spartaxoxo wrote: »It needs less categories, but there should still be some categories.
A forum with only one category would be a forum without any category at all.
Some sort of grouping threads by different interests is helpful sometimes.
Besides that a single "general" category would simply just double the "recent" tab.
sleepy_worm wrote: »The sheer number of moved threads makes it difficult to read the forums using any option other than Recent. Attempting to force an organizational structure on users who opt out of it is, in my opinion, a stubborn mistake and makes the forums worse.
sleepy_worm wrote: »The sheer number of moved threads makes it difficult to read the forums using any option other than Recent. Attempting to force an organizational structure on users who opt out of it is, in my opinion, a stubborn mistake and makes the forums worse.
Unfortunately, moving a thread to a new category apparently means leaving the locked carcass of the old thread behind.
Moving threads to new categories would be better if that did not happen.
sleepy_worm wrote: »The sheer number of moved threads makes it difficult to read the forums using any option other than Recent. Attempting to force an organizational structure on users who opt out of it is, in my opinion, a stubborn mistake and makes the forums worse.
Unfortunately, moving a thread to a new category apparently means leaving the locked carcass of the old thread behind.
Moving threads to new categories would be better if that did not happen.
Yes, it provides a link, but it doesn't stay at the top of its original category when the linked thread gets new replies. Eventually it vanishes off the first page of its original category.sleepy_worm wrote: »The sheer number of moved threads makes it difficult to read the forums using any option other than Recent. Attempting to force an organizational structure on users who opt out of it is, in my opinion, a stubborn mistake and makes the forums worse.
Unfortunately, moving a thread to a new category apparently means leaving the locked carcass of the old thread behind.
Moving threads to new categories would be better if that did not happen.
@Elsonso
Clicking on that thread that indicates it is locked due to it being moved leads the user to the active thread in the new location. It is not a carcass at all.
Yes, it provides a link, but it doesn't stay at the top of its original category when the linked thread gets new replies. Eventually it vanishes off the first page of its original category.sleepy_worm wrote: »The sheer number of moved threads makes it difficult to read the forums using any option other than Recent. Attempting to force an organizational structure on users who opt out of it is, in my opinion, a stubborn mistake and makes the forums worse.
Unfortunately, moving a thread to a new category apparently means leaving the locked carcass of the old thread behind.
Moving threads to new categories would be better if that did not happen.
@Elsonso
Clicking on that thread that indicates it is locked due to it being moved leads the user to the active thread in the new location. It is not a carcass at all.
There was a post a while ago where players outlined feedback and responded to a survey. Supposedly, the forum's being reworked and this effort has been in progress over the summer. However, given that any recent comments don't push it back to Recent discussions (for me at least) and it doesn't show in General either, it feels like it's being swept under the rug.
I think there's too many categories and the amount of thread moving feels disruptive to our conversations. I could be happy with just a general category, but that might get too noisy, so some condensing would be better. Certainly don't need players helping players since it conflicts with General too much.
I am warming to the idea of not allowing new discussions in General, actually.