- 1,892
- 3,346
Does anyone recall how we used to have those calc blogs with like 5 separate feats in them? Why did we get rid of those? Simple, because they were extra work for our CGM's, and decreased overall morale when it came to evaluating a calc. In that same vein, personally, I believe that we need to place a limit on how big a single Content Revision Thread can be out of respect for our Adiminstrators and Thread Moderators.
In case anyone's guessed, yes, this is a consequence of this thread. If a thread is so big that I cannot summarize it using passive recall (MOMENTS after I finished reading, it mind you) that is sincerely a problem. Moreover, skimming through the thread, its very obvious that I'm not the only one having this problem; multiple staff members demonstrated an impaired ability to recall the contents of the OP, and some even highlight that fact outright. The OP is 11,000 words... 11,000. On paper, that is the equivalent of 22 full pages. To put that into perspective, it took Einstein 24 pages to explain relativity.
Additionally, speaking from expierence, the chances of getting an evaluation decreases astronomically the longer a thread gets. By limiting the size of a CRT, we would also, consequentially, be decreasing the size of the individual replies. This makes evaluating much easier and makes discussions more refined to specific topics.
PROPOSAL: New rule that states any thread published needs to be at the very most 5,500 words. Roughly half the size of the thread I mentioned above. Any more than that and it should be split into parts.
In case anyone's guessed, yes, this is a consequence of this thread. If a thread is so big that I cannot summarize it using passive recall (MOMENTS after I finished reading, it mind you) that is sincerely a problem. Moreover, skimming through the thread, its very obvious that I'm not the only one having this problem; multiple staff members demonstrated an impaired ability to recall the contents of the OP, and some even highlight that fact outright. The OP is 11,000 words... 11,000. On paper, that is the equivalent of 22 full pages. To put that into perspective, it took Einstein 24 pages to explain relativity.
Additionally, speaking from expierence, the chances of getting an evaluation decreases astronomically the longer a thread gets. By limiting the size of a CRT, we would also, consequentially, be decreasing the size of the individual replies. This makes evaluating much easier and makes discussions more refined to specific topics.
PROPOSAL: New rule that states any thread published needs to be at the very most 5,500 words. Roughly half the size of the thread I mentioned above. Any more than that and it should be split into parts.