Advanced search

Very long threads - Give us your opinion

(70 Posts)
tech (MNHQ) Fri 02-Jun-06 20:22:01

Recently, some threads have been getting massive, around 1,000 messages in some cases - especially in areas like the "Ante-natal clubs" topic where people tend to start a "due in October" thread and then everyone posts on that same one. This is fine and dandy, but we we were wondering whether there would be any interest in our splitting larger threads, so that when you first click into it you see the most recent 20 or 50 messages in the thread for example, then you can click little links at the top and bottom to page forward and back within the thread.

There are two main advantages to doing this. The first is that if you are following an active thread and you are refreshing, you'd get a faster page that's quicker to load rather than having to load the whole lot every time. The second escapes me for the moment, but I'm sure there was one. Oh yes. It would put less of a strain on our tech equipment - as serving up each page is less of a burden - so the whole site would go faster.

We would probably retain a link on each page to do "all on one page" - for those times when you want to print a whole thread or read a whole thread in one go.

If people aren't sure what I mean, let me know (on this thread) and I'll put up a mock-up that you can look at to see what I mean. Maybe I'll pick a big thread and do that anyway with a copy of the thread - in the interest of informed debate.

We wondered what people thought? At the moment we're just a-ponderin' and a-wonderin', so don't fear any sudden change.....

So, do you like the idea, hate it, couldn't care less? If we did do it, how many messages per page do you think would be appropriate? 10, 20, 50, 100? Would you like to be able to choose a personal page size? Stuff like that. We'd be interested to hear your opinions over the next couple of weeks before we make any decisions.


LadyCodofCOdford Fri 02-Jun-06 20:23:56

i aht long threads tbh
so yes
but cna i have a " nuke" button for boring ones?

i htink 30 messages are fine

FrannyandZooey Fri 02-Jun-06 20:25:15

I know what you mean, other sites do this and it is ok. I would not really mind, if there is an advantage to you on the tech side. However could we have at least 100 messages per page, or be able to set our own, please? I am a fast reader and less than that is really irritating as you can't skim quickly enough IME.

Thanks for asking us first and not just doing it

Twiglett Fri 02-Jun-06 20:25:25

in the nicest possible way .. I couldn't care less

go for it if it relieves the strain .. I'd say 50 or 100 messages

SenoraPostrophe Fri 02-Jun-06 20:26:00

yes, paginate. At least 30 messages to a page though.

also can't you delete all nonsensical messages to save download times too? (sorry, cod )

WigWamBam Fri 02-Jun-06 20:26:22

One of the things I hate on some other sites is that they split the threads and you have to click on links to get to the next bit ... I really like the fact that here you get the whole thread in one go without having to move on to other pages or other links.

NotQuiteCockney Fri 02-Jun-06 20:28:52

I think this is a good idea. Maybe 50? Personal page size would be good.

Oh, the way UBB does this, is to split it automatically at some number, and then you see page numbers beside the thread titles. Here . That's quite sweet, as you can decide which page of the thread to start with.

Other personal preferences that would be good:
- default to oldest message first/newest message first, so I don't have to flip everything. (even with oldest message first, better to have the most recent page of thread display on first clicking.)
- could the favourites we can store be used as a filter on active messages? (as in, another link in the row of active message options: favourite topics) This would be very nice.

emkana Fri 02-Jun-06 20:28:58

I wouldn't mind, but I agree that there should be 100 messages per page - sometimes messages are very short as well and you can get through a long thread very quickly.

LadyTophamHatt Fri 02-Jun-06 20:30:31

I was amazed to see my old ante natel thread from 2003 with only 500 odd messages the other day, the thread was started in jan2003 and finished in oct2003, so 10 months and 500 odd posts.
My ante natal thread now has about 500 or more already and it was only started in may!!!

Fell free to do what ever you need tech.

(thank you so much for finding that 2003 thread Tech....did I tell you that i love you)

FlameBoo Fri 02-Jun-06 20:33:26


We change the antenatal/postnatal threads when they get too long, but towards the end, before we change, it is a nightmare for me to add messages (DH downloads piles of cr*p constantly and makes it all run slow, so replying to a huge thread takes even longer).

tigermoth Fri 02-Jun-06 20:37:36

whatever makes life easier for mumsnet techs, while making access easy for posters.

Just throwing this in - any chance of having a way of finding the 50 most busy threads at any given time - so you can see the hot topics at a glance?

Avalon Fri 02-Jun-06 20:48:14

I like the long threads . Time to settle down with a cup of tea...

If you are going to split them, then at least 100 messages per page.

Avalon Fri 02-Jun-06 20:50:05


SaintGeorge Fri 02-Jun-06 21:04:55

tigermoth - the hot topics as such tend to be the ones with the most recent posts so 'all topics' at the top of the page does that.

SaintGeorge Fri 02-Jun-06 21:07:05

Agree with WWB by the way in that I like MN for having the whole convo available. I can handle paginated as long as it doesn't break too short, so maybe 40-50+ or user preference.

HarpsichordCarrier Fri 02-Jun-06 21:09:31

hmmmm, prefer NOT actually but definitely not less than 100 messages
actually more like 200....
and would like to be able to search down......
or choose my own size, ideally......

SecurMummy Fri 02-Jun-06 21:11:44

I think it is fine if it makes it easier, but like the idea of at least 100 per page and also allowing to put it back onto one page if you like.

Also like the idea of selecting, so you can have it automatically all on one page or at 100 etc etc.

SoupDragon Fri 02-Jun-06 21:12:28

I'd prefer not...

Rather than splitting it by default and having a "show everything" how about the opposite which is "split into 100s per page"

hulababy Fri 02-Jun-06 21:16:22

Long threads not a problem here, but can imagine they are a nightmare for those not on broadband. So splitting would probably make it easier. Like idea of people able to chose to opt for all on one page too.

Cadmum Fri 02-Jun-06 21:16:29

I'm with WWB unfortunately... I love the fact that I can read the whole thread. It is much easier to catch up after an absence.

PanicPants Fri 02-Jun-06 21:29:16

I agree with WWB!

TheInvisibleFillyjonk Fri 02-Jun-06 21:35:37

good idea but agree we should be able to set number of messages for ourselves.

I think we have a nuke button. On IE its the green back arrow, below "file".

NotQuiteCockney Fri 02-Jun-06 21:38:07

If we default to "show everything" then people on slow links are stuffed.

Californifrau Fri 02-Jun-06 21:39:11

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Californifrau Fri 02-Jun-06 21:40:32

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: