FANDOM


  • Out of curiosity, is there a reply limit in discussions/UCP message walls? If so, what is it? (eg. Forum threads and Legacy message walls has a reply limit of 500 replies, after that, you cannot reply to that thread anymore.)

      Loading editor
    • My guess is that there is a very big limit, not something that a realistic discussion can reach, but something related to technical limits.

        Loading editor
    • If you mean it would be for technical purposes, I agree. But I think it would be simply to limit the loading delay rather than an actual limit of the technology. Either way, that information is not public yet. If you want to know if/what it is, you will need to ask staff.

        Loading editor
    • No Discussions with moderators would actually worry about a reply limit.

        Loading editor
    • Well, that really depends on what the limit is. Doesn't it?

        Loading editor
    • Only if it is much lower than I've seen... anything above around 200 is too much to me, but it is likely much higher than that.

      A high limit is the enemy of moderators.

        Loading editor
    • Tell that to wikis who are upset with the current 500 limit... it really depeneds on the nature of the community.

        Loading editor
    • If one takes the position that all related comments should be kept in the same thread, then I entirely agree that even 500 is not enough in some cases. However, from a practical point of view, no one reads that many posts anyways. By the time a thread gets that long, either the topic has changed or people forget (or don't read) the information in the earlier posts.

        Loading editor
    • Threads are used for clubs or roleplays and sometimes extend to thousands of messages. No one reads them all in one shot but there is no reason to split them.

        Loading editor
    • In those particular cases, perhaps. But as far as I am aware, roleplays make up a very small percent of the use cases for Forum/Discussions.

        Loading editor
    • HumansCanWinElves wrote:

      Tell that to wikis who are upset with the current 500 limit... it really depeneds on the nature of the community.

      Can you name some? I'd like to see some giant threads.

        Loading editor
    • I was talking about Discussions threads... Forum threads will be rendered irrelevant soon.

        Loading editor
    • I thought that you asked for an example of a wiki that uses threads in a way that the "500" limit is an actual limit.

      Those wikis' forums will probably be migrated to discussions very soon (already got staff messages about it, and the forums-to-discussions migration is not paused like the full UCP migration). After that, they'll use discussions for the same porpuses, so you'll be able to see an example in a week or two after the migration.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, but since Forum will be going away, it isn't really a useful example. As a Discussions moderator, I'm interested in Discussions examples... and I'd rather not wait a week or two, but if I remember this thread, then I'll check them out.

        Loading editor
    • Discussion threads go above 1500, as i saw on the pottermore wiki, the welcome message was still active, and had over 1500 messeges

        Loading editor
    • Thanks. Yeah Pottermore Wiki is a good example of giant threads, but from looking at the mod contribs, it is largely unmoderated. They basically don't try to keep anything on topic and almost never warn anyone.

        Loading editor
    • @Fandyllic, what's the amount of activity on the wiki you moderate? I thinks that on large and high-social wikis, the moderation dosen't get to keeping every single message on-topic. It doesn't matter if the thousands of messages are on a single thread or on multiple threads.

        Loading editor
    • Yikes! Over 1500! That is a lot of messages! If Fandom let's it go that high, I am guessing they just don't have a limit in place.

        Loading editor
    • HumansCanWinElves wrote:

      @Fandyllic, what's the amount of activity on the wiki you moderate? I thinks that on large and high-social wikis, the moderation dosen't get to keeping every single message on-topic. It doesn't matter if the thousands of messages are on a single thread or on multiple threads.

      The wiki I mod gets roughly 30 - 50 new posts a day and I have no idea how many replies... I don't let threads get too long, because it becomes impossible to monitor that many at a time, so I do quite a bit of locking.

      It is barely manageable, because I'm one of 2 mods... if I don't mod on a weekend, threads get pretty long (100+ replies), but are usually 75%+ off topic garbage.

      And despite what you say, we try to keep all threads on topic. Are you a mod?

        Loading editor
    • I'm not a mod, but I am involved in/aware of the moderation of a few wikis. I'm also not criticizing what you said, I'm curios how is that possible to monitor thousands of messages a day.

