Over-Merging of threads?

[Schneed10]

In general, to me, merging makes sense when you have two threads that are created nearly simultaneously by different people who coincidentally wanted to talk about the same topic at the same time. Like when two different people see news and come here to create threads about it. That's perfect merge material.

And when you have an ongoing topic, and a new development occurs related to that topic, I'd like to see a new thread. It catches your attention as soon as you get onto the site.

In general, I would think mods would want to avoid threads that get too long. Because people come to the site sometimes wanting to discuss a certain topic. But if threads are 200 posts long, I can't blame people for not searching them. Long threads would seem to contribute to the unnecessary creation of new threads. I get that mods want to avoid the rehashing of discussions though. I'm not sure how to manage that. But if we merge too often, the site could become a bit less user-friendly.

Glad to offer my feedback, and I want mods to understand that I don't intend it as criticism. Just want to be helpful and offer an opinion as one of the users who comes to the site very often. As the site is growing it becomes harder to manage, and despite the growth it's still by far my favorite site on the net.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Glad to offer my feedback, and I want mods to understand that I don't intend it as criticism. Just want to be helpful and offer an opinion as one of the users who comes to the site very often. As the site is growing it becomes harder to manage, and despite the growth it's still by far my favorite site on the net.

I don't take it as a personal attack and I highly doubt any mod would. It's important that mods have feedback from members, especially really valuable ones such as yourself. It would be crazy dumb to ignore members' suggestions.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Daseal

So someone should have to dig through 100 posts to see if it was posted? That's why accurate titles and concise points make tons of sense. If I wanted to find information in that CBA thread it could take me hours.

I agree with you. Accurate titles and concise points do make sense. But there are times when it just takes a quick glance and thread titles to see what's being discussed.

We'll keep trying to perfect the system.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by paulskinsfan

I can't believe Im saying this, and Im sure no one has the time to do it, but we could have the mods review potential new threads before they are posted? Again, Im sure no one has the time to approve threads all day while at work, so it's probably a dumb idea.

I know exactly what you're saying and it's a point us mods have discussed. But, ultimately, we've decided not to go with that approach. We've also discussed the possibility of only allowing members with X many posts to create new threads. We also rejected that proposal. Basically, we don't want to become dictators. We want the site to be run by the fans (except those who have uncontrollable "net-rage") so we let everyone post without mods having to give the "OK."

Until this issue gets hammered out, I'm not merging any threads. I'll wait to see what the members want before doing anything further. I'm also not voting in the poll, but I strongly encourage everyone else to.

[Huddle]

I don't have any problem ignoring duplicate threads. I vote to leave them alone. Merged threads can be hard to follow.

[diehardskin2982]

I agree all this mergeing can be rediculous. If thread that I've seen has someone stating "isn't this in another thread?" Oh well it gonna happen especially if something more has happened days in the subject after the original post.
oh well

[Cooley 350Z]

I think in theory the idea of having mods approve new threads would be best, but it's just not feasible to have a mod constantly monitoring in order to approve new threads & would ultimately mean somebody logging on to start a new thread with some breaking news would find that with the delay of approving a new thread, the news wouldnt be quite as "breaking" anymore.

For the most part it seems like there are a lot of threads that could be merged & the mod's do a great job of merging them. There seem to be a lot of people who register & immediately want to start creating new threads, as opposed to sort of hanging around for a little while to see how things work here. I personally checked the site out for a couple of weeks before even registering, and it was probably another month until I even started my first original thread. I know there's not really a way to control how quickly people begin new threads, just my 2-cents.

[12thMan]

Let me say up front that this is really a good thread. I think this kind of dialogue speaks to the type of commnity that has been created here and one that is destined to become better. Kudos to Daesel for starting this one!

One of the things, in my opionion, that has contributed to merged threads, locked threads and to some extent a loss of insight on meaningful topics, are so-called fans that register here with the intention to "stir things up", if you will. Recently I've noticed that we've had quite a few newbies that have come and gone. And it seems that many of the topics started out great and went way off course, which inevitably put the Mods in a position to either let "nothing go nowhere longer" or just merge the thread. So to some extent, I think it's a matter of new members becoming acclimated to our culture and so forth, and just weeding out the jokers! To no fault of their own or ours, it's the nature of the beast.

Truthfully, of late I really haven't had much to contribute by way of starting a new thread, so I just post occasionally and mostly catch up on what's going. Whatever we decide to do, I know it will be for the better.

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

I voted #1

Thanks for asking guys.

Hail Skins

[That Guy]

#1, basically agree with everything scheed has said, so i have no need to start a thread about it

I should have made a CBA FAQ a week or two ago though. It would have saved about 100 posts of duplicating answers.

[SmootSmack]

How would everyone feel if the mods set a cap on number of posts in a thread, or number of days a thread is open?

Let's say, hypothetically, after 100 posts, or 5 days we lock the thread so it doesn't get stale. And if it goes off-coure before hand we'd lock it then. Threads such as Super Happy Fun, Question 3, and game day threads are exempt.

We mods are just tossing around some ideas and want to get your input as well. Keep in mind though that Matty is away for the weekend so no real changes will be implemented until he gets back next week.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by That Guy

I should have made a CBA FAQ a week or two ago though. It would have saved about 100 posts of duplicating answers.

Yeah, kudos to you for laying the knowledge on us over the past week. It's been helpful.

OK now I'm off-topic. So I'll say something on topic: I'm glad the Mods banned ST Is God. I welcome newbies, but if they can't comprehend basic message board etiquette they shouldn't be here. And please continue to use TMC's SQUAWK avatar. That's just priceless!

[BigSKINBauer]

I don't like a limit on the amount of posts in a thread. I mean if we sign peyton manning i am sure that will break any mark we set. I don't mind the merging of threads but it should be laid off a bit. I mean i don't think there can be a hard set rule but rather a situation by situation basis as it is now. Just LAY OFF WILL YOU!!! Topics that are so dynamic as the CBA are going to be difficult situations but i don't think there should be a hard set number.

[dmek25]

do we have a rift among ranks?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by dmek25

do we have a rift among ranks?

Yes, it looks like we're almost evenly split between the yea's and nay's. But fortunately it's being discussed in an intelligent, thoughtful, and civil manner.