The amount of questions about foldering convinced me that not enough people had processed the presence of the closed threads. Not a world ender, but once active threads are foldered, I think it's very important that it be made obvious obvious obvious that it's been done.

Bottom of the page doesn't achieve that goal.

And I have yet to think of a logical and systematic way to separate subfolders (so Closed isn't displayed with the others) that doesn't overcomplicate the algorithms.

I'm open to suggestion.

I hadn't realized the closed threads were seen as a problem. I also don't want to overcomplicate things, so I'll fall back on Deena"s good suggestion from earlier

I think we should just let ita do what she thinks is best and then sit back and see if it works the way most people like it.

Perkins, have I told you recently, or nearly often enough, that I think you're swell?

I have no suggestion on how to improve things, especially not something I know how to do, so I'm gonna fall back on what Perkins is falling back on.

(And they all. fall. down.)

I hadn't realized the closed threads were seen as a problem

That's not what I meant to say -- in fact, it was that closed threads weren't seen. To me, the discussion read like foldering was this strange and new featureset when it had been in place for months. It wasn't on people's radar.

So far, no one's come in asking where their threads went. Maybe the message centre usage is higher than I'd have guessed, but my untestable hypothesis is that the folder was right there and noticeable. At the end of the page, somewhere already tuned out, less so.

Of course, there's still time for a deluge of "Ohmigod! You killed Buffy/Angel/Firefly/LotR!"

There's always time.

Ah. I've always known the closed threads folder was there. To me, having it there was stylistically very different from what is going on now.

OMG!!! ita!!! Where's the Buffy thread?!?! Where's the Firefly thread??!!1!

Nah, seriously, I like having them in their own folder. It makes my anal buds all tingly.

Closed Thread and Film/TV don't seem to belong together though, as that indicates the show threads are close to closed, or otherwise getting obsolete. And I just don't like having "Closed Threads" front and center, as that makes it seem really important. (But, I knew we had a Closed Threads subfolder, so I'm not the target audience).

What about a red bar that says "Topic Threads" and a red bar that says "Community Threads" and a red bar that says "Closed Threads" rather than "Subfolders" and "Discussion Threads?" Would that be any harder to code than what we have now?

The nomenclature is the main thing bugging me, but the visual location of Closed is the second. (And I'm pretty much over "Threads" for what I thought were non-threaded discussion spaces).

What about a red bar that says "Topic Threads" and a red bar that says "Community Threads" and a red bar that says "Closed Threads" rather than "Subfolders" and "Discussion Threads?" Would that be any harder to code than what we have now?

Yes. I mean, what we have now requires zero coding since it's already done, so every change is more.

Right now, as architecture goes, there are folders. The only distinction between folders is a) their parentage (what they're a sub of -- everything's sub except for main page, admin, or site tools) b) their names.

To code a difference between types of folders ... that's more complex, and I'm open to database modelling suggestions for it.

Closed threads could be made a subfolder of something else, though ... Site Tools. I don't think the code allows for that, but it should, and that doesn't sprain my brain.

I'm pretty much over "Threads" for what I thought were non-threaded discussion spaces

That ship sailed before we left TT.

what we have now requires zero coding since it's already done, so every change is more.

Well, yeah.

Closed threads could be made a subfolder of something else, though ... Site Tools. I don't think the code allows for that, but it should, and that doesn't sprain my brain.

This makes sense to me.

Could you leave the folders as they are from the database's perspective, but change the user interface? If not, it's not a big deal (at least to me). I'm cool with the way it is now.

I think, Daniel, that as ita explained here: ita "Buffistas Building a Better Board ++" Aug 19, 2005 3:20:06 pm PDT that for it to get a slug/description means it probably won't happen because it requires other coding.

Okay, fair enough. I still like the idea of calling it

Film and TV Threads

Because it's simply not intuitive as it is currently named. Andi could not find the Minearverse thread, and only by both of us saying "what's this?" was she able to find it.

I knew there was a subfolders discussion, and yet I didn't catch it at first.

Could you leave the folders as they are from the database's perspective, but change the user interface?

The user interface is dynamically generated. So you need to change either (well, both) the database structure and the logic that parses it.

DCJ, you really think the word threads would fix that?

I guess I underestimated the degree to which people hadn't processed the Closed folder, then.