# First page to show 100 threads?



## EStjarn

These are from the Welcome to the new forum software thread:


velisarius said:


> It's very annoying when someone resurrects an old thread just to "like" it. Bear in mind that when you post on a thread for no good reason you are pushing someone else's thread off the first page and they are not likely to get so many answers as they might have.





Alice_2.0 said:


> And I also think that "Like" feature could really make a difference for the better, since I'm among those members who frequently bump up a thread just to say thanks/you're welcome (I guess I can get very "British" regarding manners ).





siares said:


> It would be useful for people knowing not to always say 'you are welcome' in order not to bump up a thread; and other things.


In response to the above I was thinking, would there be any harm in extending the length of the forum pages, especially the first page, to show 100 threads instead of 50?

It would supposedly increase the chances for a given thread to be worked over thoroughly.

It would also ensure that no one would have to feel guilty about thanking, liking or saying you're welcome by having pushed some thread away from the first page, not in comparison to the present situation, that is. After all, the forum rules encourage politeness.


----------



## swift

But... the bumping issue persists, doesn’t it? I mean, displaying 100 threads in the forum’s first page won’t change the fact that those at the top of the list will be perceived as the most recent ones and probably those needing one’s attention... I might be missing something.


----------



## velisarius

It's annoying too, opening a thread to see the latest post and finding it's just a "like". I'm not talking here about a polite thank you from the OP. I'm talking about resurrection of old threads (when someone comes upon one  by chance or through a thread search) merely for the purpose of "liking" it.


----------



## siares

velisarius said:


> merely for the purpose of "liking" it


Has 'liking' a thread feature been activated?
Could it be made so that mere 'liking' would be registered somehow somewhere, without bumping a thread?


----------



## EStjarn

swift said:


> But... the bumping issue persists, doesn’t it?



I don't think I'm addressing "the bumping issue" with this suggestion. In fact, I'm not sure what it is. The forum rules talk about bumping as insisting on a reply when there has been none. I don't see thanking, liking or saying you're welcome as bumping. If such posts were also considered bumping, then the forum rules would not say (my italics), "the use of 'Thank you' is _always_ welcome."


----------



## swift

This is how I understand bumping a thread:


> v. To post in an Internet forum thread in order to raise the thread's profile by returning it to the top of the list of active threads.
> 
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bump#Verb


The forum rule about being considerate (rule #8) provides for the following:


> No bumping. If nobody responds to your question, do not post again to simply request help – instead, post more information or context to help us to help you. If your question receives no reply, you can use the "Report" link in the bottom of your post to request moderator assistance.


I think ‘posting again to simply request help’ is only one out of many ways of bumping a thread.


----------



## EStjarn

siares said:


> Has 'liking' a thread feature been activated?



No, I don't think it has. The kind of "liking" mentioned above is when someone reads an inactive thread (ie. with no discussion going on), finds it enlightening, and expresses their gratitude or approval by sending a post. (Personally I don't feel this is a problem or even annoying, but I recognize that others might.)


----------



## siares

EStjarn said:


> when someone reads an inactive thread.., finds it enlightening, and expresses their gratitude


I see what you mean.. there are ancient threads which I recommend to (force on) everyone I know. I have never thought of thanking on there, although I do feel thankful.


----------



## EStjarn

swift said:


> I think ‘posting again to simply request help’ is only one out of many ways of bumping a thread.



I think I understand what you're getting at. But imagine the first page showing only 20 threads instead of 50. That would surely increase the tendency for "bumping" (n.b., those are scare quotes to me) because posters would not want to see their threads disappear from the first page. It seems reasonable, then, to think that the opposite tendency would result if the first page included a greater number of threads than presently.


----------



## Kelly B

> would there be any harm in extending the length of the forum pages, especially the first page, to show 100 threads instead of 50?


I'd like that, too, but for ease of navigation rather than bumping. (I just report those, if I think they're out of place.)
My old favorite way to browse was to go the oldest unread thread, let's say it was posted two days ago and is on page 3, and then work forward to the newest. That was easy with the next thread button. Without it, it'd be easier not to lose my place if I have fewer pages to click back through.


----------



## swift

EStjarn said:


> That would surely increase the tendency for "bumping" (n.b., those are scare quotes) because posters would not want to see their threads disappear from the first page. It seems reasonable, then, to think that the opposite tendency would result with a greater number of threads on the first page.


I think it depends on how active a forum is, EStjarn.  In small forums with very few active threads, people might feel less tempted to bump their threads if that forum receives a lot of attention from a small group of active members; in larger forums with lots of new threads being posted, people might be more prone to bump their threads.


----------



## Alice_2.0

EStjarn said:


> No, I don't think it has. The kind of "liking" mentioned above is when someone reads an inactive thread (ie. with no discussion going on), finds it enlightening, and expresses their gratitude or approval by sending a post. (Personally I don't feel this is a problem or even annoying, but I recognize that others might.)



The thing is, when do you consider a thread to be inactive? I mean, for example, there are threads which I've open or contributed to and then I haven't logged in for several days (or even weeks), and when I come back I read some response, but there's no discussion going on... and maybe I just want to thank someone, and then I find myself in that dilemma, "will I tease someone for bumping up the thread again just to say _thank you_?" (for the record, I tend to do it more when it comes to say _thanks_ than _you're welcome_, as I find the latter to be less important).

Like you, I don't feel that as a problem at all, but I understand others might; however, I also think that despite the fact that me bumping up that thread could mean pushing someone else's thread off the first page, it could also come in handy for someone who is just browsing the forums and stumbles upon that thread I've bumped up and finds it somehow useful (it has happened to me more than once); not to mention the fact that the person I thanked will probably feel glad about it (and as mentioned, the forum rules encourage politeness).


----------



## mab0828

What about adding a "Like" and "Thank you" button below each comment? 
Like the    #   +Quote  Reply so no more bumping


----------



## Kelly B

Hi Mab0828, please have a look at previous discussions of those:
Thanks Button
Where is 'thanks' or 'Like' button


----------



## siares

Kelly B said:


> previous discussions


Hi Kelly, I have read some of the threads on this. I personally don't care for buttoned thanks.

But - apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere:
I'd love to have a 'like' button (for threads, rather than individual posts), which works without bumping - for this reason:

I want to resurrect wonderful old threads which don't begin with  "/... / A; but say with Z or W.
These are discriminated against by the alphabet - they are buried under 'more results' in dictionary search and hence are less likely to be opened.

For 'liking' a thread there would need to be some limitations; just thinking aloud:
Threads can only be liked by members.
Nobody who posted on thread X can 'like' thread X.
New threads (e.g. posted within last 3 months) cannot be liked.

Say i go into dictionary to search for 'question tag'. There is an overwhelming number of threads, coming up in alphabetical order. I would probably click one of those already visible.
Under 'more' there is more threads. 13 of them are called simply 'tag question'.
I simply can't decide which ones to open.

(If the threads came up in random alphabetical order, that would be a solution for resurrecting old threads too.)

e.


----------

