Harry Potter - one thread or two? Vote here.

Cafe Society
1

If you care, there are two lenghty threads on the new Harry Potter books:

Harry Potter Thread (open spoilers) and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (spoilers)

People had complained they were confused about who said what in which thread, and I agree, one thread per topic is plenty, usually.

The two choices are:
(a) close one thread (which I did) and route new traffic to the other thread (which I did) -or-
(b) merge the two threads.

I’m not familiar enough with them (and I don’t intend to become so) to know whether merging them would be better or worse solution, so I request your votes. Do you prefer the status quo (option (a)) or would you like me to merge the threads (option (b).) Post your votes here, one vote per player, please.

I suppose there is a third choice © leave the two threads both open and let confusion fall where it will. I’m not wild about that one.

It’s now about 4:30 PM CDT, I’ll review the comments and votes here and decide what to do (if anything) around 8:30 tonight.

2

I vote for a. There were a lot of cross posts between the 2 threads.

3

I vote B.

There will be some duplication, but the threads do diverge a little and that’ll allow all the theories to be referred to easily.

4

Merge 'em. What the hell, if Harry Potter fans can read hundreds of pages and discuss them at length in less than a week then they can handle an extra-long thread with some redundancy.

Enjoy,
Steven

5

merge so that nothing is lost. I know I have probably cross posted, and I am sure I am not the only one. This way, nobody makes a reference (in future) that noone else can find.

Just my 2 cents.

6

Another vote for merging.

7

Merge the threads.

8

I vote to merge, seeing as that one is at 3 pages and the other at 4.

I think locking one down works better for situations where there are only a few posts in one or both of the threads. With 3 + pages, it’s clear that people put a lot of effort into their questions, comments, and analysis. Keeping the content alive in one combined thread seems best to me.

9

© Close the thread you left open and reopen the other one. (Hey, someone had to say it.)

What’s essentially wrong with two threads? The topic is obviously popular enough to justify it. If people get confused which is which, then good. Keeping 'em straight will be a profitable intellectual exercise.

10

Merge 'em.

11

Merge those babies.

12

Merge the threads.

I’d like to obtain some clarification of what happens to post order when something such as this is done. Does the server make note of the time of each post, and order them thusly, or do the three pages of the (presently-closed) thread get tacked onto wherever the currently-open thread ends when the operation is performed?

'Cause I have a post that refers to one of my prior posts by number, and if that number changes, the whole reference goes into a cocked hat. Still, greater good and all that.

Again, merge 'em.

13

Close both threads, create a new thread, and stipulate that every third post must contain the word “rutabega” if you’re to allow it to remain open.

14

B.

15

Another vote for merging.

16

B) Merge

17

Merge.

18

Merge, baby. Even though there are many cross-posts/posters, people won’t have to read two different threads and/or post in both threads. Ideas from one thread may not be in the other. So, merge.

19

Merge them.

20

I would prefer not to lose the ideas in either thread, so I vote for merging.

However, if this is too cumbersome or confusing, I’m sure the single thread will be fine. It is harder to keep up with two threads.

BTW, I want to tell you all how tickled I am to be able to discuss the books in detail here!