I am answering this by starting a new post since the thread where you asked it has been closed to any further posting (I can't entirely tell why).

It gets caused by any continuous "string" of text (doesn't have to be a URL, but they are common causes) which goes on "too long" without a "break-able" character. "Space" is the most obvious break-able character, but there are a few others, if I remember correctly: hyphen, maybe comma, not as sure about "." or "?"

I don't think that "quot; - - as in http:// works as a breakable character.

While hyphen will break on this website it does not always on other internet sites - - it's the reason I do not (like the) use (of) the "normal" journalism convention of two consecutive "hyphens" to represent a "true dash". That convention says that you do it like this--with the characters all touching - - but I add the spaces for better "line-breaking" and read-ability.

Best wishes,

Rex

That's the BEST explanation I've ever heard. I do think long URL's are the most frequent cause. I've been kind of watching them and it often happens in threads where someone has posted a link to another Fodor's thread. Just look at the length of the URL for this thread!

Thanks for the info. Though I doubt we can train "the travellers" in the use of "break-able" text.

Rex:
Would you help me with one more thing?

I don't know if I'm searching correctly. If I want to search for Hotel XYZ in Rome, this is what I do:

"XYZ and Rome" (without the "&quot then I select Italy as the topic. Is that right? Can I also use & or + instead of "and"?

Ummm... the best aswer I can propose is "I think that's right". Bit honestly, I cannot discern how "operators" work here - - every time I think i know, I can do a search that seems to defy the rules of how I think they are supposed to work.

I know what you mean. Sometimes I just know I've read a thread with a hotel name in it. I do a search and the only thing I get is some old thread from 1999. I think that's probably due to spelling.

I've also had searching troubles that I think would be due to spelling. It sometimes helps to be as generic as possible in the search in case things are spelled bad. On the other hand a search for "hotel and Italy" would certainly make finding that specific hotel tough!

the search function here baffles me.

For example, sometimes I want to find the <Paris Superthread>, or the <Helpful Information Italy> thread.
Results vary. If I type in the above phrases and search, sometimes they turn up, but other times, like JeanneB, I only get some postings from years ago. It's not a spelling issue.

Maybe I'm being naive. But is there really such a thing as the "Paris Superthread"?

Such thing as the "Paris Superthread"?

Sure there is. Although I was a dissenter oer its merits in the thread that debaed its creation - - http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...p;tid=34519182 - - it certainly has been started, and I'll let you judge whether it is successful or not.

http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...p;tid=34519236

Not a blatant failure, I would say that.

And easily retrievable with searching <i>just</i> the word &quot;superthread&quot;.

As good as Rex's initial explanation is, I believe he just disproved his own theory. His long link above breaks onto two lines nicely and this thread is the normal width without &quot;blowing out the right side&quot; like Jeanne mentions. (At least on my machine as I look at it right now; sometimes stuff like that can be browser and platform specific.) At any rate, I'm almost positive I've seen that behavior on threads with no links whatsoever.

As for the search function, the coding of searches can be quite tricky. If you're too liberal you'll get tons of responses for virtually every search which hurts the usability. But, if you go too far the other way (or make a mistake in your logic) and exact word searches won't always even work. (My company is redesigning its website and on the first go-around our programmer had our search working where exact-name searches would work if you type in &quot;War and&quot; but would fail if you completed the title by saying &quot;War and Peace.&quot; It took a lot of testing on our part and several tries before we got it working correctly.)

As for the Paris Superthread, it does come up (albeit as the second choice... why I can't say) if you do a search on the exact title of the thread &quot;Paris -- Superthread.&quot; (Their search isn't excluding special characters like hyphens, which some searches will.)

No... Rex is right, I think... watch this:

http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...psthisisenough

Let's see what this looks like.

See? Rex's hypothesis (although, I'm sure he knew it to be a fact) was correct...

Rex's 2 links in his post are both actually quite short, so they have no need to push the screen wide. They shouldn't wrap - though each can appear on a different line from the other because there are spaces between them.

Bozo, on the other hand, did a fine job causing the window to go wide.

This is getting curiouser and curiouser.

Take a look at this thread:
http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...nneB&amp;fid=2

I can't see any reason for it to &quot;go wide&quot;. It doesn't fit any of the explanations so far.
The ONLY distinction is that it has a URL in the first post...not that THAT is so distinctive.

I give up...will muddle through.

JeanneB - That just gives a link to a list of all threads you have posted to.

Go to the thread you mean, and right click on the name of the thread, at its top. Choose &quot;copy link&quot; or whatever means that and then paste it here.

I'm curious!

jlm is right - - and i thought i could find it for you, but i don't see one that fails to line break properly in the top 50 threads on which you have posted.

Darn. I am on my client's computer now and can't remember which one it was. I'll see if I can find it when I get home. I knew that and did it anyway...stooopid.

Sorry, guys, I just cannot find that thread I referred to earlier. As I went thru numerous threads, though, it seems apparent to me that the one thing distinguising &quot;wide&quot; threads is a long URL.

I wish I could find that thread because I would swear it didn't have a long URL, just a very short one. But it does seem to be a likely cause of the &quot;fat thread&quot; problem.