If thread length still causes server problems, please be aware that one of my sticky threads in the clubs forum has exceeded 1000 posts, due to an active discussion the last few days:
Columbia House Sale Offer Codes, Part III

I can start a "Part IV" thread if a mod would like to close and unsticky the old one.

I would say it's still an issue, but I don't know for sure. They moved the server from where it was to where it is now, but as far as what changed, I haven't a clue. I would say create a new thread.

Done. The new thread to be stickied is:

Columbia House Sale Offer Codes, Part IV.

old one unstuck and closed, new one stuck.

Thanks pilot.

Good to see the communication from IB is strong.

Sorry to bump an old thread, but what makes this an issue? Is it non-optimization of vBulletin's software, or just a personal choice by Internet Brands?

I make the Rock Band thread over in the Video Game forum, and as it's a pretty popular game with new content being added weekly, I end up making a new one every 2-3 weeks. I keep a lot of information about the game in the first couple of posts so that all info is easily found, so I have to be the one to "tend" to it, so to speak.

I don't mind starting the new threads, but feel if the conversation is flowing, why stop it and migrate it to a new thread? I see threads on other forums go for thousands of posts, and in particular, a Rock Band thread over at another forum I frequent has 15,000 posts in it. The Rock Band 1 thread has over 28,000.

I don't know a lot about bulletin board software, but I don't see how it would take up more space or be less optimized with just having one large thread instead of 10 smaller ones. The same amount of posts would be there (actually a little smaller with the amount of OPs that are almost exactly the same).

Any insight would ease my mind a little bit.

<b>I can't speak for I.T. issues </b>but one reason I had for closing long threads was that, when they became especially lengthy, I perceived that people stopped catching up with what was said before and discussions could become circular/repetitive. A new thread meant your average reader was - in theory, because there were fewer pages involved - more likely to read what went before.

It always helps when thread maintainers keep a summary going as mentioned above.

I can't just now remember the precise figure but I think we agreed on a general standard after which, if we noticed or if the subject was raised, we would close and suggest a part 2 (or whatever).

There seems to be a consensus for this view among several of the mods, if not all.

I think the Video Games forum could be handled quite a bit differently than the rest of the sub-forums. I don't see many threads in other forums needing to be closed for length, with the exception of some of the picture threads (Show off your HT/Collection, Random Pictures, etc.). Whereas in the video game forum, I'm on the 10th or so iteration of the Rock Band thread. The XBox 360 thread is up to its 15th or so.

If the thread creator is responsible and keeps the OP(s) up to date, there shouldn't be much duplicate questions as far as information about the game is concerned.

I understand how it might be daunting for someone to jump into a thread at 5,000+ posts, but I don't see if as any different than jumping into Part 10 of a thread. It also makes searching for information possibly a little harder. If all information for a game was kept mainly to one thread, then they could use the "Search Thread" tool to find the posts to answer a question or whatnot, rather than using "Search Forum" and potentially digging through multiple threads that contain bits and pieces of the info they're looking for.

I doubt that anything I say will change anything, but I was just wondering the reasoning. Thanks for the answers, even though I do not agree with them.

I completely agree with Shagrath. There are plenty of threads where it doesn't make sense to continually close them for length. It certainly doesn't cut down on duplicate questions (since you can't even use the "Search this thread" very well) it just makes it harder to find information.

There is no technical reason that threads need to be closed anymore. I frequent several message boards, all using the same software, and DVDTalk is the only one that closes threads for length. Sure it might be daunting to come across a 25k post thread on AVSForum, and nobody is going to read it all, but the relevant infromation can usually be searched for a hell of a lot easier than if it were spread among 25 different threads.

The other thing to consider is that many of us subscribe to threads and go to the User CP to stay caught up. When a thread gets locked, you can't tell from the new posts listed, you just end up missing everything for however many days it takes you to see that there is a new thread. This happened to me with Movielib's global warming thread where I literally missed a month of posts because I wasn't frequenting the political forum at the time.

I'm sorry that the mods feel this way, because in my opinion it's flat out wrong. Honestly, I don't think they're being lazy, I think they're creating MORE work for themselves and the members of this forum. Closing for length is just dumb.

