Increasing the 60 character limit for thread titles

[Dominus Atheos]

I understand the reasons it was put in place, but this isn't the turn of the millennium anymore and almost no one is browsing this site on an 28.8kbps modem with a 640 by 480 screen. I think it's very outdated, and I don't think there's anyone who's going to find it harder to browse if it's increased. I often find it difficult to accurately describe a thread I'm posting in 60 characters or less, and I for one would appreciate it if the limit was upped so we could fit more into the thread title.

The article I wanted to post that caused me to start this thread was this. The shortest descriptive title I can think of is "Republicians worried they would be discriminated against in Obama's healthcare rationing panels", but that's way over 60 characters so I have a choice of not posting it or posting it under a title that doesn't accurately describe the article.

[Havok]

I don't see why this would actually annoy anyone, well except maybe Knife. As long as the thread title is properly, but not overly descriptive. But honestly, the board has gotten along just fine with bullet points, sarcasm and abbreviations.

"Rs worry about discrimination under Ds Health Care rationing" There you go, 60, and you still get the point of the thread across.

P.S. You are awesome man.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know, I could see someone finding that title misleading.

If it is a problem (and I'm not saying it is, I've rarely if ever found that my intended title broke the limit), then I don't see much harm in raising it to, let's say, a round one hundred. Why not add a poll, and see what percentage of users actually think this needs to be changed?

But unless a big chunk of the board membership takes issue with the status quo here, I'd advise filing this under "not a big priority."

[General Zod]

"Republicans whine about imaginary healthcare discrimination". Well under 60 characters and aptly describes the article. Don't blame the board software for your lack of creativity.

[The Romulan Republic]

"Republicans whine about imaginary healthcare discrimination". Well under 60 characters and aptly describes the article. Don't blame the board software for your lack of creativity.

True enough.

Like I said, I'm not convinced its a problem for most people, hence my suggestion of adding a poll to see if enough board members were being bothered by this to make it actually worth changing.

[Sarevok]

I don't think I am the only one who acceses the board from mobile devices. The current character limit is for some reason a very elegant fit on these tiny screens. I would hate to see that convenience go away.

[Bounty]

If you can't give a thread a unique identifier in under 60 characters, you're doing it wrong. They're titles, not abstracts.

"RNC fears health care discrimination". There.

[Hotfoot]

Don't know about everyone, but when I was in school, there was a skill we learned called "summation".

[RedImperator]

If it weren't for the growing number of people reading the site on iPhones and Blackberries, I'd be in favor of lifting the limit. As it stands, though, I think it should stay put.

[Broomstick]

You can read this site on iPhones and Blackberries?

Wow.

My personal tech is soooooo outdated these days.

But more on topic - regardless of devices, I thinking keeping to 60 characters or less is a good idea because, as noted, they're titles, not mini articles. Most titles are far fewer than the maximum, thus I do not see a problem with the limit as it stands.

[General Zod]

You can read this site on iPhones and Blackberries?

Wow.

My personal tech is soooooo outdated these days.

I can even browse on my cheapo Blackberry Pearl with its two inch screen at slightly-faster than dialup speeds.

[Themightytom]

I understand the reasons it was put in place, but this isn't the turn of the millennium anymore and almost no one is browsing this site on an 28.8kbps modem with a 640 by 480 screen. I think it's very outdated, and I don't think there's anyone who's going to find it harder to browse if it's increased. I often find it difficult to accurately describe a thread I'm posting in 60 characters or less, and I for one would appreciate it if the limit was upped so we could fit more into the thread title.

The article I wanted to post that caused me to start this thread was this. The shortest descriptive title I can think of is "Republicians worried they would be discriminated against in Obama's healthcare rationing panels", but that's way over 60 characters so I have a choice of not posting it or posting it under a title that doesn't accurately describe the article.

That would make testing more fun, they could have whole arguments in topic headlines.

[fgalkin]

You can read this site on iPhones and Blackberries?

Wow.

My personal tech is soooooo outdated these days.

But more on topic - regardless of devices, I thinking keeping to 60 characters or less is a good idea because, as noted, they're titles, not mini articles. Most titles are far fewer than the maximum, thus I do not see a problem with the limit as it stands.

Not only read- I've banned people here from my Googlephone.

And I think the limit should stay, if only to force people to apply some creativity to thread titles.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Kuja]

Not only read- I've banned people here from my Googlephone.

And I think the limit should stay, if only to force people to apply some creativity to thread titles.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

"Walper Defends Murderous Snowflake" remains my all-time favorite.

[erik_t]

If you can't give a thread a unique identifier in under 60 characters, you're doing it wrong. They're titles, not abstracts.

"RNC fears health care discrimination". There.

I agree with this completely.

*EDIT* Yep, I fail at looking at the last-post date. Apologies.

[Count Chocula]

I don't think I am the only one who acceses the board from mobile devices. The current character limit is for some reason a very elegant fit on these tiny screens. I would hate to see that convenience go away.

I occasionally log on from my Palm LifeDrive, so the low-bandwidth option non-sucks for me.

Why give Mike something else to change? The board's running damn well as is.

[Stark]

If it weren't for the growing number of people reading the site on iPhones and Blackberries, I'd be in favor of lifting the limit. As it stands, though, I think it should stay put.

I should really talk to Starglider about some of the code changes that can be made to make the site (style 4 at least) more accessible on mobile devices. This said, different display options for mobile devices is pretty easy (especially for iphones, where you can drop in some code and blam looks different on iPhones) and doesn't need to affect people using a computer at all.

[Bluewolf]

I would surport the idea of making it so that this site can have its own layout change for handheld stuff. It'd be pretty useful and to be honest, it should not be that hard. I am no coder though.

[Starglider]

If you can describe exactly what you want and it isn't a huge change, I can most likely do it. However from experience I suspect the problem will be convincing Mike to spend the time merging and testing the changes. How about you do that first and if he's prepared to do so then I will write the code.

[Bluewolf]

If we are dicussing doing this then is it possible we could split this topic or something? It would make it eaiser than derailing this one.

[Dark Flame]

I asked about a mobile-friendly version a while back, and was told to just use BareBones, except it still doesn't fit any better than the regular layout on my Ipod Touch.