We need an APB for Blu!

Blu is missing!

When last seen, Blu was located in Jokes & Humor.
Blu is approximately 1 year old.
Blu is nearing 3000 posts.

Have you seen Blu?

Reward of zaniness, general craziness and hilarity offered!

mg

blu became too big for many folks to load, so we took it offline ;o)

Why not begin a 'new blu two' ?

What is 'blu'?

SherryLike: Thank you for asking. I was wondering the same. What is blu?

I read it once, but have forgotten now! Seems it was a thread gone amuck LOL!

It was a thread started in the test forum. Yes, it went amuck! LOL

3k is rather a long amuck run, huh?

Poor poor blu didn't even get a fitting burial at sea. ;o(

Is there any way to split the old Blu up into parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., and then start a new one as Blu part ##? I didn't look at it all the time, but when I did it was hilarious. Not many people who haven't seen it will be willing to scroll through 3,000 posts, but those who were actively participating might want to search for some particular thread in the future.

Any possibility this can be done?

Blu hoo I miss old blu. Twas fun to try to say something blu each time ya posted. No funeral for good old blu so I am very very blu.

Well, I feel like a good blu hoo, since I didn't get to know blu.

This message was edited Aug 13, 2007 6:21 PM

This message was edited Aug 13, 2007 8:30 PM

Blu Hoo- I was wondering what happened to Blu. I'm Blu-med. :(

Where's Trois the Blu starter? We need an APB for Trios TruBlu.

I'm really disappointed that a thread that wasn't violating the AUP was pulled because of its length. I'm going to end now, so I don't say anything that will violate the AUP

Janis

Janis, that's understandable, except when a thread is so big that many people can't load it, that starts to put a strain on our server as the unwitting keep trying to get it to load. And when fewer people can get it to load, it becomes exclusive to a smaller and smaller group, even though that may have not been the intentions of anyone participating in it.

Looking around, it's easy to see that most threads that reach 100+ posts typically start a new thread as a courtesy to the 50% or so of folks that are still on dial-up. It's not anything we demand or mandate, but it usually happens on its own.

"blu" may have not violated the AUP, but when half the group can't access it, we can make the argument that letting it stay wasn't in keeping with the generally friendly environment that DG members are famous for ;o)

Terry, would you consider running for President??

you are the funniest one on here, nap..................still laffin'

:)

I love this place. :-)

Oh well, all good things must come to an end. It was a good run Trois.

If only stuff came out of my mouth the way Terry types - there out to be a class!

I don't know any of this computer language and symbols................is there a web site that i could copy to learn :-) and what they all mean???

gessie, what computer language and symbols are you referring to? This thread wasn't about anything like that so I'm not sure what you're asking?

we have covered a variety of topics on this thread....................I am talking about all the things like (ROTFL) (:-), etc..................there is bound to be somewhere to learn these.........

Here's a pretty good list, compliments of Gardenwife
http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/p.php?pid=675695

thanks so much.............this granny wants to keep up with the latest!!!

I'm still rather perturbed about the lack of notice before blu was killed. It seems brutal.

Did you receive complaints or was this just a random Admin decision? IF complaints were received, were they made by actual blu participants?

I am just requesting a bit more information on this decision.

mg

Terry, I took 3 days to respond to this because I was pretty mad. Today I really thought out my post and I got a half-flippant response. Putting a ;o) at the end of an insult doesn't make it any less of an insult.

I understand you never read blu. However, some of us had been involved from the beginning and really enjoyed it.

I asked if it was a random decision due to the length of many threads in the games forum. I also asked if the complaints were from actual blu participants, yet you ignored me.

Gayle, the decision wasn't mine, it was Dave's.

I've tried to respond to your questions to the extent I can, but I don't know the precise reasons he took it down. I can tell you there were complaints and it was his decision, hence the "yes". My answer wasn't flippant, it was factual.

I do know it wasn't a random decision - it was done in the best interests of the community, most of whom couldn't access it if they wanted to. Believe it or not, I did indeed read the thread a few times. It was the type of bantering thread that is well-suited to a sequel (or two or three or a half-dozen.)

And yes, I suppose it hits a nerve with me when we're accused of making random decisions...it implies we're either callous or careless. I think Dave goes WAY beyond the call of duty to invite and encourage input from the community on many decisions he could make unilaterally.

Not every decision can or will be made "by committee" (including decisions on if/when to pull a thread.) Just because we don't seek permission doesn't mean we don't carefully weigh the pros and cons of those decisions.

Part of the appeal for the participants of blu was the length. We that actively participated in the blu thread were proud of the length. That was the main reason it was still an active thread.

.

This message was edited Aug 14, 2007 5:41 PM

This message was edited Aug 14, 2007 8:37 PM

administration doesn't need our help people....................

****that didn't come out right..............meant to say that Dave doesn't need your help or mine in answering a question to the person who asked the question..................

This message was edited Aug 14, 2007 7:05 PM

Dave, might the system automatically close a thread and create a new thread with the original titla and a number to prevent this from becoming a game. Maybe make the decision based on the amount of data that must be downloaded when the thread is viewed.

There has always been a small problem with people ignoring the message that a new thread has been created. By closing the original thread that problem would be eliminated. Also the thread starter has no way of really knowing how much data is moving except by judging how long it takes to load and if they have fast connection it usually takes someone prompting them.

This could be one of those middle of the night tasks.

Geo, I had the very same thought (great minds) and posted Dave. Seems like it would solve the long to load thread problem to me and a good way to do it...

I'm not sure we need the site automatically doing that for us--on most other threads around here except that one, either the thread starter notices that things are getting long and starts a new thread on their own, or someone who's participating in the thread notices it and either asks the thread starter to begin a new one, or starts a new one themselves. At least on the forums I follow, this has seemed to work pretty well.

I think the factor that the automated new thread starter wouldn't be able to consider is the level of activity on the thread--if it's a highly active thread and you've got a lot of posts, it's definitely good to start a new thread, but there are some cases where there's a longish thread but it's not very active anymore, maybe the discussion is really winding down, or maybe it's a thread from years ago that someone decides to add an additional post to but it doesn't continue much farther than that, and I wouldn't want those type of threads getting an automatic new thread just because they hit post #100.

We receive - on average - 2 or 3 requests each week from someone who wants to transition to a "sequel" thread, because the old one is getting to slow for the particpants on dial up. They need our help to close the old thread to new posts, once they've added a final post that leads everyone to the new thread.

I'm happy to accomodate those requests. (If they provide the URL to the thread they need closed, it takes all of a couple clicks and a couple seconds for me to do that.)

Dave may want to program something to automate this process, but the way we do it now seems to work pretty well. People demonstrate kindness and compassion for others in their midst, and we can close the thread when everyone is ready to close it, rather than an abrupt, system-generated cutoff once a particular number of posts have been reached.

But if the system created the continuation thread it could create watches for everyone who was watching the original thread.

I'm liking this idea.

Most of the time, I'm all for automating processes that can be automated.

This one....shrug. I guess I'm just not a fan of creating a bunch of new rules and regulations just because of one isolated incident.

I think the reasons Liz and I gave pretty much sum up why I don't think it needs to be automated at this time. "Blu" was an anomaly, and the volume of threads that need to be closed by us is pretty minimal.

Each thread has its own personality and rhythm; I think we can and should continue to trust our members to use good judgment and let us when they need help to "turn the page" and start another thread. On the rare occasions that doesn't happen, then a thread may run too long and wind up deleted to keep the site running smoothly.