It was something Geoff started/told us to do in order to help w/ the original severs (I think it is related to the same issue as to why there are limitations on the search engine but I could be wrong about that), so new threads were supposed to be spawned every 800-1000 posts. Since servers have been switched and IB has taken over it's possible (I don't know for a fact though) that this is no longer a concern as far as the servers go, administratively though, as mentioned above, I think it helps the flow of the forum. I also disagree w/ comparing a part10 to a 10k post thread. I think people would be much more likely to start in a low post count pt10 (and then search for the back threads if they feel like it) than trying to figure out where to start in a 10k post thread. JMO

I'll agree that it would be better to keep everything in one thread if the software/servers allow it. Shagrath and Mordred's reasonings are correct. No one is going to look for the old threads to find information, but they will use the "search this thread" tool.

Is there any way we could see what happens in not closing a thread? From what Mordred says, it's definitely not a software/server issue, and a personal one that was made by Geoff long ago. Now that Geoff is not the owner, do all of his executive decisions still have to stay in place?

I don't want to get preferential treatment, but I wouldn't mind my Rock Band thread being the guinea pig for this. If things get out of hand or too much "circular" conversation is found, then I'd be more than happy to succeed and go back to the current 1000 post thread limits.

Would this be something that could possibly be voted on by forum members either in here or Otter or elsewhere? Just a thought. I see many advantages to keeping a single thread open for an ongoing topic (like a game) and very little against it.

Agree with benedict's reasoning.

I know this isn't the norm, but wouldn't an interested party want to read up on everything about their topic? In the case of multiple threads, they've got to delve back and find them all (and they may not all be named appropriately).

I know that I, as a forum person, do thread searches if I'm looking for an answer on something. If I'm just interested in adding to the conversation, I will usually read every single post to make sure I'm not repeating something that's already been said. On other forums, that has meant that I might go through 3-4000 posts before I add my reply. That ensures that I'm not just rehashing what has been said by others.

If people find a large thread too "daunting", then they probably have some type of social issues. We're all friends here, and I very rarely see people heckled for any reason (at least in the forums I stick with).

Usually, the Part I, Part II, Part XX threads have links to the previous threads in the first post. Posters on this site are pretty good about doing that.

This.

I've never understood this either. I also don't see how whether a thread has 200 or 2000 replies it will be a deciding factor on whether or not people "catch up". If anything, most people would probably go back a few pages to catch up and that's it, so it wouldn't really matter what the length of the thread is.

Most people don't even read the last few posts before asking their question, or even the first post in FAQ threads.

Those of us willing to search would obviously prefer to have it all in one thread, rather than split up, right?

Eh, even with one giant thread I can't imagine too many people reading 1000 posts starting from the beginning. I usually read the info on the first post once and never go back. Splitting up threads never really bothers me.

Yeah, but if you do want to read everything, or if you do want to search for information, one thread is a lot easier, right?

Actually for clarification, I think it was originally a software/server issue. My guess is it was just the early versions of vBulletin that were used. Geoff did some tests with very long threads and apparently noticed some slowdown with very long threads. However, these tests were done 6-7 years ago. Servers have greatly improved, as has vBulletin (which as we know was recently updated to the latest version). We've had long threads here (1k-1.5k) that haven't closed because the mods haven't noticed, and they work just fine. No other vBulletin forum I know enforces thread splitting, and none of them seem to have problems... often with a lot more traffic.

Nemein's argument that people wouldn't be likely to start reading a 10k post thread rather than a part 10, certainly doesn't hold water. As a frequent reader of AVS's long threads, I frequently see people jump right in to the conversation and often see people say things like "I just read the first 2k posts and didn't see this posted...." I think those people are nuts, but that's okay Yes, all the time people jump in with question X which was answered on Page 2, but you don't see all the people who easily found the answer to question X by searching the thread. Also for those people who like to say "Question X was answered in post 43 on Page 2, you idiot" they are a lot more helpful than when they say "Question X was answered several months ago in part 2 or 3 I think. Maybe it was part 4. Do a search for it... I was too lazy".

Exactly. Personal preference is a stupid reason because you are handicapping people who actually could benefit.

Not always, especially if you have to leave off somewhere and resume later.

Actually, the 800 post limit was established by Geoff just 2 years ago.