Talk

Advanced search

Idea for Thread Title Lists (naming who started them)

(82 Posts)
hub2dee Sat 11-Jun-05 09:26:39

In Active Convos, for example, you see long lists of thread titles. Sometimes I think it would be useful to see who created them before I have a look. (We can currently only see who the last poster was).

Does anyone think it would be useful to have the name of the person who started the thread in brackets next to it, or would it be cliquey / irrelevant / annoying ?

For example:

Topic Area: Thread Title (Name of Thread Creator) - Number of posts. Last poster, Time and Date Stamp.

I'd be interested in any comments.

starlover Sat 11-Jun-05 09:27:58

yeah, i would like that! I did think about this the other day... can't remember why though

lemonice Sat 11-Jun-05 09:32:38

I don't like this idea at all, because it implies that it isn't the thread that is important it's the poster and I think that it would be a shame to go down that route..I even don't like the last poster name we now have on the threads...

lemonice Sat 11-Jun-05 09:47:42

If people wanted to they could do it now just begin a thread From or By lemonice..yeeeugh

Louise1980 Sat 11-Jun-05 09:50:11

I agree with lemonice. It should be optional as it is now. I do however like being able to see who has posted last. It just lets me know if there has been any posts since my last one. Works great on things like word association!

cliquemeister Sat 11-Jun-05 09:50:51

sounds cliquey hub

hub2dee Sat 11-Jun-05 09:52:28

Hi lemonice,

I understand your point, but IMHO sometimes it is useful to see who started it. (Though I admit this would be because of reasons of 'looking out for a friend' IYSWIM)...

I think this is different from being cliquey (perhaps only just ) but if someone I know / recognise / like / respect has started something, I might be more inclined to check it out than if it were from A N Other.

Maybe that's a terrible thing to do ?

hub2dee Sat 11-Jun-05 09:53:20

I deffo wouldn't read anything you started, cm.

Big

Louise1980 Sat 11-Jun-05 09:53:29

Hub if you want to see thready friends started why not just do a search of their name?

lemonice Sat 11-Jun-05 09:54:37

I think it is a bit of a poor show Hub because it rather closes the door on meeting other people or even respecting that others might be interesting to hear or respond to ..but each to his own (some more so than others)!!

hub2dee Sat 11-Jun-05 09:57:39

Hi Louise1980, yeah, sometimes I do that, but it takes a 'special effort' IYSWIM, and lots of clicks, and I wondered what others thought about having it stuck in brackets after the thread title...

From an Information Architecture pov, this info would remain fixed (thus stale) while last poster changes until the thread dies, so maybe the idea is pants, but I'm still intrigued as to what people think about this.

(I deffo don't have strong view on this... more a 'just wondering' feeling)

Twiglett Sat 11-Jun-05 09:58:01

you know that's me don't you hub <big sloppy kiss>

hub2dee Sat 11-Jun-05 10:03:48

lemonice - I don't think it closes doors at all... each person would still have the ability to read any thread they wished at all... it's just they'd have some extra info IYSWIM.

I read stuff by anyone and everyone. I doubt that would change, but if I noticed an interesting topic, by someone I felt close to, I'd be more inclined to check it out - amongst a list of say 200 tempting threads - than to maybe look at something else (though of course I'd spend the next x hours surfing the rest of things)...

People maybe even do this to an extent already (looking at last poster name etc.) to see who is around at a given moment and what they're contributing to.

Twig: Oh yes indeedy marmitey one. Ewwwww a wet kiss on the cheek just like an old rellie.



PS - Twig: Hope you've found madam's other eye.

roisin Sat 11-Jun-05 10:07:42

I think I agree with you Hub2dee, but I don't know if that's me being cliquey, and I shouldn't do!

There are certain topics I don't particularly check out, as I have little knowledge of - for instance - depression or marriage breakdown. But if it's someone I "know", then I would want to check it out. But often I miss them.

ScummyMummy Sat 11-Jun-05 10:15:08

I know what you mean, Roisin. I kind of guiltily agree with hub2dee too. I find mumsnet too huge to pick out threads from cyberfriends I know, love, admire or find interesting or all of the above. I can see how people might think it's not very inclusive to go that route but would still like to do it!

Twiglett Sat 11-Jun-05 10:15:52

wasn't she holding it up in the picture

michellemcmanus Sat 11-Jun-05 10:17:34

no a bad idea

JoolsToo Sat 11-Jun-05 10:18:34

yes this what a lot of other forums have.

I suggested a while back that at least the original post to be always at the top (like ads or member profiles) so yes I concur

hub2dee Sat 11-Jun-05 10:25:26

I don't think there's anything wrong with 'recognising' people you've been chatting with, or wanting to chat with them more again. It's part of human psychology really.

I also don't think it is divisive or would adversely impact newbies etc. - I don't ignore threads just because I don't recognise a name and I doubt it would have that sort of impact, TBH.

(Although I accept that I've already suggested that possibly given a choice of 200 threads with one I recognise from someone I 'know' and 199 random ones, and the thread titles are all equally gripping / boring I might go first to the thread started by someone I know. )

Twig: I'm gonna have a baby soon. My own little bean. Might have to share her with the wife occasionally... can't be doing with that milk from chest thing.

Twiglett Sat 11-Jun-05 11:59:28

suppose you could do that

suppose I posted a thread and got 0 responses

would I think, oh nobody's around who knows or would I think nobody likes me

think it would depend where I was in my monthly cycle .. luckily I'm not prone to paranoia nor depression, but could imagine that those who are will always think they get no responses because they are not liked, we already get countless 'why won't anyone talk to me' threads from relative newcomers think this would make it worse .. possibly

but I'm an old dog

snafu Sat 11-Jun-05 12:02:35

Would definitely induce paranoia in some

hub2dee Sat 11-Jun-05 12:31:44

TBH, it is clear that sometimes new threads get little or no posts.

So, this situation exists 'already' IYSWIM. Paranoia is already out there.

Not sure putting their name next to a thread would make a difference - in fact people might recognise the name as 'new' or unknown and say hi.

Anyways, just wondering, as I said... this is not printed large in my manifesto.

Twiglett Sat 11-Jun-05 12:32:58

you have a manifesto .. snurk

if I was at mumsnet towers I would be watching out for a coup

nightowl Sat 11-Jun-05 12:34:10

no i dont like it. some of the less well known people would get pushed out of active convos i reckon if people started going by name than looking to see how interesting to them the thread actually was. i dont use active conversations anyway, i use last hour or last day and it shows you the last few posts. i always see if a thread interests me or not by looking at that (and you can usually see who the author is by that anyway)

SaintGeorge Sat 11-Jun-05 12:38:58

Agree with nightowl - and I use 'search since last searched' so that I don't miss anything. You can see each individual post that way so if it is a new thread you can see who started it.

At certain times of the day active convos is a waste of time anyway - a thread that hasn't been posted on for an hour or more could hardly be described as active.

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: