most contributed Image posting threads "by the month"

[ImSoNegative]

I know the title probably makes no sense but its late, anyway, not sure if this has been addressed or not but i noticed in the Image posting section that landscapes have over 9000 entries why dont we do a monthly thing for them like we do for portraits? and also for other Image threads that have alot of contributions, just an idea:)

[hoffner]

Never mind the 9000 entries of that thread. The "What's happened with moderators since my last 2007 presence here?" thread has more than 5 000 000 views - and growing, despite the fact, that this most visited thread of the whole forum was - well, closed by a moderator.

[rdenney]

Never mind the 9000 entries of that thread. The "What's happened with moderators since my last 2007 presence here?" thread has more than 5 000 000 views - and growing, despite the fact, that this most visited thread of the whole forum was - well, closed by a moderator.

Gotta be a bot attack of some sort.

OP:

If folks want to start doing landscapes by month, there's nothing stopping them. So, try starting a new landscapes thread for October (or wait until November) and see if it catches on.

Rick "such decisions are made by popular will" Denney

[Tin Can]

Never mind the 9000 entries of that thread. The "What's happened with moderators since my last 2007 presence here?" thread has more than 5 000 000 views - and growing, despite the fact, that this most visited thread of the whole forum was - well, closed by a moderator.

Not a bot attack, simply that many people googled for that sort of thing.

Thread titles need careful design. Like a news heading. imho

[hoffner]

Many people have to wonder what's happened with moderators since their last 2007 visit and ask google about it. Yeah, it must surely be that. One can wonder why the year 2007 was so important to them. A bot attack? One can wonder why would somebody want to attack moderators or this forum with a bot attack.

[djdister]

Thread titles need careful design. Like a news heading. imho

Absolutely, amen brother. It would also be nice to have correct spelling in the thread title too.

[Lachlan 717]

I don't get the logic.

You're still going to be reading the same number of post, so why change it?

[djdister]

I don't get the logic.

You're still going to be reading the same number of post, so why change it?

There would be less pages to flip through if you break up the thread by the month. That may mean more to some folks than to others however.

[Lachlan 717]

There would be less pages to flip through if you break up the thread by the month. That may mean more to some folks than to others however.

Wouldn't there be exactly the same number of pages? You're not diminishing posts; you're just breaking them up.

[jcoldslabs]

My only problem with this is that if someone starts a "Landscapes November 2014" thread but not everyone follows along, we will then need to follow TWO separate landscape threads to catch all of the posts split up between them. I don't have a preference otherwise, but fragmenting existing threads seems like a bad idea.

Jonathan

[Lachlan 717]

Why not just hit the little arrow button next to the thread on the front page? This takes you to the first unread post.

Surely this is a simpler option, it take in to account Jonathan's thoughts, and doesn't pander to those who only frequent the thread occasionally?

[jcoldslabs]

It's true that browsing older posts is no easy task, but I don't think sifting through "Portraits January 2012," "Portraits February 2012," "Portraits March 2012," and "Portraits April 2012," is any less arduous, say, than finding your way back to January 2012 in the Landscapes thread and working your way forward.

These forums work very well (as Lachlan points out) when keeping up on current posts. But digging in the archives is a bit of a slog no matter how the threads themselves are organized.

J.

[Greg Miller]

Why not just hit the little arrow button next to the thread on the front page? This takes you to the first unread post.

Surely this is a simpler option, it take in to account Jonathan's thoughts, and doesn't pander to those who only frequent the thread occasionally?

Yes indeed.

And 2 years later, does anyone really care whether in image was in Sept. 2012 vs. Oct. 2012?

[Harold_4074]

A related but not identical problem for myself is that so many of the images are now hosted on other sites; I find that the more popular ones (Nudes, Landscapes, and even Portraits, late in the month) take a loooong time to load, even after I select the "first unread" option. Granted, if I had the latest, state-of-the-art internet connection, this would probably not be an issue, but I don't, and living well out of town probably never will. And for threads that I could otherwise access at work, many of the sites are blocked as "social media", so it's faster but increasingly spotty.

I understand that many folks prefer the drama and quality of larger images than the Forum software permits, but it is frustrating to have to miss the discussions either because the related images are not visible or it will take more time than I can justify for the browser to load all of the external-site images (that I have already seen, usually!) in order to get to the unread posts.

[Vaughn]

There would be less pages to flip through if you break up the thread by the month. That may mean more to some folks than to others however.

I just click on the last page of a thread -- no flipping through.

[Racer X 69]

I don't have a preference otherwise, but fragmenting existing threads seems like a bad idea.

Have you run the Defrag utility lately?

{just kidding!}

[Ken Lee]

You can specify a preference for seeing threads in reverse order, where latest posts show first, at the top of the page.

That saves a lot of time, once you get used to it.

Or as we say in my country, "ti ot desu teg ouy ecno"

[djdister]

I just click on the last page of a thread -- no flipping through.

Yeah okay, not a good argument. Besides, I do what Ken suggests and always view threads in reverse order, with newest on top.

[Vaughn]

Yeah okay, not a good argument. Besides, I do what Ken suggests and always view threads in reverse order, with newest on top.

Heck, I can not even figure out what the original problem was that needs to be solved -- let alone being able to make a good argument about it. :rolleyes:

[Lachlan 717]

Again, clicking the little spot on the left of the thread title on the main page will take you to the first unread post. One click - can't get any easier than that!

[Tin Can]

You can specify a preference for seeing threads in reverse order, where latest posts show first, at the top of the page.

That saves a lot of time, once you get used to it.

Or as we say in my country, "ti ot desu teg ouy ecno"

+1, and works for me real well.