We need to talk, then. Because I've been attributing slower query times to increased size of the table being queried. All the relevant queries are tuned as finely as I can get them.

But it's not clear how adding a thread increases the size of the table in a measurable way. I mean, Natter overwhelms any of the threads where proposing for the amount it contributes to table growth.

I thought Tom was replying about the necessity of the thread.

I don't think that the possibility of VIPs posting should have anything to do with whether or not we have a thread for a show. I wasn't aware that we had any connections that way to Heroes.

I think we should wait until we know it's fate before discussing closing the Veronica Mars thread.

I wasn't being serious about the VIPs showing up, I was just trying to highlight the "if you build it, they will come" nature of threads.

But it's not clear how adding a thread increases the size of the table in a measurable way. I mean, Natter overwhelms any of the threads where proposing for the amount it contributes to table growth.

Well, the adding of Natter increased the number of Buffista posts way more than we even dreamed.

I think the table's too full already, as designed. I'm not going to support a motion for whom one of the stated goals is to increase the number of posts. Not without some other compelling reason.

Aside from that, S1 is too early to be giving any show that's not "one of ours" a new thread, IMO.

I wasn't being serious about the VIPs showing up, I was just trying to highlight the "if you build it, they will come" nature of threads.

Right. The ability of posters to fill the space allotted has always been a plank of the anti-proliferation stance, VIPs or no. Build a movie thread, people will natter about other things and talk about movies more. Etc.

Now, looking at the Lost and Veronica Mars threads, I'm honestly not sure how true that is for shows that lose former glory-- they're not that active. The last thread we created, based on some back of the napkin numbers, gets about three posts a day. So I think it's not a good idea in general to create show-based threads-- they're not active in the long run and they rob other threads of variety.

Just following up on bon bon's post. The Lost thread was created on November 9, 2005 and it has generated 2956 posts in the last 16 months.

ETA: I'm mostly antiproliferation but I just provided the above as "fact" - not to support one side or the other.

BSG is going into a long long hiatus soon, isn't it? I don't see the point of a thread for a show that won't have new episodes until January 2008. (Not that this is really relevant.)

(Also, I sort of agree about Lost, but I'm two episodes behind anyway.)

I note that Heroes has been guaranteed a second season. As well, the producers have consistently shown their ability to create a serial story that actually pays off the plot cheques it writes. We have every reason to believe that we're ramping up to a season finale that will lead to hiatus speculation and chatter, not to mention at the beginning of S2 the need to look back on what we speculated about, et cetera.

It quite adequately passes the "do I honestly think I'll care about this show a year from now, and will enough others do likewise?" test for me.

(If we're looking to split up Box Set into two manageable threads, how about SciFi Channel shows and those that aren't?)

One of the problems I have with Boxed Set right now, is that I can't go in there to talk about one show I have seen without being spoiled for a show that might still be waiting on my DVR unwatched. A Heroes thread won't totally solve that problem, but Heroes is the show in Boxed Set I most want to talk about right now. I like the idea of being able to chat about it without being spoiled for Dresden Files, etc.