AFF's 225,000th post thread....

[JohnK]

You can't always get what you want, JohnK

I can keep trying though. Not that trying ever gets me anywhere anyway.

 

[straitman]

Threads: 14,992, Posts: 224,484, Members: 18,196

Only a few more. Looks like the early predictions may just scrape in :!:

 

[oz_mark]

It was not scheduled.

admin indeed removed several sub-forums yesterday; this was in the process of ad-hoc housekeeping.

You mean those 1999, 2000, 2001...2006, 2008 QP meet subforums have gone???

(OK, maybe they didn't really go back to 1999!)

 

[ejb]

You mean those 1999, 2000, 2001...2006, 2008 QP meet subforums have gone???

(OK, maybe they didn't really go back to 1999!)

Along with the QF subforum on point transfers.

ejb

 

[serfty]

Along with the QF subforum on point transfers.

ejb

Some were deleted, some weren't.

Look to the new "Archives" forum near the end of the main forums page.

 

[JohnK]

Threads: 14,992, Posts: 224,484, Members: 18,196

Only a few more. Looks like the early predictions may just scrape in :!:

I know it is stated in the OP that deleted posts do not count but you really need to factor in the ~366 posts that were removed the other day. Everyone's prediction was based on those ~366 posts being there and to exclude them at this late stage alters the prediction.

I make it less than 60 posts to go....

 

[JohnK]

According to my calculations we have reached the 225,000th post and the winner by default is kpc as we have not reached the first prediction yet.

Here is the 225,000th post.

 

[serfty]

Damn .. if I'd submitted an entry I would have only missed by ½ a day ...

 

[straitman]

I know it is stated in the OP that deleted posts do not count but you really need to factor in the ~366 posts that were removed the other day. Everyone's prediction was based on those ~366 posts being there and to exclude them at this late stage alters the prediction.

I make it less than 60 posts to go....

I do not believe the 366 posts should count :!:

.... and it probably won't alter the outcome.

 

[JohnK]

I do not believe the 366 posts should count :!:

.... and it probably won't alter the outcome.

Why shouldn't they count? How about if 1,000 posts were deleted? Or 2,000 posts deleted? Or even 5,000 posts deleted? Would that alter the outcome?

 

[straitman]

Why shouldn't they count? How about if 1,000 posts were deleted? Or 2,000 posts deleted? Or even 5,000 posts deleted? Would that alter the outcome?

I am simply expressing my opinion :!:

No argument from me other than your own T & C's.

If we lost 5000 post then so be it :!: (but we did not)

 

[JohnK]

No argument from me other than your own T & C's.

To be fair though I don't think anyone anticipated mass post deletions.

If we lost 5000 post then so be it :!: (but we did not)

Yes but we did lose some posts. Either way I feel the result has been affected in some way. Perhaps I am wrong....

 

[samh004]

Hilarious! Perhaps rules for the 250,000th post or 300,000th post should be changed to account for such deletions

Posting rate certainly has slowed down, though I’ve been re-shaped by Telstra, so it’s painful to browse again

 

[drron]

But you fellows have made up for the missing posts by arguing about if they should count.maybe an adjustment should be made for all those posts that otherwise would not have occurred:shock:
Or maybe this once have joint winners-as long as kpc doesn't mind.

 

[oz_mark]

Why shouldn't they count? How about if 1,000 posts were deleted? Or 2,000 posts deleted? Or even 5,000 posts deleted? Would that alter the outcome?

Looking at people guesses, I would say most people had accounted for them going missing . I know I did

 

[JohnK]

Looking at people guesses, I would say most people had accounted for them going missing . I know I did

And most us still got it wrong.

 

[Bundy Bear]

I always thought that we went by the numbers on the bottom of the forum; which currently shows:

Threads: 15,005, Posts: 224,758, Members: 18,208

But then you get archiving in the way, do we go with before or after the archive.

Hopefully all of the 2009 meet threads get archived once we go into a new year, as I find when reading from one of those phones with internet then scrolling through a heap of extra menus is annoying.

 

[serfty]

... But then you get archiving in the way, do we go with before or after the archive. ...

It wasn't archiving per se the caused the issue, it was actual sub-forum deletion. It is likely in future that forums/threads will be moved under the "Archive" forum hierarchy rather than deleted.

 

[Bundy Bear]

It wasn't archiving per se the caused the issue, it was actual sub-forum deletion. It is likely in future that forums/threads will be moved under the "Archive" forum hierarchy rather than deleted.

Does pre archiving or post archiving effect the result.

For some reason I missed voting; I think I was in New Zealand that weekend, maybe too much sun and too much wine and I ended up with a fuzzy brain.

 

[straitman]

I ended up with a fuzzy brain.

:shock: