The Humor Thread and the Length Thereof

[JMartJr]

As the humor thread blows past 60 pages heading towards 70 (and beyond!) is it desirable/possible to sunset older posts? Ideally this could be done aromatically, with posts disappearing at, say, their first birthday. Less-than-ideally it could be done manually, but I hesitate to add to the workload of the moderators.

If something is not done, I foresee a time when the bulk of Mick's budget for bandwidth and storage and other technical computery terms goes to the humor thread, which will have become a black hole devouring the site... plus it is very difficult to avoid posting duplicate bits of humor (and "humor") with so many pages to wade through.

 

[Mendel]

The trick is to not look at every single page when all you want is the latest joke.

(The Welcome thread has more pages, the WTC 7 thread has less.)

 

[Mick West]

I don't really see any problem with it being so long. Metabunk is using about half of it's current 160GB disk space on the server, and there's 293,269 posts in 8,292 threads. The attachments folder is 25GB.

 

[deirdre]

As the humor thread blows past 60 pages heading towards 70 (and beyond!) is it desirable/possible to sunset older posts?

as 80% of the humor thread is not funny, better to delete the unfunny posts.

but really threads like "photos of contrails, clouds, planes" you took yourself are probably more of a drain on the servers as aren't they usually much bigger files than the little meme snips people post or youtube links. ??

or we could delete 13,856 of the 1,354,600 ufo threads

 

[John J.]

80% of the humor thread is not funny, better to delete the unfunny posts.

I might agree with you that 80% of the humour thread isn't laugh-out-loud funny (though it often raises a wry smile).
We might even agree that 80% of the content of some other threads is unnecessary.

Problem is, we might not agree on which 80%.

Maybe easier to keep current content if it's not problematic for Mick at present.

 

[Mendel]

I might agree with you that 80% of the humour thread isn't laugh-out-loud funny (though it often raises a wry smile).

Yet, of the last 41 posts, only 2 lack a positive reaction. I think that's above average for Metabunk.

 

[deirdre]

Yet, of the last 41 posts, only 2 lack a positive reaction

but this isnt debunking humor..its just outright mocking and belittling
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunking-humor.132/post-310474

 

[Ann K]

but this isnt debunking humor..its just outright mocking and belittling
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunking-humor.132/post-310474

Perhaps you need to check your sense of humor. It appears to be malfunctioning. OR ... you could just skip over the ones that don't amuse you. Don't you see the problem?

Problem is, we might not agree on which 80%.

Exactly!

 

[JMartJr]

If the resources are not an issue, that leaves the difficulty in checking for duplicates before posting. Of course the risk there is only that something will get posted again, to the benefit of those who missed it the first time I guess. That does not seem to be a terrible thing if/when it happens, as long as it is not an irritant to folks when somebody (probably me, to be honest) reposts something that was posted before. So...

 

[deirdre]

OR ... you could just skip over the ones that don't amuse you.

actually i only rarely look at the debunking thread, (because 80% is not funny), so no worries.

Don't you see the problem?

No.

Its Mick's site, he (and maybe Landru) would decide which of the 80% to delete. Just like they decide on how they choose to define impolite.

 

[Ann K]

Its Mick's site, he (and maybe Landru) would decide which of the 80% to delete.

To quote Mick:

I don't really see any problem with it being so long.

I'm not sure why someone who says she rarely looks at the thread wants to decide to delete 80% of it.

 

[deirdre]

I'm not sure why someone who says she rarely looks at the thread wants to decide to delete 80% of it.

i think you are missing the context of the conversation. (speaking of people who need to check their sense of humour..i purposely made my numbers crazy high to avoid misunderstandings )

although you dont know, that i already know that Mick doesnt delete chunks of content from MB. so the misunderstanding is somewhat understandable.

 

[Ann K]

although you dont know, that i already know that Mick doesnt delete chunks of content from MB

In other words, you're arguing in bad faith? OK, good to know.

 

[deirdre]

In other words, you're arguing in bad faith? OK, good to know.

I don't know what youre talking about, but if you say i am i must be.

 

[NorCal Dave]

or we could delete 13,856 of the 1,354,600 ufo threads

Then what would we talk about?

 

[deirdre]

Then what would we talk about?

I'm guessing there is more bunk on Twitter than just ufos.

maybe not (i'm wrong about everything else i utter )