I agree with David on this. I spend quite some time crafting my replies to maximise content while minimising waffle and the 2 post limit, while frustrating sometimes, also stops me from simply knee-jerk responding, which can be all too easy to do.

It's already far too easy for discussions to be derailed by the mischievous or the lame-brained barrow-pusher; increasing the post limit would simply give more power to their elbows, so to speak.

I think the post allowance is adequate. Some people talk a lot of dribble and it becomes illegible.
Direct and to the point, is the way to go, not carry on like some politician, talking in circles.
Some of these of site referrals become confusing and overdone.
350 words should be adequate for anyone to get an opinion across.
Some posts end up causing personal arguments, this takes up space that is not necessary.
Just because someone does not agree with you dosn't mean you have to reply. It's there opinion.
I say the moderators are doing a very good job.

“Some people talk a lot of dribble and it becomes illegible…”

Maybe so, Desmond, but if they do they are doing it within the current posting limitations. So these limitations are not preventing it.

Is there really a significant difference in the ‘dribble’ factor on the 2-posts-per-day article threads, compared to the 4-post-per-day general threads?

I don’t think there is. So I can’t see that increasing the article thread allowance to 4 per day would increase dribbling, er… dribbleness.

----

“I can just not read a post if I don't want to.”

Exactly, Peter. It is very easy to just brush over dribble posts.

----

“I spend quite some time crafting my replies….also stops me from simply knee-jerk responding”

Yes Antiseptic, the word and post limitations certainly help us serious conscientious posters to be efficient with our words. But again, is there a significant difference on article and general threads?

I don’t think so or not greatly at any rate.

All considered it is clear to me that increasing article thread posts to 4 per 24 hours would definitely be a good thing.

Ludwig

Yes, I think it's timely to have this discussion again, so thank you for raising it. I didn't notice it at the bottom of my screen or I would have chimed in earlier. There are many good comments here, most of which I see merit in.

One I definitely disagree with though is your bells and whistles suggestion. I'd much prefer to have plain and uniform text, with maybe slightly better scope for emphasis, eg bold or underline, but not both. The content of the post should always be the focus. Colour and too many font sizes and emoticons etc would just be a distraction.

The reason I prefer the general section over the articles is that I can get straight into the conversation without having to read a lengthy article, most of them being at least two pages. There are many articles I know I'd enjoy and I often intend to come back and read them but rarely do.

The posting limits are also pretty right I think. Perhaps the articles limit could be raised to three. Easing the limits too much could result in the forum being dominated by the same voices. The limits also encourage considered posting as opposed to reflex response, which I think improves the standard of debate.

I also think that timing the 24 hour limit from an individual's last post is best. Changing it to a uniform time could lead to a spike in traffic on the site and possible access issues as a result, though having the changeover at midnight would probably prevent that.

I think the word limit at 350 is about right even though I'm often frustrated by it, but again it encourages concise and considered posting. As someone who regularly posts 350 words on the knocker, I'm wondering how many others skim through long posts, as was admitted to here by one particular poster. I won't mention her name as that might in itself attract her eyes. I'm just checking to see if she's read this far. If I don't get a response I'll know she hasn't. :)

It might be better to have the two post limit for both articles and discussion threads.

Two posts give one 700 words. Articles are between 800 and 2,000 words. If one has a coherent objection to the ideas in a thread or an article write another article. If it is well-written and worth reading olo will post it as an article, and your thought will reach a wider audience.

G’mooorn’n Bronwyn

“I didn't notice it at the bottom of my screen or I would have chimed in earlier.”

Yeah I thought that might be a big factor in limiting the number of responses.

“One I definitely disagree with though is your bells and whistles suggestion…”

Oh I dunno, all these drab grey people with their terribly serious drab grey lives, stressed out, no sense of humour, ready to jump down peoples’ throats at the first opportunity. Give em a suggestion that might brighten their lives a bit….and they just reject it out of hand!! They just want to stay in their drab grey comfort zone. A bit of colour and stuff might be SCARY!! Oooow!!

Sorry Bronwyn. I’ll pull my woolly head in now!! : )

Thanks for your thoughts.