www.alphadictionary.com

Would it be possible to give thread initiators (First Posters) the ability to lock their own topics?

This way, when we post a query and get enough of an answer, we could close it off. This would perhaps help prevent wild drifts off topic, forcing people to create new threads to babble on.

In the thread on tarducken thread there is sufficient
babbling.

I'm not sure this would work-- we have a large number of threads on linguistic things that can very legitimately come up again much later. That's not the type of thread you mean, but with the ability there, it could be misused, and then a worthy topic would have to start over, with its commentary diffused- a problem we already have with repeated GoodWord threads.

Similarly someone else suggested an "ignore" feature-- much as I'm tempted, that would be a sorry stroke to have to take, and would mean when an ignored poster did post something worthwhile, the ignoring reader would miss it. That's the kind of feature needed where trolls and spammers abound-- better to police ourselves here.

(-- unless we could have a system where specific posts could be hidden by each user, sort of like YouTube does...?)

Good points, Sluggo. I'm not so sure that a return to a locked topic couldn't just start with a link to it, to remind people of what had gone before.

As to "Ignore," I thought of this, too. I wasn't so much concerned about missing out on possible worthwhile posts from the annoying one, however. My worry was missing potential posts from others, who might have posted earlier, before the latest post from the one being ignored.

I do wish the Administrators would delete the spam messages, though. There aren't many, but it would help prevent future problems, with the next generation of users coming along and trying to figure them out.

I've seen other boards where there is a button, "Report this." Or something along those lines. It could have a dialogue box to say why you're reporting it, but it would go with high priority to someone who can make a decision. Delete the post, reprimand or ban the user, etc.

As to "Ignore," I thought of this, too. I wasn't so much concerned about missing out on possible worthwhile posts from the annoying one, however. My worry was missing potential posts from others, who might have posted earlier, before the latest post from the one being ignored.

Oh. My previous experience with an "Ignore" button was where it ignores a specific poster (all their input) and lets everybody else's through, so the rest of the topic would still be there. Unless the ignored poster also started the topic.