I think lowering the cap is a good idea. As annoying as it is when I think there's a page that needs attention now oh my god and I can't make a TRS thread for it, this way it would be easier to figure out what needs to be resolved to get the stale threads locked. As it is now, you have to sort through so many different threads to figure out which ones you'd be interested in enough to help resolve. Fewer threads in general would make it easier to concentrate on the smaller number of stale threads.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.I think we have to find out the number X of threads that get the most activity. We don't need TRS to be cluttered up with a lot of stale threads that don't help the wiki anyhow, but we shouldn't pick a random number to set the limit with.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanA lower random number is better than leaving it the way it is. No thread can keep anybody's attention because they're constantly swamped by new threads.
And this massive cut made it worse. Now instead of 120 stale threads at the bottom, we have 20+ new threads at the top, and everything that was active is falling off the page. Add in 100 more over the next couple days, and most of what was being worked on last week will become stale and end up cut.
This is a horrible way to run the TRS. It almost prevents anything from being finished or accomplished.
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.By the way, is bumping and simultaneously requesting clocks on stale threads acceptable, if you don't bump too many things at once?
About lowering the cap; I think we need to find out which number X of threads get the most attention and drop the cap to that.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
We'll have time to do that after the limit is dropped to 350. Better to do that first, before the entire 1st page consists of 120 new threads and everything that was active gets thrown to the bottom or right off the page.
If we let that happen the TRS will be worse off than it was before the giant robo-cut.
edited 22nd Mar '12 8:58:36 AM by ArcadesSabboth
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.I'd rather we lower the cap systematically instead of drastically. Currently, we have 398 threads, so let's drop the cap to 400 and see how it goes.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerSo lower it to 400, then wait a while, then lower it further.
Just please, please Fast Eddie, lower it. Don't let the first page become 90% new threads. That's the equivalent of bumping 120 dead threads simultaneously. It kills everything that used to be active.
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.Lowering the cap to a number higher than the amount of open threads will result in nothing. Increasing it to a number lower than the current amount of open threads will result in some pressue to actually go and hunt down the old forgotten threads.
Right now we have about 20 threads marked pending final action, about 30 threads are older than one year, more than I am willing to count are older than 100 days. And this is after we cut such an high amount of "dead" threads.
If no one is interested in working on those, then reopening them won't do much good. Most of them simply fell off the radar due to the lack of interest.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerLet's first work out some strategy to deal with backlogs before we reopen closed threads. I think there are several reasons for backlogging, but I'm not sure where to discuss that.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
No, not necessarily. That does happen, but many threads just fall off because no one cares. The threads on Squick
, What The Hell Hero
, DoubleStandard
and Sailor Fuku
although not locked by the bot, were only locked after they had remained stale for a really long time, and no one had bothered to holler for them or invest some time there. And there had been no decisions or crowners in those threads, just propositions about them, but put simply, there was not enough interest.
edited 22nd Mar '12 10:12:17 AM by lu127
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerBut part of the reason people don't care is because there are too many problems and too few people who care about working on problems. Or too few people who are willing to post to say that they think X isn't enough of a problem for the TRS, so the thread just gets no replies instead.
edited 22nd Mar '12 10:31:24 AM by ArcadesSabboth
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.Yes, but first we need a link to the page of the morgue in which they ended up. I still can't find them!

It is likely lower than that. The idea is to find the X threads that get the most posting activity so that we can find the cutoff for a lower thread cap.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman