POLL - Thread merging - for or against?

[Crawley]

Ok, just noticed the Arsenal and Liverpool threads. But all relevant. We don't want multiple threads about these other teams, do we?

Apart from that, the new stadium and the youth threads and that's it. All perfectly viable I think.

 

[Spursalot]

Part of the issue could be that out of the 25 topics in 'Spurs News and Views' about half of them have nothing to do with spurs.

 

[Jordinho]

Part of the issue could be that out of the 25 topics in 'Spurs News and Views' about half of them have nothing to do with spurs.

I think the reasoning there is that a 'General Football' forum wouldn't generate enough activity, people being lazy fudgers and all that.

 

[Spangran]

I don't think this debate should be characterised as mod bashing. Clearly there was decision taken to consolidate threads in this way and the mods are enforcing it as per that decision. It is also clear the decision was taken to solve a problem so in that case there is definitely a place for merging threads.

The debate shouldn't be between whether merging is good or bad because merging is a useful tool to try and keep discussions together and coherent.

The debate should be whether the balance is right. The poll results show that it probably isn't right although the wording " no decent discussions happen on here any more" is too exaggerated, there should a balance.

I think it should depend or whether something is actually new. For instance, a post about Gareth Bale being rather good or his best position is on the left should just be added to the generic Bale thread. If , however, he was to breakdown in training or sign a pre-agreement with Arsenal I'd like to see a dedicated thread as it's a piece of news and worthy of it's own thread rather than on page 200 of a mega thread.

The poll should probably be around what type of news is worthy of a new thread rather than whether merging should always / never happen. How about a debate on what a healthy balance would be?

To answer Crawley's question, I consider most of the threads on the front page to be "mega-threads" as the current topic has no relation to the original thread intent. A mega thread has the original intent, every other story that has ever happened to the player all mixed in with generic "didn't he play well in the reserves last night" type chat.

 

[jts1882]

I tend to skip new threads if the title doesn't interest me, whereas I always check the long running ones. The lack of interesting discussion has IMO very little to do with merging and more to do with the quality of posts . There's far too much crap being posted.

This is just my personal opinion, but for me the problems are posters that...

care more about catching others being "wrong"

drag up old arguments to discredit newer posts

post unfunny quips and snide remarks instead of joining the discussion

will try and turn anything into a Harry discussion

need to brand others as 'pro' or 'anti' on various topics

don't bother reading what others post before posting themselves

can't accept other opinions than their own being remotely correct

are always sniping at other posters or groups of posters they don't agree with

I agree with all the above, but think merging threads exacerbates the problems by bringing all the discussions together.

A lot of petty problems are caused by people bringing up past arguments and inconsistencies in posters positions (as if no one can change their mind on new information). New threads with people responding to the content of the thread rather than past perceptions of the posters would generate better debate. I'm sure people would still bring across past positions, but more threads would help create an answer the post rather than answer the poster environment.

Merging threads when people are too lazy to read the first page is obviously a good thing. There is also a good case to make for merging threads on particular players or issues for people who visit occasionally. It seems to me there are two types of threads: (1) those that a live discussions and (2) those that people keep coming back to over days and weeks. It helps if the latter are merged. But why not give new threads some time to develop a topical real time discussion? If the discussion develops leave them until things slow down, when they could become candidates for merging.

 

[Crawley]

I agree with all the above, but think merging threads exacerbates the problems by bringing all the discussions together.

A lot of petty problems are caused by people bringing up past arguments and inconsistencies in posters positions (as if no one can change their mind on new information). New threads with people responding to the content of the thread rather than past perceptions of the posters would generate better debate. I'm sure people would still bring across past positions, but more threads would help create an answer the post rather than answer the poster environment.

Merging threads when people are too lazy to read the first page is obviously a good thing. There is also a good case to make for merging threads on particular players or issues for people who visit occasionally. It seems to me there are two types of threads: (1) those that a live discussions and (2) those that people keep coming back to over days and weeks. It helps if the latter are merged. But why not give new threads some time to develop a topical real time discussion? If the discussion develops leave them until things slow down, when they could become candidates for merging.

I think, if you leave a new thread to run for a while, and eventually merge it into another larger thread, the posts seperate into date/time order, therefore posts from the newer thread (assuming the larger one was still active) would be mixed in and no longer make sense as they would not be answering the relevant posts.
As I say, I THINK that is what happens.

