POLL: What should the maximum number of posts in a thread be?

  • 100
  • 500
  • 10,000

0 voters

1 Like

Don’t forget that your last Xmas Quiz thread needed one answer per post and reached 328 posts!

I’ll bear that in mind. In fact, that thread was too long, so veers me towards reducing the limit all the more!

Whenever the next Christmas Quiz is, I’ll need to think of a slicker way of submitting solutions.



Christmas? :innocent:

1 Like

My vote is for x-1 (where x=the first “boring” post).
However x is a very individual definition which will almost certainly vary from person to person. It is probably easiest to just stop reading at that point

1 Like

Ah, but which year?


Pick some number in the two-to-four-hundreds, maybe a prime number, or something else interesting. Just don’t have it ending in zero. :wink:

1 Like

I cant rememb
er what was said after the first 100


Only those three to choose from?

  • Here’s my take:
1 Like

A big Jump there between options of 500 and 10,000 - can we please have 750 and 1000 options?

My vote is for 750.

A better option might be inactivity - no activity for (e.g.) 3 months and close the thread.

73 Ed.

I chose the options in keeping with the context of the debate.

  1. A noticeable reduction
  2. Keep it as it is
  3. Get rid of the limit

By keeping it to just those three options, I can get a clear view of the direction SOTAwatch users want to go.

1 Like

What is needed to answer/comment the topic :slight_smile:

Scroll up to the first post in this thread and click on your choice.

Thank goodness there aren’t 10000 posts to scroll back up through :wink:


This debate reminds me of something that occurred almost 40 years ago (around 1980), in the pre-internet days when we amused ourselves by carrying on discussions on dial-up bulletin boards … remember them?

There was a very popular bulletin board in the North of England, and one day somebody started a thread entitled “Swearing on the Bulletin Board”. It began as a rant about people who gratuitously used bad language in their postings, but after about half a dozen posts it drifted completely off topic. A few months later, it had become by far the most popular thread on the bulletin board. It grew over time to several thousand postings, and became a general-purpose thread to discuss or comment on anything under the sun! Everybody checked it on a daily basis to see what gossip had been added.

If nothing else, it tended to reduce the number of off-topic postings in all the other threads.


Walt (G3NYY)

Maybe the question should be: What are Posts and Threads supposed to achieve?

If it is an ongoing commentary on for example Propagation, then bite sized chunks with chapter 1, chapter 2 etc would seem the best way to handle this.

If it is about the Best Antenna for SOTA then 100 posts should have answered that. (Optomist?)

If 100 posts seems artificial try the largest prime number under 100. Because.


What happens to special threads such as those relating to the S2S events? These usually exceed 100 posts. Surely a restriction would just necessitate the conversation to be continued on a separate thread which would defeat the purpose of a limit on the number of posts. Would not a time restriction be more appropriate?

It appears so far, that the SOTAwatch users are expressing a strong preference for limiting threads to 100 posts. This being the case, one must assume that starting a new thread - “Part 2” - is deemed more desirable than handling threads that are >100 posts.