one :-D ). The word [Old] doesn't bother me a bit and just makes me look for the latest thread. Just my 2 cents.
What's for Dinner This week - Week of x/x/xx
I really don't add much in the way of weekly content but I read these threads several times a week. Each is chock full of helpful tips and really inspiring home menus. A good deal of humor too!
If a timeline instead of the word OLD was included in the subject line I'd remember which thread I left off on quickly.