Well, we're not voting yet -- are we?

Are very important points. Even if we need to remove threads eventually to help solve the problem, getting rid of threads that are getting extremely minimal posts is going to have ZERO net effect on the problem, and will only serve to upset the people who do want to keep those threads around, even if they almost never get posts.

If you stop discussing removing threads that cause people to be upset because they want to keep them, then you're pretty much going to stop all such discussions, aren't you? And how does that fix anything? That just keeps you where you are, working at least twice the allowable number of mySQL connections.

As for having ZERO net effect, that's not true. AGAIN, this problem can't be solved just by looking for one solution that will alleviate 80%, 50%, or even 5% of the problem. Looking at the coding may help, but cleaning house will as well. And doing things like combining threads that get minimal posts, deleting other threads, reducing/elminating numberslutting, and combining responses need to be looked at as things that, when taken together as a whole, will help.

Well, Monique is telling us in another thread (or here, I've lost track) that it's like a diet. Little things add up.

I don't know where either. I think here and Sartre. I get confused, what with the conversation occuring in three threads at once.

But Kat... if you don't totally tear out your closets every time you clean house, how on Earth do you ever get new closests?

t Different computer with cut and paste capabilities

Last time I cleaned my closets, really cleaned 'em, we got brand new closet stuff, pulled out the old and remodelled. So not that far fetched.

I'm also thinking that some explanation for the cleaning is in order. Anyone want to write it? 'Cause I'm busy yelling "NOT IT"

I'm also thinking that some explanation for the cleaning is in order.

You mean, "Why we need to do this" sort of preamble?

And how does that fix anything? That just keeps you where you are, working at least twice the allowable number of mySQL connections.

Monique -- You and Kristen need to be consistant. She and ita are saying not to panic about sql connections just yet. Let's see if the coding changes do the trick. I see Kat's proposal is simple housekeeping. Trying to get rid of threads that are redundant or else low traffic AND without a vested subcommunity.

And I apologize if I'm mischaracterizing ita's and Kristen's posts.

But not if #4 passes.

And if it does pass? Means that most voters thought it was a redundancy.

Perhaps it's just me (it's probably just me) but I find the campaigning confusing when it takes place alongside the informational/clarification discussion.

You and Kristen need to be consistant. She and ita are saying not to panic about sql connections just yet.

We are consistent. I'm not advocating panicing. If I were, there'd be more EXCLAIMING!!!

I am, however, advocating making some changes, just as Kristen mentioned in her post from earlier today. I just feel that taking the tact that "we can't do x, y, or z because it might upset someone" and "let's just do something that will have a BIG IMPACT!" could lead to nothing being done. Little things add up. That's all I'm saying.

Monique -- You and Kristen need to be consistant.

I do not hear their posts as inconsistent. I hear Kristen saying not to panic, but to move forward with little changes that we think will streamline things. And I hear Monique saying basically the same thing, but with more emphasis on the fact that little changes *will* make a difference.

Monique -- You and Kristen need to be consistant. She and ita are saying not to panic about sql connections just yet. Let's see if the coding changes do the trick. I see Kat's proposal is simple housekeeping. Trying to get rid of threads that are redundant or else low traffic AND without a vested subcommunity.

I read Kristen as saying we need to clean up, but not panic (as in - not undergo a huge fundraising drive and go get a dedicated server before we know if we need it, and to not gut the board (like closing Natter or Bitches)). I did see her say the several small threads are a drain because of how it works (i.e. I end up posting to you about nutmeg in this thread, to ita about it in Bitches, and to Laura about it in Spoilers). Housecleaning isn't panicking. It's been something we've been talking about for months.

And honestly Jon? When we can't add one new thread, because it might kill us, the little redundancies start to hurt us. We have 6 threads in which to discuss Angel, but we can't add one to talk about TV (or beagles, or whatever) in general. Angel reruns seemingly can't find a home in Buffy, Angel, UnAmericans, Atlantic Canadians, Natter or Bitches, but everyone is supposed to squeeze everything else into the Natter thread? It's preposterous.

So what? It's what we do, and what we've always done, in almost all of the threads since we were on TableTalk.

I said that in direct response to your note of the volume of LotR. Sure it's high volume. How high is it if you take out natter - natter that could also happen in Movies (or you know - Natter)?

eta...

DX - to clarify. Some discussion needs a home. Some discussion occurs, because there's nothing going on at home. Movies (if the Movies citizens don't think LotR will be too overwhelming) can serve as a suitable home for LotR discussion. But there are times when there are just posts in LotR because it's there. And yes, that does happen in every thread, and because it happens in every thread, it's one of the reasons streamlining out some threads, might end up adding up to something that helps a little.

I said that in direct response to your note of the volume of LotR. Sure it's high volume. How high is it if you take out natter - natter that could also happen in Movies (or you know - Natter)?

Quite frankly what natter I recall in the thread has been concerned with things close to the topic anyway, so would probably have occurred in the movie thread as the subjects came up as well. And either pissed those folks off, or encouraged them to join the tangent, creating a natter synergy.