I tried to respond to you, Tom, but the thread got automatically closed and I don’t want to be unpolite let you unresponded, so, thanks Tom for letting me know that the No limit option was not available.
I’d vote for 10000 post then, should the POLL be back open.
We can continue now discussing until we reach 100 more posts, then create a Part 3 and so on…
It seems like there’s not much SOTA this morning…
The URL reference says I’m in number 103 and the slider says that I am in number 98 of 99 posts.
Now I don’t feel like going back and manually counting the posts but it would be interesting to see how many posts are ACTUALLY there.
Perhaps some posts have been deleted by the person submitting it - perhaps that’s the reason? If so I could accept the different number in the URL then but the slider should still show 99 of 100 not 98 of 99!
You’re right Guru, not much workable SOTA on today so far - perhaps that’s why we’re all here in the reflector??
Yep - just closed off the next (14.3k views) thread competition for you!
Adding a post to a thread that already has more than 100 posts, closes it down.
Now, where’s the next one …
Actually the topic " 1:1 balun turns based on toroid type? (where to get ferrite toroids in the UK?)" could give you a run for your money Mike! It only has 19 posts but 12.4k views, so with a few more comments and a lot of views, it could in theory get up to your 29.7k total without breaking 100 posts!
I’m a bit disappointed that there wasn’t an option to vote for 200-300 posts per topic. While bulky, some of the longer running discussions about airports, antennas, and batteries contained a lot of useful information. I doubt that the post limit will discourage people from making irrelevant comments, after all some of us live to be snarky, and this may actually limit relevant discussion as a result. I’d like to propose that we bump the limit up to a nice round number, like 256.
The excellent search facility is very useful in this context. Information on specific subjects often crops up in more than one thread over time - sometimes unrelated to the topic title, and running a quick search on the Reflector brings up all of these references.
Thats one of the reasons that I voted for 100 as the limit. I’d like to think this will be reviewed if it causes real inconvenience to people though. 256 would be pleasing
I find the search works more easily if the individual threads are short. It’s also a lot easier to find what you’re after when the message subject accurately reflects its contents, too, but this system doesn’t support mid-thread subject changes. Encouraging folk to start a new thread when they take the subject off in a new direction is likely to help, and having a fairly small limit on thread length is one tool to encourage that.
I wasn’t being entirely flippant (despite all the smilies) when I suggested a limit of…
If your search term matches several times in a long thread then that’ll drop you on the first occurrence, and you will probably need to use the “Search within thread” button to find the later occurrences. In a long thread with many occurrences that list can get kinda clunky. Doesn’t happen often, and with a smaller thread limit it will presumably happen less often in future.