 

[milo]

There are few reasons given that I really don't get. You don't need to start a new thread every time you have a new thought. We've gone through phases with posters like that and they were not met with approval. When I first started out I found much easier to start posting in existing threads than starting new ones. Might just be me, but why is it so important to have your thoughts or opinions in a separate thread, if not for the attention? If it's a good post it will get noticed wherever you put it.

I go on opposition forums quite a bit to see what they're up to and I find the most organized ones to be the best ones. Those that have a first page littered with threads that have poor titles and few responses appear far staler and far less interesting. If I want to read about Gareth Bale or have something on my mind that I'd like to share I go to the thread titled Gareth Bale. Should I somehow come up with some ground breaking new idea I could even create a new thread about it. Say 'Classic wingers vs Inverted wingers'. I really don't see how the possibility of it getting merged with another thread should deter anyone else from doing so. Generally speaking , I feel that most complaints about merging come from thread starters that are unhappy about their thread not being "approved". Again we come to the need for attention. This is also manifested in the posters that respond to everything, regardless of whether they have anything to add, which they usually don't.

I do agree that some of the "mega threads" can appear a bit stale from time to time, but there isn't an endless supply of things to post. You will get circular arguments and old arguments popping up now and again. I do wish we could cut down on deliberately dragging up old stuff that's been done to death already.

I completely agree

 

[milo]

I agree with all the above, but think merging threads exacerbates the problems by bringing all the discussions together.

I think that the important thing to remember is that there is very little merging of threads going on. I would estimate that it is currently about two or three a month (other mods please correct me if I am wrong).

 

[milo]

I think, if you leave a new thread to run for a while, and eventually merge it into another larger thread, the posts seperate into date/time order, therefore posts from the newer thread (assuming the larger one was still active) would be mixed in and no longer make sense as they would not be answering the relevant posts.
As I say, I THINK that is what happens.

That is what happens

 

[onlyme]

FFS how about the mods answering the questions raised by the proles rather than chatting among themselves?

 

[onlyme]

Your question is very important to us and we will get back to you as soon as possible. You are currently in a queue, please be patient and we will be with you soon.

Very funny.

 

[Spursalot]

FFS how about the mods answering the questions raised by the proles rather than chatting among themselves?

It's a discussion.

They are discussing it in the open so everyone can see how they feel about it.



Makes perfect sense really.

 

[milo]

FFS how about the mods answering the questions raised by the proles rather than chatting among themselves?

For a start, how about you talking to us with some respect? We are not here at your beck and call. If there is something important, that you think that we have missed, why not bring it to our attention or politely remind us?

Frankly, you are lucky that we don't issue infraction points for that comment. On most boards you'd be banned.

 

[onlyme]

This is a chat site. Nobody dies from what is said on here or if they put a post in the wrong place. It has crashed many times and all the posts have been lost. So fudging what?

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I honestly think if i was made a mod and then created a coup and ran the whole site no matters like this would come up.

 

[onlyme]

For a start, how about you talking to us with some respect? We are not here at your beck and call. If there is something important, that you think that we have missed, why not bring it to our attention or politely remind us?

Frankly, you are lucky that we don't issue infraction points for that comment. On most boards you'd be banned.

Respect is earned. I have asked simple questions and you have not answered. Why?

 

[milo]

This is a chat site. Nobody dies from what is said on here or if they put a post in the wrong place. It has crashed many times and all the posts have been lost. So fudging what?

Nicely swerved. An apology for a rude and out of order post would be appreciated.

 

[King of Norway]

Personally I would like to see all threads about individual players merged into one big "Spurs Players" thread. It's about time we tidied up this forum.

 

[milo]

Respect is earned. I have asked simple questions and you have not answered. Why?

The admins do not get paid for running this place, it is not possible for us to read every post on here. If you want an answer to a question, you should PM one of us.

The admin team are people too, we do not have to earn your respect. If you want to post here, then treating us (and all other posters) with respect is the minimum that we expect. If you cannot do that then you should save all of us a load of hassle and find another site to post on.

 

[onlyme]

Nicely swerved. An apology for a rude and out of order post would be appreciated.

Swerving? How about answering the points raised by the posters in this thread?

And rude? I suggest you look at your reply in the Defoe thread which you merged.