I oppose it. We're once again losing sight of the reason for the cap and the purpose of the IP and TRS forums. The forums are here to serve the wiki; to deal with problems in wiki pages. Making the cap so low that only 100 pages can be being worked on at once simply so that there's no thread on the second page of the thread list is making the wiki serve the forum.
There's a thread watchlist function. Use it.
Engage your attention span.
Do the scutwork of actually repairing pages where the thread has reached a consensus.
Holler for a lock or a clock on threads that have stalled or have reached a consensus that there's no repair needed.
All of those would have a more beneficial effect than simply arbitrarily saying "Nope, there are 100 open threads, no more problems can be brought up."
edited 3rd Jan '12 9:14:37 AM by Madrugada
if the limit is going to be reduced then it needs to be reduced gradually. When the limit is reduced in huge chunks like it has been this creates a long period where you can't open up any new TRS threads (no mtter how urgent the issue) because of said limit.
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.I've been lax about it since my vacation in early December, but I'm making a point of trying to clock the last day's worth of threads at the end of IP's backlog. Since the Morgue was opened, doing so has helped bring the backlog down from somewhere in the low 500s to the high 380s as of the last time I checked, and that'll get whittled down some more when I get some time to lock the threads that the clock has already expired on. It's a slow process, but we're seeing results.
edited 3rd Jan '12 11:24:16 AM by troacctid
I think that having a smaller number being worked on at one time would allow those threads to be resolved faster, and make the whole TRS move quicker.
But I think it should stay at 500 for a while longer, because there are probably lots of folk waiting to bring something to TRS. I have two that I am waiting to bring in and several I've given up on repairing. The window when there are 500 threads and a new one can open seems to last about 1 second.
Eventually, I think it should be reduced gradually to 300.
edited 3rd Jan '12 11:56:21 AM by ArcadesSabboth
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.Could there be an automated queueing system or something set up? I've been trying to get a page into trs for a few months, but it is always closed. It would be helpful if there was a way you could flag a page, do a write up on the issue you think needs examined, and then queue it so that when the level drops the next in the queue automatically pops up (complete with its write up). It means that if you aren't a hard core TRS user you'd still have a way to get an issue in other than relying on dumb luck to hit the small gap where it is open.
I would support the lowering of the limit again though. A low limit with a high turnover is much better than a high limit but lots of stale threads. I think the biggest change would be to stop keeping stuff in the TRS until it gets the result certain users want. I've seen a few stale threads be kept, and not locked because they were getting the "wrong" result in crowners and being pushed for the "right"result before being locked. A result should be a result regardless of what result it is.
But most importantly, when a decision is reached, do the work to put it into effect. For a rename, that means moving the wicks and the subpages as well as the main page, and hollering for a mod to move the discussion. For a major rewrite or redefinition, either make a sandbox page for it if you don;t feel up to doing it yourself, or do the rewrite. For an IP thread, swap the images and leave the IP tag and link to the thread in the code.
Far more threads drag on open because the boring work isn't done after the decision is made than stay open because no decision was made at all.
edited 5th Feb '12 12:46:28 PM by Madrugada
If they had no consensus to act, then the people taking part felt that there was nothing that needed doing. If they agreed that something needed to be done, but couldn't come up with a decision on what precisely needed to be done, there was no agreement on what the problem was or how to fix it, and nothing can be done. "Not to decide is to decide." Holler for a lock.
edited 3rd Jan '12 12:52:42 PM by Madrugada
![]()
I'd say no. Discussion is stale, no consensus reached, is a result. Close it down and move on to the next issue would be my recommendation.
![]()
![]()
I'll admit I don't feel like I can holler for stalling, or people griefing any more. I feel I'd be more at risk of comeback than something being done. It has been made painfully obvious to me that my opinions aren't welcome in the TRS, and I know that I'm barely tolerated in the wiki at large. I don't want to get banned for dissent. I'm worried that I'll get hammered by the mods just for voicing concern in this post.
As for the putting the work in. I do, if I feel the right decision has been made. I'm not gonna oppose a decision once it has been made, or do anything stupid like vandalism, reverting, or any of the other antics some people do, but I won't get involved in a programme for change if I feel it was the wrong change. Let them as pushed for that be the ones to carry it out, if they feel that strongly. I've done the odd bit of clean up too. Most recently the Ambiguous Disorder wick checking and conversion, the spelling correction of transsexual as it was all over the wiki as "transexual" as well as the checking of its wicks most of which were wrong (I am not looking forward to going through all the wicks on transsexual, since I bet most of them are wrong too, but that is on my to-do list in the next month or so). Just everytime I make a change I feel I have to spend the next two days watching Ask The Tropers to see if anyone is going to report me or try to get me banned over it.
