>>31
I take slashdot's failing to be more of a problem with the users and moderators (Taco et al) than the system. If you have intelligent users they understand that they can mod up something even if they don't agree with it. It probably isn't good for general boards though. The anonymous nature does seem to squash some interesting features though like a trust system, ignoring certain users, searching by users. It could probably be partial dealt with by having a cookie set with a UID the first time you post, track every post by that (internally). Obviously many techinical problems with this and could even allow some posters to be identified more easily.
With regards to stickies, I think having a seperate page/section for them and then allowing people to get a thread put there with votes in the link field might work. Either require a certain % of posts include the qualifier for it to remain stuck or a threshold and allow and anti-sticky aswell. Limit to one/ip/day/thread that counts. Also old stickies become unstickied if they don't have new posts semiregularly.
>>33
>And if the thread gets closed/archived - big fucking, deal, make a new one, link the old ones, archive old threads offsite even if you must - all of these things happen on 2channel everyday and have, for
>years, and they work excellent. I see no reason why you'd call it bad.
What if a filesystem only allowed randomly generated names for files with no directory structure? You could just keep a notebook with different pages for different directories and even do sym links! Just list it multiple times! Works excellent for me!
I'm sure by now that you realize that this would be a dumb idea, but it would work, and some people might even like it. Just because it is usable does not mean it isn't broken/cannot be better.
My understanding of how it generally works is when approaching the end:
1) Notice the end is nigh
2) Someone makes a new thread, either restating the original discussion or continuing the end of the last one, back linking to the old thread
3) Link the new thread in the old thread
This is non-intiuitive, possibly confusing and provides what real advantage over not having an arbitrary limit?
You certainly don't need to make a new thread to refactor the current discussion. If the discussion is over, nothing happens? The same as if it was cut at 2000 and no one restarted it?
That was not my point however