I do want a subscribe button in every thread, because it seems kind of awkward to notice there's a new thread and have to go into my profile to subscribe to it, rather than in the thread itself.

I do want a subscribe button in every thread, because it seems kind of awkward to notice there's a new thread

But a subscribe button in the thread wouldn't help you notice that it's there - you'd already have to have found it.

New threads don't come up all that often - some of the options mentioned above seem like overkill. I'd vote for a simple announcement in Press. For continuation threads, could we put a link to the new thread in the closing post? Or even a subscribe button for the new one? I think you'd hit those who want to know without bothering everyone else.

For continuation threads, could we put a link to the new thread in the closing post?

Done for Natter 3 --> 4.

I don't know how I got subscribed to Natter 4. I was worrying about remembering to subscribe, and then it just popped up. I wonder what happened?

Independent of the new threads issue, I would like a Subscribe button in the thread. Going to the profile and hunting through a big list of threads for the right checkbox is awkward.

I don't want a subscribe button in the thread. But I can't articulate why, so carry on. Bureaucracy announcements seem fine.

Oh and John H. In terms of putting a primary non-meaningful key on each table. If you need some formal arguments to back up your view point google on "Surrogate Key" and "Date" (Of Codd and Date who invented relational theory).

Date has always been my favorite database theorist. Codd is the guy who made the big breakthrough - databases would work better if they were designed to conform to certain mathematical prinicples . But then he kept on adding more and more requirements without stopping to think what made sense.

It it was Date who said stuff like. OK - we need to deal with null in relational databases. But that doesn't mean we need true mathematical nulls, because the introduces four valued logic which is actually less powerful than two valued logic. Why don't we just have user defined null handling...? Codd? Codd? NOOO... DON'T PRESS THE BIG RED BUTTON!

I hereby solemnly promise to go away, read up on this, come back and find that funny, Gar!

uhh OK. So I'm a geek. But Nulls aside, if you need it, Codd totally has your back on the non-meaningful primary key thing.