It's not like I've had any support on a change that I feel is important after all. I've been working on the conversion of the fanfic recs pages for more than a year now on and off. I get for that are people telling me I'm doing it wrong (note they don't bother doing anything themselves most of the time) or in a couple of cases going behind me and undoing the changes. Or a resounding silence when I ask for help.
Or of course, if I propose a change that makes the conversion easier and would get it done a lot quicker, I get told no. No help in getting them done note, but a firm no on making it easier to do. I mean come on, it's been well over a year now since the decision was taken. There are about five people doing it because it is such an editing intensive job (you need multiple tabs open to do it right), but because it isn't on the right people's grudge list it gets no attention or help.
edited 3rd Jan '12 1:19:38 PM by CrypticMirror
Now that the holidays are over and I have more time I'm doing a bunch of clean up in the TRS. Finishing up threads. Bumping others. Closing and locking those that have consensus to do nothing. Sorry about the slow down. The holidays were mad for me.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickThe holidays have been mad at me too.
I second Cryptic's suggestion for a TRS suggestion queue. Many times as I've edited I've encountered pages that really need help, but since I know I'll never be able to TRS them I just forget about what problem they have, or leave a note in a Discussion page, and move on. Having a Suggestions Box of issues that users consider in need of the TRS would be a good thing. It would also be a good resource for editors who see a problem but don't feel confident that they have the time or knowledge required to oversee a TRS thread, description rewrite, and cleanup. I'm neutral on making it automatically feed into the TRS, but that would sure make it possible for me to bring up some problems I've seen without refreshing the "start a conversation" page perpetually all day long.
Other than that, I support clocking and closing threads that are near the top of the TRS and stagnating, but not for those that stagnated because they fell onto the 2nd or 3rd page or whatever. Those should get a bump instead of just closing them. Fact is, no matter how much we all care about the threads we start, we can't keep all 501 threads in the forefront of the consciousness of ever forumer. That's why threads get forgotten: there are too many to focus on all of them at once.
edited 3rd Jan '12 3:55:34 PM by ArcadesSabboth
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.- The backlog is expanding because people are opening new threads faster than they're resolving old ones
- Capping the number of allowed threads prevents people from opening more than they close.
- People will close more threads to make room for new ones.
- Threads will be resolved faster since people are making an effort to close more threads.
This works, but only to a point. Once the number of threads is near the cap, the game becomes "sneak a new thread in during the brief period of time that the number of threads dips below the cap" rather than "continue moving through the backlog of old threads". This is true regardless of what the cap is. If the cap is 500, then the number of threads will hover around 500. If the cap is 100, then it will hover around 100. The only lower bound there is how many threads are actively being worked on at once — and I think that number is less than 100, given how active threads rarely move off the front page (ie, the top 100 threads) of the forum.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I think Willbyr and shima have done much much more to reduce the back log than the upper limit.
Fight smart, not fair.No. Missing supertrope syndrome is an especially common cause of issues that'll never go away.
Yeah, unwritten rule number one: follow all the unwritten procedures. - CamacanI sometimes feel like, while my time is taken up doing the grunt work on one project, then
1. That thread will fall off the front page while everybody else ignores it and I have nothing to say except status updates.
2. People may resent me mentioning any other problems I find since I won't have the time to address those myself.
Not that that's stopping me, I'm just sayin'.
Plus, doing grunt work requires understanding how to do it. I've learned a lot about editing in fairly short order, but there's still quite a lot I feel totally unqualified to help with, even if I wasn't busy with The Oldest Ones in the Book.
edited 3rd Jan '12 8:04:43 PM by ArcadesSabboth
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.

Both TRS and IP are going steady at their current thread count; the amount of new issues brought in is more or less the same as the amount of issues closed and resolved.
However, both still have a quagmire of several hundred stale threads at the bottom, that simply fall off everybody's radar. So, I would suggest reducing their thread limit again. I think that both forums should gradually move to a thread limit of 100, so that all issues would fit on one place and not suffer from neglect.