      But talking about going off-topic... I'm not sure how to treat our current conversation XD

        Loading editor
    • This isn't off topic as the reply limit is pertinent if it were too low, but it seems that it is extremely high and the amount of actual moderation in Discussions overall is very low.

      With lets say 10 active mods, monitoring a thousand messages a day is possible. But I still think you haven't given an example of thousands of messages a day... just because there are threads with near a thousand replies doesn't mean those boards have thousands of messages a day. This is why I asked for examples.

      What is really going on is that most boards are either lightly moderated or not really at all, so their mods don't really care about an upper limit or don't mind if it is really high.

      However, as a mod that is relatively strict, I's prefer a limit of say 250, so I know that after 200 or so, it will just stop at some point. I have never seen a thread worth anything over about 200 replies... most of it will be bored people just wasting time.

        Loading editor
    • "Bored people wasting time" can be in other words "People chatting freely with each other". Most of the traffic on the lost-cities wiki is under this category, and personally I like it. But that's a matter of viewpoint.

        Loading editor
    • Well, if Chat weren't getting killed... that is a better place for free chatting... and you're not a mod, so you probably don't care much anyway.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:
      This isn't off topic as the reply limit is pertinent if it were too low, but it seems that it is extremely high and the amount of actual moderation in Discussions overall is very low.

      With lets say 10 active mods, monitoring a thousand messages a day is possible. But I still think you haven't given an example of thousands of messages a day... just because there are threads with near a thousand replies doesn't mean those boards have thousands of messages a day. This is why I asked for examples.

      What is really going on is that most boards are either lightly moderated or not really at all, so their mods don't really care about an upper limit or don't mind if it is really high.

      However, as a mod that is relatively strict, I's prefer a limit of say 250, so I know that after 200 or so, it will just stop at some point. I have never seen a thread worth anything over about 200 replies... most of it will be bored people just wasting time.

      Like a thread? On a message wall? There are plenty on the prodigy wiki

        Loading editor
    • I'm focusing on Discussions, but on UCP, it could be Comments or Message Walls. Who knows if they have the same limits or separate ones...

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: Well, if Chat weren't getting killed... that is a better place for free chatting... and you're not a mod, so you probably don't care much anyway.

      "You are not a mod" isn't a valid argument. If I won't care, then I won't discuss it. Besides that, I was offered to be a discussion mod on a big wiki, but had to refuse for personal reasons. I guess that my view could slightly change after actually dealing with the problems, but not drastically.

      I respect wikis that decide to keep strict rules for discussions. Personally, I think it depends on the nature of the wiki. I would hate if CC will become a place of off-topic discussions, as much as I would hate if the lost-cities wiki will start to apply strict discussion rules. If the rules reach a point that the moderation team are the only ones who want them while the rest of the cummunity is annoyed by them - then I think something has to be changed.

        Loading editor
    • I disagree, but that would take us further off topic. Similar to admin experience, someone who has never been an admin will have a hard time knowing many of the issues an admin faces.

        Loading editor
    • I heard somewhere the reply limit for discussions is -1, but the actual limit is probably like 99999999999 or some kind or integer limit of the Fandom servers or something. I don't actually know, though.

        Loading editor
    • That first number could mean anything and the second one seems completely arbitrary. Do you remember where you heard this?

        Loading editor
    • I heard it was -1, the limit's probably huge, i don't know anything.

        Loading editor
    • and idr where i heard it.

        Loading editor
    • Well, -1 is often used to indicate no limit, but not knowing where you heard it from makes it not very credible.

        Loading editor
    • I hadn't thought of that. I was just thinking someone was just confusing signed and unsigned integers.

        Loading editor
    • Well, -1 usually becomes a very high number when converted to an unsigned int.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, but I am assuming the program would use an unsigned int otherwise you're are just wasting all of the numbers less than -1. Why settle for 0-127 and infinite instead of 0-254 and infinite?

        Loading editor
    • Well, you're also assuming they would be using such small variable ranges... most default int are at least 32-bit now where as your examples are unsigned 4 bits and 8 bits. It would actually take conscious effort to use unsigned variables that small.

