That's pretty much what I meant, Hil! That was way more explanatory!

I think another argument against thread proliferation is that it creates an environment where people stick to one or two threads and never become part of the community as a whole, or where long-time members disappear from some threads because there are too many for one person to follow. I know that when I go into threads I don't follow, I often see people I've never met before anywhere else on the board. So it may be a valid concern.

Edit: And it turns out Hil said what I meant, only better. Whoops.

Well, it is and it isn't. I'm trying to think of a good analogy and I can't. But in general, the spirit we're trying to maintain here is sort of like a big cocktail party - lots of different conversations going on, with some of us hanging around the bar, a few people over in the corner having deep conversation, a few people nipping out to the kitchen here and there. The worry about thread proliferation is that it becomes more like all these conversations going on in separate rooms, where we might pass each other in the hallways but are otherwise more cut off. There are varying positions on how likely this is too happen or how much of a Bad Thing it would be.

If that makes any sense.

I think another argument against thread proliferation is that it creates an environment where people stick to one or two threads and never become part of the community as a whole...

Realistically speaking, with 750 registered members that's going to happen and in fact has already happened. Keeping the thread size small just makes each thread that much less manageable.

However, when the threads aren't managable, people will probably go away, ensuring that they become managable again. I am actually FOR thread proliferation in a logical and not haphazard manner. I think it is probably the only way for us to grow without losing a whole bunch of people.

If we add threads, we add volume. We add volume, we add bandwidth and server stress. Bandwidth we can pay for (although I know not the size of our coffers).

I worry about the code, really. I think it's done a pretty good job, but I was expecting to have more tuning time before things got this big.

No, that makes sense, Brenda. But it is possible that you may need new threads to stay alive eventually. Because sooner rather than later, no more Buffy and no more Angel. Which might lead to ten people left altogether, and all they will do is argue endlessly about was Giles real or wasn't he during the last season. Or who was hotter, Xander or Johnathan.

Of course, ME will have new shows coming, which I would imagine would have to lead to new threads in that case.

Maybe it would be a good idea to open new threads conditionally. See how many people post, and how often, and then decide whether or not to keep it open permanently after you have had a chance to evaluate it.

I have been worried about that, ita-- so I am glad you said that.

That is one of the reasons I suggested waiting until we find out what ME shows will be around next year. If there are none, it seems like there would be room for new threads. If ME is still going strong, we think about it again.

We add volume, we add bandwidth and server stress.

Yeah, that was more my question. I wondered if it was a logistical and financial problem, as opposed to a class struggle issue. But I can see how either/or would be a concern depending on who you are.

As a newbie, however, it would seem to me that if adding threads were a financial problem, that's kind of the end of that. I certainly would not feel it's my right to demand new threads if that's going to tax the resources of the people who provide this site free of charge.

Schmoker, the site isn't free of charge. Anyone can contribute to its maintenance -- check the FAQ for that information.