Here's a proposed process for getting more value out of forums. But it's extremely labor-intensive.

• Start by making a list of threads that seem to have a lot of value. The first level of added value will simply to sort out the threads by topic, instead of just one chronological list of threads.
• The basic conception that I have for this process is that we'll start with the original post, where the opening assertions are made, and then we'll just start weaving the subsequent questions and answers back into our copy of the OP. The value here is that if somebody makes a statement in the OP, and then 4 posts later somebody asks a question, and then 4 posts after that the thread starter answers the question, the answer should appear with the relevant statements from the OP. So it's: statement, question on that, and answer on that, instead of having to read 8 posts, getting into all kinds of other tangents, to follow that one line of reasoning. Ultimately, the author can figure out a way of making the original statement in a way that answers the questions, which would be even clearer. But I think that the first pass on a thread will really be just a cut-n-paste organization job.
• Where appropriate, label each statement as Fact, Theory, or Question.
• Then we can show others what we have done, suggesting that before they add anything new to an existing thread (on QDL, TB, or elsewhere), they might want to read the summary that we have developed.
• Then we can suggest to major contributors to other threads that they might want to help do summaries of their posts. Perhaps we could get them started, by recognizing a topic that has one or more decent threads, and we could summarize the first couple of posts, and then suggest that the contributors get into it.
• As we do this, we should be attentive to issues, and make corrections to the process, documentation, and/or software, to make it run smoother.