Agreed. I was really eager to see what you were going to come up with for #916. The mods closed it only a few posts short. 
In fact, I even had an answer for #915 but never had the chance to post it.
Yes if you were going for the math and stuff… but go on google, type your number and you’ll always find something interesting like :
** 916 ** - Teamsters Local Union 916 is the largest Teamster Local in downstate Illinois
So the consecutive number game had a flaw in the OP regard… you could NOT use your brain and still clogged the SMDB.
Ahhh… Unlike the marvellous Word Morphing Game, always requiring wit and brain usage (and CPU/server usage) 
[size=1]** Consecutive
Conexsecutive **- Change of CEO after IPO, merger, etc.
Nope, what I at least had in mind is much simpler: A rule for MPSIMS that any thread hitting, say, 200? 250? XXX? posts gets locked. No discussion. No weighing whether it’s worthy to continue, or how many posters, or the subject. Just a straightforward rule: MPSIMS threads have a limit of XXX posts. Then they get closed with a message like: “All right, folks, this has been fun, but we’ve reached the magic number. Let’s give this thing a rest for a good long while, okay?” LOCK.
I say apply this rule only to MPSIMS because in other forums there are long threads with substantive discussions rolling along, and they shouldn’t be cut off until they run out of steam. With any thread in MPSIMS that goes over the limit, but has morphed into a substantive discussion, the OP or any other interested party could always email a mod and request its reopening and transfer to the appropriate forum. Other forums have rule that apply only to them, like the acceptance of flaming (to a point) in the Pit.
This proposed rule wouldn’t require any algorithm, just that one of the mods look at the post counts on the front page of the forum, spot a thread over the limit, and shut it down. It would also be the fairest way to do it – then no one would feel singled out.
city boy and french frog
Wow somebody was actually paying attention to the Consecutive Number Game?
As I said I liked the idea that it did have variety to it.
Is there going to be a ruling on how long this thread will last before it gets closed?
LOL
It may get closed when it reaches 1500 posts, 1300 of which are from only four people.
Haj
I think Freddy has an interesting idea, because blonde has a point. But I fear that all it will do is induce sequential thread names – as full threads lock down, new ones will spawn to replace them.
To some people, the social aspect is what’s attractive about this board, and the “fluff” is what draws them. It’s not entirely fair to say that fluff is more or less worthwhile than, say, merengue… or jello.
And I question the statistical process.
First, if 50% of the activity was in 7 threads, then of course those threads are going to rise to the top 100 faster than other threads. So by picking the top 100 in a sort by last post thread, you’re disproportionately selecting for the kinds of threads you’re looking to discriminate against.
You’d be better off taking a random sample of thread numbers from the past month, or year, or whatever time period you think would give you a good representative sample.
And secondly, if there were 8184 posts in a day, and half of them were in 7 threads, then it does not follow that if you eliminated those seven threads, that there would be half as much activity. People are going to find other ways to socialize. You may see a small temporary decrease in posting activity, but it will rise again as people adapt and learn the new “permissable” ways to socialize.
I say if you’re going to let people socialize, let them socialize, and not censor their content. Sure, blatant post-inflating is not socializing, but celebrating someone’s achievements (however minor) is. So are continuity games, and silly flirting threads. I don’t like them much, but I’m not one to judge them. When you boil it down, a lot of what goes on here is sheer narcissism, anyway. Many, many threads are just “me too, me too” with little direct replies to what others are posting, so why distinguish between nuances?
If you want to relieve the burden on the boards, I can suggest two very effective and non-content discriminatory ways:
-
Don’t archive MPSIMS posts. If a post is older than some threshold, delete it! Why save so much fluff??
-
Increase the timeout between posts. Make it two minutes. That right there will do a lot to fix the burden.
If you want to eliminate specific types of content, I would concentrate first on the kinds of threads where people are not replying to each other, but just ego-posting… or deliberately and unapologetically post-count-padding without any other redeeming discussions.
(I was going to start a thread celebrating my 1337th post, but I wasted it apologizing for a rare double post.)
Why not just eliminate post counts altogether? Some boards do that and I don’t miss it when they take them out. What purpose do they serve except to encourage a few people from trying to pad their counts?
I’ve always found it interesting when I run across someone who’s been a member since, say, August 2000 and has <100 posts. In passing, I’ll wonder what it was about THAT TOPIC that made them feel compelled to post?
I dunno. One opinion on something they’re good for.
I’d like to repeat EddyTeddyFreddy’s question; why the heck is the Surreal Continuing Story still open? I enjoyed it for a while, but it’s grown far beyond any reasonable length. As I type this, it is 1046 posts long, and runs 21 pages, with no end in sight.
:pad:
That’s lovely. (#1924)
- another post that will make people scream: *
and what about some add/banners/pop ups on the games/post-count parties threads? that would pay for a server upgrade, wouldn’t it?
On any message board there is a lot of clicking going on. Not like with a single web page where the pop up ads are only annoying once. Every single page of the thread and every reply/preview page pops up an ad? No thank you.
Besides, when contributing in a game thread, I doubt very many people will be easily sidetracked into clicking a banner.
Hey… only 1 scream? … disappointing
I screamed. And ranted. And raved. And threw myself down on the floor, pounding my little fists and kicking my little feet, wailing and sobbing and holding my breath till I turned blue.
It was one of my better tantrums, but just as it was reaching a peak of pique, Freddy jumped on my back and knocked the wind out of me, Squash dropped a fetch toy in my outstretched hand, Sylvia licked my face, and…
Well, sorry, but I forgot the tirade I was about to post. 
While I can sort of understand the need to limit board traffic for technological limitations, it seems to me that the policy is somewhat contradictory to the premise of this board. If you’re going to have a discussion board called Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share, how can you logically ban threads for stupidity? One person’s mundane and pointless might be another’s stupid fluff. Just wondering…
Would it be acceptable for some enterprising Doper to go and create a Yahoo group dedicated to Post Party a or b? Dopers could sign up with yahoo accounts with clever names like Johnny_Bravo_SDMB and spam posts to their heart’s content, all the while taking advantage of Yahoo’s bandwidth.
As the pseudo-threads die, the groups could simply be abandoned and new ones could be created as needed.
The obvious problem, of course, is an inordinate amount of “advertising.”
Just a thought.
So…
Since WE will be paying for the boards soon, does this mean we can have whatever damn kinds of threads we want? Games, post-count parties, flirting? This forum is STILL called mundane pointless stuff…
BTW… This has stuck in my craw for a long time. If I DO ever need “guidance,” it sure as hell won’t be from you, Uncle Beer!
Doubt I’ll be losing any sleep over it. Anyway, in case it slipped by ya, I’m not a mod any more. So you won’t need to lose any sleep over it either.
Slipped by me too - had you confused with UncleBill. :smack:
I miss my smack smiley