Re: META: Longest threads?
|From:||Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Monday, May 23, 2005, 18:12|
On Sunday, May 22, 2005, at 10:55 , Amanda Babcock wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 01:53:57PM -0700, Sai Emrys wrote:
>> Looking at the NLF2DWS thread, I see ~105 responses (and that just on
>> the main thread; add another 50 or so for the spinoffs or variants).
>> That seems to be pretty high, compared to the rest I've seen here.
>> What *have* been the highest-response threads, historically? What're
>> the records?
> Erm. I don't know how to find that number, but I'm pretty sure the
> average thread length was a lot longer back in the days that inspired
> the current posts-a-day limit.
Oh yes - I remember those day when it was rare to get less a couple of
hundred mails a day :=(
There was no way most of us could read them all - so there was a lot
skimming and simply just trashing uninteresting looking subject lines,
just to keep up.
> Ok, just pulled out of a hat by bringing up quasi-randomly a larger-than-
> usual monthly mailspool archive of my Conlang mail, and 4 days into the
> month (May of 2003) found the thread "Weekly Vocab 6", which my threaded
> mailer finds to contain 173 mails (no guarantees that they're all the same
> subject, just that they were created via a "reply" command that uses the
> References: header).
Quite so - there was a reluctance to change subject headers. Sometimes I
would take a peek at a thread I had been trashing - simply because such an
uninteresting topic seemed to be creating so much interest!! Quite often I
would then discover the content of the mail had no relevance to the
subject heading. Occasionally would find something interesting - but more
likely what breakfast cereals were available in the local store, or some
other way-off-topic trivia. At least the 5 mails per day limit has stopped
> If you want to get really really spooky, in my mailbox at least, the
> thread immediately following that one was titled "Not linear written
> although that turns out to have been about something completely different.
That's the trouble with such ill-defined words as 'linear' ;)
The 'linear' in 'Linear A' and 'Linear B' for example is not used with the
same meaning as in the subject heading of the current NLF2DWS thread.
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760