I have a suggestion for the moderators regarding the "2 weeks later ..."

[Guest Unridiculous Equivocations]

I have a suggestion for the moderators regarding the "2 weeks later ..." and similar notifications between posts.

 

The reason this was added, in my understanding, is because a troll guest kept reviving old threads after 11½ months, and people who didn't realize this would respond as if they were answering a new post, which caused a lot of confusion and annoyance. As a result, the moderators had their technical management add these "2 weeks later ...", "3 months later ...", and so forth warnings, so now people can see that they are responding to old posts but the timing on some warnings is not really accurate.

 

Following a post above on October 31, the next post is November 9, but there is a notification in between which reads "2 weeks later ..." even though it is only 9 days later (which is really just under 1½ weeks later). Then the next post on November 20 is also preceded by a "2 weeks later ..." notification, when it is really just 11 days later, which is 3 days less than 2 weeks. And now my post is 9 days after the previous post, but again separated by a "2 weeks later ..." notification, which is not exactly right.

 

November 30 is also not "6 weeks later" than October 31 but that is what the string of notifications would imply.

 

Even worse are the "# months later ..." and "# years later ..." notifications. If someone revives a thread after 23 months, it will have a "1 year later ..." notification, even though it is actually just a few weeks less than being 2 years later. Similarly, a thread revived after 35 months will have a "2 years later ..." notification, even though it is really just a few weeks less than being 3 years later. I think the warnings are a good thing but the frequency and units of time that are stated can use some improvements.

 

I suggest not starting the notifications until "10 weeks later ..." first of all. This is long enough that a thread would no longer be semi-current and the notifications would no longer be annoying. Furthermore, I suggest that the notifications only use weeks as a unit of time, no more months or years. I know this means a thread revived after a-year-and-a-week will have a "53 weeks later ..." notification (and a thread revived after a decade will have a "520 weeks later ..." notification) but I think that is just fine.

 

All we need to know is if threads are really old revivals, we don't need excess warnings, or inaccurate warnings.

 

P.S. Thanks for reading and hopefully considering this suggestion @Bern, @BlinkOnce, @G_M, @HendryTan, @IkuTube, @oralb.

[Guest Hazily Instructor]

On 11/30/2021 at 12:35 PM, Guest Unridiculous Equivocations said:

I suggest not starting the notifications until "10 weeks later ..." first of all. This is long enough that a thread would no longer be semi-current and the notifications would no longer be annoying. Furthermore, I suggest that the notifications only use weeks as a unit of time, no more months or years. I know this means a thread revived after a-year-and-a-week will have a "53 weeks later ..." notification (and a thread revived after a decade will have a "520 weeks later ..." notification) but I think that is just fine. All we need to know is if threads are really old revivals, we don't need excess warnings, or inaccurate warnings.

 

I agree and believe those are really good suggestions.

 

1) Don't start the "old thread" notifications for posts until the elapsed time is 10 weeks later.

 

2) Always have the notifications read X weeks later. No more X months later or X years later.

 

Whether it is technically possible is the only question.

[Guest Viennetta Scoops Out Betta]

On 11/30/2021 at 7:55 PM, Guest Hazily Instructor said:

1) Don't start the "old thread" notifications for posts until the elapsed time is 10 weeks later.

 

2) Always have the notifications read X weeks later. No more X months later or X years later.

 

Those are excellent ideas. I also believe resuming a thread two or three weeks later should not require a notification message. 10 weeks is a nice round number and can serve as a very sensible point to start the notifications. Can you please make that happen @G_M and @HendryTan? You can just put it on a list for the website's technical handlers to change later. Thanks in advance.

[Guest Unridiculous Equivocations]

There is absolutely NO FLAMING in any of these posts and they do NOT belong in the Flaming Room. I made a very polite request, and included examples of the current glitches, so a simple acknowledgement by a moderator such as "we understand the issue and may consider it later" should have been the proper response.

 

Splitting away the posts and moving them to the Flaming Room as if I did something wrong, especially when nobody is doing any flaming, is NOT a community oriented response whatsoever, but hey, thank you so much for always employing a friendly approach as well as a considerate human touch to everything under the sun.

[Guest Patron]

It is a relief to know where our BW mods & the majority stand when it comes to members' & guests' freedom of posting whatever and whenever you want as long as they are not off topics & complied with the rules & guidelines here.

Big applause to mods for letting these Taliban auntie(s) know they are the ones that should be censored. 👏👏👏

[Guest Hazily Instructor]

Guest Unridiculous Equivocations did not do anything wrong. The suggestion is actually quite good, so I agree with it, and "guests" are also capable of thinking of ways to improve Blowing Wind. What is the point of being "members" but never lifting any fingers to help make people's reading experience better? If someone's heart is in the right place, that is what matters, and dedication of this nature should be seriously appreciated.