Info A request regarding thread lengths

Many of the threads on Health are getting very, very long. While I can appreciate the desire to keep information all in one place, there are several of us who do our best to scan the subject lines to see if anyone has a concern or if there's a trouble spot. To look over to the number of posts and see that there are over 100 messages in a thread is daunting. Personally, I'm hesitant to simply jump to the last few posts, read the spreadsheet, and comment.

On the other hand, if I have to read more than 50 posts, I'm likely to leave a long thread to when I have time. Sometimes, my schedule is unforgiving and I won't be able to log back into the board. Clearly, there are very competent people who are helping but if the thread is long, they are spreading themselves thin.

I'd like to suggest trying to cap a thread at 50 posts unless the caregiver is in mid-crisis. Open a new thread when it makes sense to do so and link the previous thread. It may also be helpful to post a brief summary if something out of the ordinary was happening previously.

Sorry to be a nitpicky housekeeper but we do want to make sure everyone gets the help they need in a timely way.

 

bump

 

bump

 

bump

 

bump

 

bump

 

Great!

 

bump

 

Bump

 

bump

 

bump

 

bump

 

Bump

 

I see a lot of threads with a clear and simple title like "left insulin out overnight, still good?" that need maybe five replies at best but the thread goes off in another direction and just keeps going. If it's an ongoing health issue I see why there could be 100 replies.
I'm as guilty as anyone for hijacking threads, stating the obvious etc. If we limit the length of threads someone's feelings are going to be hurt, that shouldn't matter but it will happen. If we cannot count on common sense maybe...
> When a thread hits 50 replies the moderators get an automated sign and then decide
> to let the thread continue or
> post something like "this thread has run it's course. If no one has more to contribute within the next 48 hours it will be closed".
>Any thread that has no replies within the last 72 hours get an automatic review. If the thread is about an ongoing issue or a question only a few people here are qualified to answer it stays, otherwise it's time to go.
Notice I haven't used the word "warning" anywhere. We don't want to drive members away or make anyone's question seem irrelevant or trivial. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to decide this. One benefit will be new members less likely to see what they think is a valid question just drop off the bottom of the screen. I sometimes surf New Posts and see zero replies too often. That has to be frustrating.

 

More thoughts
>Years ago, and I only read this once, there was some talk about a "rule" that you couldn't start two threads on one day. That should not apply with some common sense. For example if Sam has a bad reaction to a rarely used drug and on the same day Andy's vision was affected by something I would not hesitate to start two different threads. Is it just me or has anyone else heard this rule?
>Some health threads get long because of multiple health issues and if they're all somehow connected and not resolved the thread should just keep going until the caregiver is either satisfied or realizes there is no definitive answer.
The problem with these threads is that the thread's title, written last week, has no relevance to todays problem. If the title said something about Lantus which I have no experience with but 50 posts down there's a question about cardiomyopathy which I could contribute to the title alone won't get my attention.
One way to solve this is if the members could change the title of the thread with an edit to the first post. For example if I had a thread about both Sam and Andy but Sam's issue was resolved the title would now read "Andy has this" and I could add in bold red font to the first post "Sam's issue resolved, please skip ahead to post 50". That's assuming changing the title does not change the 'alert' or 'follow this thread' status.
Do most members know they can edit and even delete their own posts? I shorten my own posts all the time and will delete those that address a question already answered 50 posts back up.
This is the rude part. When you use the reply function please don't drag the entire post and three photos with it unless necessary. You can easily pick out just the words that are applicable without clogging up the thread.
This thread started last June and I'm the only one sucking all the air out of the room? Come on people

 

bump

 

Bump

 

bump