I'm less concerned about the number of episodes than of the volume generated. Otherwise we'd have an L&O thread, wouldn't we.

Those Firefly threads? Full up, and with lively, often on topic and on charter conversation, and that's what we're about.

Are we also about a Lost charter? I don't know. I do think, from a user-interface POV, we got too much going on. But that won't break anything, just make it ugly and a bit user-inefficient.

Are we also about a Lost charter? I don't know. I do think, from a user-interface POV, we got too much going on. But that won't break anything, just make it ugly and a bit user-inefficient.

Hasn't board usage dropped significantly from this time in previous years because of no new M.E. shows? Or has the influx of new posters made up for it?

I do think, from a user-interface POV, we got too much going on.

How do you mean that, ita?

Hasn't board usage dropped significantly from this time in previous years because of no new M.E. shows?

That doesn't really change what the front page looks like, though. That's what I mean by user interface. It's been a bit unwieldy all along, and adding a cluster of related threads will underscore that.

I'd feel a lot better if this proposal was about "this specific show has been generating a lot of discussion and I feel it warrants its own thread." As opposed to, "what shows would you like to see a thread for."

This is my view as well. My personal reaction to Lost makes me think that I'll be enthralled enough by it for at least a season or two to make 50+ posts a week if there's a lively discussion. But I'm not sure I've seen enough reflections of that level of involvement to justify a new thread. And I'm not sure that (apologies to Allyson) Fury's involvement is enough of a draw to justify the same sort of creator loyalty that we showed with the creation of the Minearverse thread.

Well, but I think this came about specifically because Lost has been generating a lot of discussion in Natter lately, more so than any other new show so far. Am I wrong about that?

You're not wrong about that but this proposal isn't Lost specific. If it were...I would still think it was premature but I'd feel less...concerned, I guess, about the proposal.

And I'm not sure that (apologies to Allyson) Fury's involvement is enough of a draw to justify the same sort of creator loyalty that we showed with the creation of the Minearverse thread.

Cranky bastards who don't post get no Furyworld threads.

That doesn't really change what the front page looks like, though. That's what I mean by user interface

Ah, gotcha. But is there any way to fix that, short of dropping a whole bunch of threads or building folders (which is technically unfeasible, if I understand things correctly)? Because I agree with you that it's not the prettiest front page, but I don't want to make decisions based on that if there's no fix.

Also -- I feel like I've heard from enough people who would like to delay starting the threads until November or later that I'm wondering if it's worth voting on now at all. Is anyone a strong proponent of starting at least some threads as soon as possible? It seemed to me yesterday, when this all started, that people were pretty annoyed by the influx of TV posts in Natter; if the consensus is that we can tolerate it for a month, I'd rather not vote until then, given the strong possibility our TV tastes may shift during that time period.

I don't think there's a single show (and I include my everloving OC among them) this season that warrants a thread. Not yet, anyway, and I wouldn't know which to vote for for a couple months at best.

But is there any way to fix that, short of dropping a whole bunch of threads or building folders (which is technically unfeasible, if I understand things correctly)?

It's not technically infeasible, it's just practically so. Which is why I noted it wouldn't break anything (the volume may be another issue, but honestly, if I thought there was enough volume to cripple the site, I'd think there was enough volume to justify threads. And I don't).

It's not technically infeasible, it's just practically so.

What is the difference? I would read "technically infeasible" as meaning "the code won't do that" and "practically infeasible" as meaning "the code will do that, but it would take too much programming time to be a real option," but I don't want to put words in your mouth.