IPL Sub-forum

[Neil Pickup]

The last 2 IPL threads had less than 4,000 posts each. In the grand scheme of things that's not that many really (4 of the 5 Ashes Tests alone had that many or more posts)

For comparison, India in South Africa over Christmas and New Year had more than 10,000 posts, and the Ashes sub-forum contains 20,000+.

 

[Jono]

Look, you raise good points but those arguments are simply promoting those tours to be sub-forums, rather than the IPL not be a sub-forum.

Additionally, the Ashes got a separate forum, not a 'sub-forum'. I'm fine with the IPL being within Cricket Chat as GIMH suggested.

Also, the 2007 Rugby World Cup had 2838 posts, and got a separate forum.

And I rest my case, once again, on the cricket web forumer world cup.

 

[vcs]

Out of interest, what's the difference between something getting a forum and a subforum, apart from it having a link on the "cricketweb.net/forum" page?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yes, but as a percentage of our regular posters, what was that four years ago?

There's a much stronger argument for these major tours to have their own devoted area, forum or subforum - I couldn't care less about the difference between forums and subforums, as all I ever do is click "New Posts" - than the IPL (which has the same posting volume as the Aussie Domestic Thread).

The question, I think, is where do we draw the line? At the moment it seems to be 15k+.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Still failing to see why every event should get a separate sub-forum for a small volume of threads. It's just as easy to find said new threads on the 'New Posts' function as it would be to trawl through sub-fora to find some specific event. People going sub-forum crazy, methinks.

 

[PhoenixFire]

What's anyone's actual objection to sub-forums though? I mean if there are enough people wanting one, why not? I can think of plenty of reasons to have them for major events, but not really any against..

 

[GIMH]

Still failing to see why every event should get a separate sub-forum for a small volume of threads. It's just as easy to find said new threads on the 'New Posts' function as it would be to trawl through sub-fora to find some specific event. People going sub-forum crazy, methinks.

As someone who browses by New Posts a lot, yes, I agree.

However, let's say I follow IPL, and there's no subforum. I find the commentary crass, or I think the umpiring has been poor. I decide to make a thread about it. Chances are, the mods will merge my thread with the IPL thread. Not a dig on them, that's just how it works.

Same goes for the Eng V Ind series, and there have been heaps of great Ashes threads in the last three series that wouldn't have likely ever been created without the subforum.

I agree with PhoenixFire tbh

 

[Furball]

I agree with PhoenixFire tbh

Away and have a wash.

 

[GIMH]

I ironed my hand to punish myself for typing it tbh

 

[Nate]

Would much prefer a sub-forum.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Chances are, the mods will merge my thread with the IPL thread.

I have to honestly say that I've never noticed this.

 

[GotSpin]

Can the IPL just be on a different site.

 

[Jono]

I have to honestly say that I've never noticed this.

If someone made a post about the excessive advertising, or perhaps the umpiring, with regards to last year's IPL it would have been merged into the official IPL thread. No doubt about it.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Jeez. Makes me wonder why certain people's posts aren't just automatically merged into a greater "Tendulkar" thread or why other people's posts aren't automatically merged into the rubbish bin.

 

[honestbharani]

Jeez. Makes me wonder why certain people's posts aren't just automatically merged into a greater "Tendulkar" thread or why other people's posts aren't automatically merged into the rubbish bin.

the term "greater Tendulkar" juz made chuckle, tbh.. And it is midnight over here..