Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

Flip

1 2 3

MNHQ

Very long threads - Give us your opinion

69 replies

tech · 02/06/2006 20:22

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.

Regards,
Tech

OP posts:

flutterbee · 03/06/2006 07:38

Ooh yes smaller threads,
and can we have tickers,
and pics next to our names,
and big bouncing moving emoticons,
and a list to see who is on line,
and a number next to your name to show how many time you have posted
and call people different things depending on how much they have posted (just so we can really tell who the newbies are and pick on them so no one feels left out)
and I'm sure I can think of lots of other really annoying things for you to do

On a serious note I don't mind what you do as I'm not on dial up so it has no effect on me but if it goes on I would reccomend at least 100 per page as most of the time the only message people write is PARP!!!!!!!!!!

bloss · 03/06/2006 08:13

Got it in one, flutterbee! Can't stand the fussiness of other sites. Not one that I know of has the 'clean' look and feel of MN.

ghosty · 03/06/2006 08:20

I like the cleanness of MN too BUT I avoid threads that are longer than 100 posts. Especially the 'debatey' or contraversial ones. I am always the last at the party (because I log on when everyone has gone to bed in the UK) by which time it takes me hours to read it all up and then if I contribute I tend to kill the thread anyway because the next morning there is something else being the 'thread of the moment'.
I do read up on interesting threads during my day in NZ.
So really it makes no difference to me really ... although I may read more of the longer threads if they were broken up.

SoupDragon · 03/06/2006 08:23

Nooo, I hate the idea of having to start a new thread afer a number of posts. It'll be all disjointed and very irritating.

blueteddy · 03/06/2006 08:25

No, I think you should leave it as it is.

Snafu · 03/06/2006 08:26

Don't mind pagination but no fewer than 100 messages per page, please, and a 'read all' option as well for those of us who are scared of change

zippitippitoes · 03/06/2006 08:26

I prefer scrolling but then it's only the controversial ones probably that I go on..never the ante natal ones anyway...I thought people started those again when they got big, if not they could do.

If it does change i would prefer set your own or 100/200 posts I hate having to look for where I was on different pages and if you are having a discussion and want to check on what another poster actually said earlier it will be a pita going to paginated pages and searching whereas now you can just scan through. I doubt it matters on the nate natal threads because presumable people don't check back to see how someone felt 700 posts earlier. Do they ?

madamechocolat · 03/06/2006 08:49

Sounds good to me, tech - especially if there is the show all option.

eenywifemum · 03/06/2006 23:03

I think splitting the threads is an ok idea as long as you have the option to show the whole thread and there are no fewer than 100 messages per page.

One thing I like about mumsnet is it is not too complicated to understand what is what so I wouldnt add more than you have to - keep it simple!

Charlene1 · 04/06/2006 15:32

I'd like to see a "back to top" or "go to start" link

WideWebWitch · 04/06/2006 15:36

I really dislike sites where you have to scroll through the pages to read a whole thread, I like this much better. Sorry.

arfishymeau · 05/06/2006 11:08

I don't like threads being split, but when I was travelling & surfing from the comfort of my hotel bathroom (DD asleep in the room), using my trusty old modem, it would have been very helpful.

So, my vote is to have it as an option that you can choose in your user settings.

DumbledoresGirl · 05/06/2006 11:15

Only read the OP and then Cod's first contribution - as funny as always!

I don't mind about the length of threads as they don't take long to load normally, but I am happy to go along with any decision here.

I would like a nuke button too, mainly to get rid of the boring threads that I have contributed to and then don't wish to see in "threads I am on" for the next 72 hours.

charliecat · 05/06/2006 11:18

I like it the way it is, trying to find a certain page is a pain in the arse.

spacedonkey · 05/06/2006 11:26

Agree with the others who have said it would be fine as an option (e.g. View All/View 25/50/100 messages per page). I like the fact that you can load the whole thread and then use the browser's "Find" facility to search for something specific.

JessaJam · 05/06/2006 11:59

but...especially for those contraversial or 'hot' threads...if the OP is stuck in 'another' thread then you lose the context totally...plus how irritating when someone posts something like " agree thingummybob" or "oojamaflip what are you talking about? you are a nutter!" and the post they are referring to is in one of the other 'chunks' of thread, but you don't know which so you have to open each one and scroll through looking for it, rather than just scrolling down one nice long thread. You'd miss all sorts of good stuff!

zippitippitoes · 05/06/2006 12:09

I think the default should be the thread left as one but if techically there could be an option on the thread...split this thread then that would be ok

Pruni · 05/06/2006 13:02

Optional pagination, that you can set in your personal settings, and otherwise left alone? I love a good long meaty thread and the reloading thing is a drag.

Salamander · 05/06/2006 14:39

View All/View 100/250/500 messages per page

That kind of thing.

Don't mess around with the look/feel/set-up too much as the sheer simplicity of mumsnet is one of the great appeals.

Other sites with silly java bits and constant updating and hundreds of adverts and html fancies, blah blah blah... it all detracts from what people are trying to do - TALK to one another.

Congrats to mumsnet for being the excellent thing it is - keep it up!

Salamander

Flip

1 2 3