>>An interesting thing was brought up to me in regards to the value of UT. During our interviews of candidates for a position, I was surprised on the number of applicants that indicated that they did not subscribe nor use UT. When asked why (since I have always valued the information it gives) the common reply was there was way too much trivial stuff being presented that it became a waste of time and not that much value.
>>
>>After thinking about it, i can see where there is getting to be too much "clutter" responses in what sometimes is a valid thread. Looking back, i see political opinions surfacing, book or movie discussion etc. that have no bearing to the original thread.
>>
>>I would be interested in what others think. I know the solution is not simple, only common sense from the contributers of this clutter to be a better member. Maybe just restricting a reponse to any one thread from any one member would be an answer. If there needs to be more responses, then start a new thread to extend it. Hopefully the new thread would stick to the original topic. I woul think that after 2 or 3 responses, if there is still an interest, that a new thread would certainly benefit all.
>>
>>Only my 2cents worth. I hate to see the value of the UT go down the tubes because of a handful of members getting carried away on personal issues outside of the initial threads purpose.
>
>Those topics have been part of the issue since the beginning. One thing is that the interface allows for such expansions of threads which might not be as easy with other sites. For example, if you go on a site, where for most of it, there are not threaded, it would mean that it is extremely difficult to relate a reply to a specific message of the original topic as everything is put down below. So, a specific message might relates to 4 messages higher in the page. Here, as it is threaded, it makes it easy and interesting for someone to contribute to the thread. So, as it grows, the chances of a thread drift increases and that happens a lot.
>
>All the mentioned topics then rely on the member's responsability to try to remain within the topic or to create a new thread when needed.
>
>The Universal Thread is also a proprietary product which means it is not a vertical market application or a threaded engine that you can download from the net and installed. Thus, many members wouldn't like that and wouldn't create their account or keep using it. Some would like to use a site which is fixed and wouldn't evolve. When the Universal Thread started, it was on a constant evolution, mostly to respond to the member's needs, but at the same time, was causing some irritation to some users which were not in favor of constant enhancements.
>
>Over the years, also mostly to respond to the member's needs, the support area became packed with many dynamic options. Some would also like something simple instead of this interface, which could be intimidating at first to use.
>
>The site got most of its members from other members. This has always been our top reasons members came to the site. It was also the same case when I used to do those demos at user groups. Once done, the next day, I could have observed that mostly all the group registered to the site. It might still be considered one of the secrets on the net as far as finding a good support site to get support on .NET, VFP and SQL Server. There are still many that are not aware of this site.

One of my friends recently joined this site. Unfortunately, his first question was so complex, that he didn't get any responses. Thus I'm not sure he is still visiting this site, though I'll ask him and recommend again.