This is just a silly question.

I know I can't search for ita or Kat in the search engine, and maybe they would like to remain shiftily unavailable like that, but I was wondering if maybe be possible to search for people by user *number*? Like, I know I'm 61, John is 97, ita is 2. I don't know how the search-for-user thing *works*, but if it's something that might be easy to do, it's an idea.

RL, you can search for all posts by me -- the user name field works differently from the contents field.

Oh!

OK.

Never mind.

Proposal for the FAQ: Which Buffistas have become words in their own right?

Meara and Nilly have become verbs, I think "the Anya" of something is a noun meaning the snarky recap, whether done by Anya or not. Is [Jeff] Meija a word?

I'm sure I've forgotten a lot more.

Meija's a word, too. Meija, Nilly and Meara are both nouns and verbs.

Well then I propose that all those get into the FAQ so that new people will be less confused by posts saying "Can someone Nilly me the Anya of LOTR:FOTR?" or whatever.

Some of that is already in the "Famous Citizens" section.

As always, if someone writes it up, and there's consensus, I'll stick it in.

OK, I'd like some feedback for threadsuck functionality. My feeling is that we should target threadsucking for offline reading and archival purposes. To that end, the sucked thread layout should be fairly stripped-down, including stripping out all the board-generated links (any links within posts would of course still be included). Here's a sample sucked thread.

Two questions:

1. General comments on the layout?

2. Assuming we put a "Threadsuck all" and/or a "Threadsuck new" link on these "showthread.php" pages (i.e. the pages that contain posts), should the Threadsuck update the thread as "read" for the user? I've been going back and forth on this.

OK, I'd like some feedback for threadsuck functionality. My feeling is that we should target threadsucking for offline reading and archival purposes. To that end, the sucked thread layout should be fairly stripped-down, including stripping out all the board-generated links (any links within posts would of course still be included). Here's a sample sucked thread.

I like the way you think. I tend to agree; if they're threadsucking, you're probably talking about high-volume, which would work better in your proposed format.

I'd vote for the thread itself not to be updated to 'read'. I could see situations where it wouldn't necessarily be the case, and if the person does want to update to 'read', they can do so themselves just by going to the end of the thread at the time, or similar actions. They wouldn't be able to mark the posts back to unread, though. (Well, with bookmarks they can get a similar effect. But it's still not quite the same.)

I disagree with billytea. If I suck the threads, it's because I don't want to (or already have) read them through normal means.