Honestly, it only takes two seconds to check the top of the board.
New posts go at the top of the board. Additional threads in the designated post go all the way to the bottom. So if you want to start a discussion about say, the voyage of Victarion Greyjoy, you have to put it all the way under every single post in a back and forth argument about the heraldry of northern Houses.
They won't miss a new reply at the bottom of the huge thread. People still finish the book every day now and could come in there, read it all and comment, if they feel like. It's actually more likely they miss a post somewhere on the upper half of the board concerning the same book all over again than miss a new reply in the big thread. You'll also be sure to find the people who are interested in the book and already read it right there.
We've had this rule for big discussions since wotmania, most people don't find it hard to stick to it.
Not making a new post for each new thought on the same book is also courtesy to the people who check that board and aren't interested in ADWD at all.
*MySmiley*
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.
Please remember to use the Announced thread at the top of the board for ADWD posts
- 20/07/2011 11:04:34 AM
1064 Views
*NM*
*NM*
I approve of this message.
- 20/07/2011 03:21:40 PM
842 Views
I'm on holiday.
- 20/07/2011 06:15:13 PM
833 Views
So if a disgruntled member decides to post spoilers in his title, how long until you see to fix it?
- 22/07/2011 06:29:15 AM
812 Views
And how long to scroll through an increasingly long and tedious mega-thread?
- 22/07/2011 06:26:22 AM
912 Views
People here are used to such big threads
- 22/07/2011 09:31:21 AM
1170 Views
Why?
- 22/07/2011 06:22:04 AM
827 Views
Very little of your rant here deserves a reply. Insults won't help at all.
- 22/07/2011 09:44:08 AM
859 Views
I'm actually more likely to read the long thread than tons of short ones
- 22/07/2011 07:52:15 PM
912 Views