        Loading editor
    • Also in the two's complement method -1 is all bits set to 1, equivalent to the largest unsigned integer.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Based on your reply, I think you might have missed the point I was trying to make. Let me try again.

      Given an n-bit int, you can do one of two things. If you use it as a signed int and literally assign -1 the meaning of "no limit", then the max explicit limit you can set is 2^(n-1)-1 and all of the negative integers less than -1 are useless. Alternatively, you can use it as an unsigned int. In that case, you could reserve the max value (i.e. -1 for a signed int) to represent "no limit" and then you are left with the max explicit limit settable to 2^n-2. In other words, using an unsigned int would nearly double the max value you can set as an explicit limit compared to using a signed int of the same size.

      As such, I am assuming that whomever wrote the code for Discussions is using an unsigned int. That is what I am assuming. Given that, why would someone have reported the max as -1? My guess would be they found the number written in hexadecimal and used some sort of conversion tool (that assumes signed ints) to get the decimal representation; returning -1.

      That is my assumption. I am not making any claims about how likely that assumption is to be correct. All I am doing is trying to clarify the assumption that lead me to say #34.

        Loading editor
    • Or infinity.

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote:
      Okay. Based on your reply, I think you might have missed the point I was trying to make. Let me try again.

      Given an n-bit int, you can do one of two things. If you use it as a signed int and literally assign -1 the meaning of "no limit", then the max explicit limit you can set is 2^(n-1)-1 and all of the negative integers less than -1 are useless. Alternatively, you can use it as an unsigned int. In that case, you could reserve the max value (i.e. -1 for a signed int) to represent "no limit" and then you are left with the max explicit limit settable to 2^n-2. In other words, using an unsigned int would nearly double the max value you can set as an explicit limit compared to using a signed int of the same size.

      As such, I am assuming that whomever wrote the code for Discussions is using an unsigned int. That is what I am assuming. Given that, why would someone have reported the max as -1? My guess would be they found the number written in hexadecimal and used some sort of conversion tool (that assumes signed ints) to get the decimal representation; returning -1.

      That is my assumption. I am not making any claims about how likely that assumption is to be correct. All I am doing is trying to clarify the assumption that lead me to say #34.

      What I meant is, the limit set in the software code may be not any particular number, but "the largest number available with whatever amount of bits we are currently using". One way to represent this value is to take the value -1 and then treat it as an unsigned integer. This may be just intuitive to someone experienced in computer-science. (not that I am one)

      Well, it's all just a guess about an unconfirmed rumor.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, HumansCanWinElves put it better than I did.

        Loading editor
    • XTeodor12 wrote: Or infinity.

      That isn't possible. There has to be a limit to everything in a computer. That's just a basic rule. There will ALWAYS be a limit.

        Loading editor
    • I closed a thread because it had beyond 500 replies.

        Loading editor
    • You can't.

      It closes itself

        Loading editor
    • I am guessing XTeodor12 meant a Discussions thread; because you are right about Forum threads.

        Loading editor
    • I think you mean a Message Wall thread.

        Loading editor
    • Forum and old message wall threads should behave similarly to each other. So should Discussion and new message wall threads.

        Loading editor
    • Yes.

        Loading editor
    • This thread in of itself is a big thread, closing in on around 100 posts would be a fair guess.



      But back to the actual topic, I think reply limits should be decided by the community, or just not have a reply limit, as the concept of which may seem completely foreign and illogical to some communities.



      A reply limit of 300-500 would works just fine for most communities, some bigger communities may want lower reply limits so one message wall thread isn't the message wall's equivalent of the Great Wall of China. Going further with this, smaller communities may not see the need for a reply limit and thus would prefer a very big reply limit.



      It all just depends on the community.

        Loading editor
    • there is a post on a UCP wiki that over passed 1000 replies, wait...

        Loading editor
    • Good example of very long thread... and also like no moderation.

        Loading editor
    • ConspicuouSM, this reply is #54. So this thread is barely past the halfway mark for 100 replies.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.