Length of Threads

[joe_papp]

With the WSJ article thread having pages and pages of posts before the article itself was even published, one can only imagine how big it will become before the weekend is over.

While it's great to see evidence of wide-ranging discussion with many participants, after 10 pages a thread seems to become incoherent and impossible to follow w/o dedicating an hour to a single topic.

I think that in a case like the Landis Allegations/Landisgate, rather than one sticky and then a paltry one or two threads with hundreds of posts in them, CN should create a Clinic sub-forum JUST for the Landis Affair. Then people could start threads on nuanced topics that were actually accessible, rather than having their point buried on page 80, for example.

I believe that the Daily Peloton actually had a forum just for Landis's arbitration, and it was very workable and highly user-friendly.

Cyclingnews staff - PLEASE consider making this adjustment ASAP, like right now. You need a separate Landis sub-forum!

 

[Big GMaC]

I would have to agree. A lot is getting buried fast

 

[Anonymous]

+1 agree....

especially when you bear in mind this could go on for years.

 

[joe_papp]

Please, Susan...someone...anyone...create a LandisGate sub-forum in The Clinic. A 110 page thread is totally-impractical and unwieldy.

 

[usedtobefast]

it does make sense,as he is a former/ex TDF winner and former teammate of
LA. pretty major stuff yet to come also.

 

[Beech Mtn]

I agree. I was not happy to see separate threads being merged into the WSJ thread. Merging threads is a good idea for subjects where the threads are small, but does not work when a thread is so huge.

As an example, look at the official Lance thread. That thing is huge. We have other Lance threads all over the forum that haven't been merged into the one monster thread about LA.

Landisgate and its many tangents need to be kept in multiple threads too.