More Threads Is Better

[jmjm530]

More threads potentially make for easier access to information, not more difficult access.  

With more threads, topics can be quickly scanned on the page, without having to unwind threads to see what exactly has been posted. More threads means that threads no longer have to be "hijacked" with two, three, four or more unrelated topics. More threads means that new visitors will post their concerns more readily since they probably don't understand that it's OK to post in someone else's thread.

And pertinent to the previous closed thread, more threads mean that if you aren't interested in a particular thread -- or somehow find it frivilous -- you can simply ignore the thread rather than go through what happend and has happened before.  

I don't see the problem so much as too many threads, but the fact that many here are used to the old system and therefore don't open their own threads when they have a topic of interest. By not opening their own thread, i.e. hijacking a thread, they perpetuate the same problem tehy object to by making it harder to sift through a single thread for multiple subject topics.

This doesn't mean that folks should open a thread for every whim or thought -- that kind of stuff could probably be put into someone else's thread or into one of the many fun threads that are opened to keep our spirits up. But if someone has a question or a topic they think should be discussed -- then by all means open a thread. Just like I did. Easier for those interested to respond and easy for those not interested to ignore...

TO BE CONTINUED

[new-sojourn]

Who appointed you sheriff?  People use this forum as they see fit--not according to Jim!

If you're new, you read everything.  If you're supremely bored, apparently, you rule the forum.

Personally, i think you post more and post more b.s. than all the rest of us together.

If you want your own forum, go creat one like 'Out of Bounds' and then everyone will play by your rules.

I'm tired of your constant attempts to hijack threads, topics and now the forum!

There's always one every couple of months.  I guess this time its you.

[sfbaygirl]

Why do you have to be so negative? I am glad he brought up the topic and has so much information. If you don't like it, why don't you skip his threads and posts? Many of us here apprieciate Jim and all the knowledge he has.

[jmjm530]

Interesting you didn't criticize those that said the old system was better, i.e. less threads than now. I'm just offering my opinion here like they offered their opinion. Both opinions are valid. It seems every time you post lately it's something negative and a personal attack. Go attack someone else. I won't respond to any more of your posts.

-- Jim

[Penelope1911]

Love and prayer to you Jim for your cold.

[Kalio1]

My only commennt on the thread issue is I feel some thought should go into the titles and they should be titled precisely so when you try to search a topic they will come up.
Whe I was new here, that was helpful. If the title doesn't describe the thread content, the info gets lost and you can't access it.

[jmjm530]

Kalio,

I agree. This is a problem with many discussion groups.


Chev,

My old email address is closed and I decided some time ago that I'd prefer to keep all my Hep C correspondences limited to online.

To let you know, I do appreciate your viewpoint regarding less rather than more threads, but given a lot of talking lately how it's not working, I thought it might work better if the concept was expanded so that threads had less topics in it.

Would it really work in practice? I have no idea. Beyond that, I have no interest now in "behind the scenes" stuff but I do thank you for alerting me.

I'm sure your suggestions to this board are based on more information than I may have and all the best in your efforts of making this a better place.  

I know you said "don't answer here" but I didn't want you to think you were either snubbed or unappreciated. Take care.

-- Jim