"Threadsuck" sets off my vulgarity sensor. And "Threadblow" would to. For some reason, "Download" doesn't. I guess I'm just funny that way.

I'm with Shawn.

Well, threadsuck isn't vulgar in context if you already know what it means. It isn't obvious.

What Rob said.

Music?

OK-- now I feel like I am back in college playing that suck and blow drinking game.

Seriously, I intellectually understand that words like suck, blow, scew, etc are just words with other non-vulgar meanings, but people do tend to have dirty minds, and a ____suck button seems like it would jump off the page at a cow-orker glancing over my shoulder.

What Sophia said. Further example: I've never looked at the "bitches" page and I'm never gonna because I don't want someone to walk by and see that at the top of a page on my computer. Not everyone has a computer at home!

Edit: that lasted a few weeks. Finally, I went to look and there're awesome stories there! l

Who the hell invented the term Threadsuck anyway? The guy who invented the Perl thing for TT threads way back when? Or was it a commonly-used term?

The music question belongs in Bureaucracy (where it looks like a few folks have already expressed an opinion...).

Hi. My name is Liese, and I'll be agreeing with all your minority viewpoints for this evening.

I would not want threadsuck to mark as read. The ability to opt for this is acceptable. I would suck and archive to disk, carry the disk with me for further perusal whilst traveling offnet, and then expect to continue reading normally, until I left. However, this is my personal usage, and I will, of course, be happy with whatever consensus is.

I agree with Rob that the term threadsuck does not need to be part of our user interface. Intuitive is good. It took some effort to work out both threadsuck and ENUF as a newcomer to TT.

I have another threadsuck issue, but I'll segregate it.

Okay. Is there a difference in resource consumption between sucking the thread myself and downloading someone else's previously sucked thread?

In prior usage, we didn't own the board, and therefore didn't have the ability to add a threadsuck viewing/saving option. Threadsuck was an external program that we applied to an existing format. Doing it myself would take almost as long as it would to load all the pages individually, but it allowed me to easily view and search offline. (Thus, leather pants taxonomy.) However, downloading DX's previously sucked and zipped archives took much less time, and allowed me to continue to get usability even when my connection speed took a desert dive.

Would it be beneficial to us to add some sort of autothreadsuck and archive process to when we close threads, allowing for everyone to download the one file, as opposed to doing it ourselves every time?

The other usage is incomplete threads, which would still need to be individualized.

Enough for now.

Would it be beneficial to us to add some sort of autothreadsuck and archive process to when we close threads, allowing for everyone to download the one file, as opposed to doing it ourselves every time?

That's what I've been assuming. My expectation is that once the threadsuck utility is up, DX (or someone else) will suck all the closed threads and put them in the archives. ita will then delete those threads (either from the database or else just from the thread listings). Maybe we'd hold off on deleting recently closed threads, but after some agreed upon period of time (three months?) they'd be removed.

I was expecting the threadsuck utility to be used regularly on active threads, for users who want to catch up by reading offline.