Over-Merging of threads?
 

Maybe I'm alone here, and if so I'll shut up, but I'd like to see what people think.

Lately it seems like the threads have been forced into very broad topics being discussed in one thread, this forces the information you covet to be extremely hard to find quickly and understand considering there's a massive amount of information of one broad subject under one thread. When threads get over 100 posts it starts to grow nearly impossible to read through and extract the information you want.

I understand when there are 5 threads saying we need a #2 receiver, that's ridiculous, and those threads should be merged/deleted. Now threads seem to go on forever on very broad subjects instead of the concise subjects I'm used to reading. The revival of year old threads also doesn't help, no one knows where to start reading from and reviving old topics makes it very difficult to keep up with whats new and whats old (I read dates, but still annoying)

As I said, Ill shutup if I'm alone here, but I was curious what others thought.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

eighteenth time, cutting brunell will not save us money ;)

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

the problem is, there's been a lot of overlap lately. all the FA stuff, the cba stuff, the cap stuff... it all ties together.

and we don't have the money to do anything, so that's basically been the answer to every question lately :/

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

Up until now there just hasn't been much going on so the streamlining made sense to me. That sure is about to change.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

I hope you don't mind. I'm going to stick this with "Ramsey for Abraham". ;)

One of the problems is that the original idea of a topic may merit it's own topic, or certainly the right to stand on its own without being tied into another. The discussion that follows it becomes "more of the same".

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

Can you merge this into the duplicate threads sticky thread? :biggthump

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

[QUOTE=Paintrain]Can you merge this into the duplicate threads sticky thread? :biggthump[/QUOTE]

LOL...so what are we talking about here Ramsey vs. Brunell? Portis on steroids? Should we re-sign Pierce and Smoot? Why isn't Darnerien playing more?

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]eighteenth time, cutting brunell will not save us money ;)[/QUOTE]

Would we save money if we cut Brunell?

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

Actually to speak seriously, I can see where Daseal is coming from. When we consolidate threads it seems to lead to discussions that wander from topic to topic.

When threads are actual duplicates of other discussions, I'm all for deleting or merging. But for example, we had a Brunell refuses to restructure thread, and then it got renamed to include a discussion of Brunell actually restructuring. Sure they're related, but when I signed on and saw the modified name of the thread, I got all kinds of confused. In that situation I would have liked to see a new thread created named Brunell Restructures After All, or something like that.

I realize though that the mods have a gargantuan task trying to keep this board clean, and they're doing a great job. Just thought I'd throw two cents into the ring in the form of hopefully helpful input.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Actually to speak seriously, I can see where Daseal is coming from. When we consolidate threads it seems to lead to discussions that wander from topic to topic.

When threads are actual duplicates of other discussions, I'm all for deleting or merging. But for example, we had a Brunell refuses to restructure thread, and then it got renamed to include a discussion of Brunell actually restructuring. Sure they're related, but when I signed on and saw the modified name of the thread, I got all kinds of confused. In that situation I would have liked to see a new thread created named Brunell Restructures After All, or something like that.

I realize though that the mods have a gargantuan task trying to keep this board clean, and they're doing a great job. Just thought I'd throw two cents into the ring in the form of hopefully helpful input.[/QUOTE]

So you would have liked it if we had locked the original Brunell Refuses to Restructure thread, and started a brand new one that said "Brunell Restructures"?

One problem is always keeping threads on topic. One starts off with Does Ramsey have trade control which goes into Portis is on steroids to a general weighlifting discussion.

And quite frankly, a lot of people jump on here so excited to post some news they don't take time to read what's already been posted. You know, you're watching ESPNNews you see some info come across the wire and the first thing you think is "I've got to let the Warpath know" but with nearly 2,000 members the odds are someone has thought the same thing already and already posted it.

But we'll keep working to perfect the formula.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Actually to speak seriously, I can see where Daseal is coming from. When we consolidate threads it seems to lead to discussions that wander from topic to topic.

When threads are actual duplicates of other discussions, I'm all for deleting or merging. But for example, we had a Brunell refuses to restructure thread, and then it got renamed to include a discussion of Brunell actually restructuring. Sure they're related, but when I signed on and saw the modified name of the thread, I got all kinds of confused. In that situation I would have liked to see a new thread created named Brunell Restructures After All, or something like that.

I realize though that the mods have a gargantuan task trying to keep this board clean, and they're doing a great job. Just thought I'd throw two cents into the ring in the form of hopefully helpful input.[/QUOTE]

I think that's a very valid point. I have nothing useful to add beyond that, however.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

I don't mind seeing similar threads as long as it's not the same exact thing

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

i agree with daseal. 100+ threads are too much. seems like when ppl say that a thread is being discussed elsewhere its more of an "i found it first thing". and the ollddd threads with new posts throw me off too...

not too big a deal though i guess

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]So you would have liked it if we had locked the original Brunell Refuses to Restructure thread, and started a brand new one that said "Brunell Restructures"?[/QUOTE]

Yeah that's basically what I'm saying. Because I had seen the thread titled Brunell Refuses to Restructure. Then I was off the site for a while, and when I came back I saw that the title had changed to include some phrasing indicating that he had indeed restructured. But since I got to the site a few hours after the renaming, there were about 30 posts after the one saying Brunell restructured. So I had to go searching through the thread to find the news link.

It probably would have made total sense if I were able to stay with the thread's progression all day long, but since I had to break away from the computer I was perplexed when I returned.

I do realize that you can't force people to stay on topic though. People are just going to talk about what they're going to talk about. And you guys are doing a good job of organizing it I think.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

Yeah, I see everyone's points. It's a really tough call sometimes as to whether to merge, lock, etc. threads. Threads do become really cumbersome when they have 100+ posts. In hindsight, it probably would have been better to lock the "Brunell refuses to restructure thread" and start a new thread about his restructuring.

I think when a number of identical threads are created, it can create a "merging frenzy." If I see a bunch of threads that are identical and am forced to merge them, I will be more likely to look for duplicate threads and merge them. So, the fewer identical threads that are created, the less likely it is that related threads will be merged. Of course, there's the difficult question of what constitutes a related thread (which may warrant its own thread) and an identical one (which, obviously needs to be merged).

I for one am glad this thread was started. Feedback always helps let the mods know what the members want and guides us in our decisionmaking. You guys lead us, not the other way around. I for one will now be less likely to merge threads now that members have expressed their desire not to merge too many threads.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

[quote]And quite frankly, a lot of people jump on here so excited to post some news they don't take time to read what's already been posted. You know, you're watching ESPNNews you see some info come across the wire and the first thing you think is "I've got to let the Warpath know" but with nearly 2,000 members the odds are someone has thought the same thing already and already posted it.[/quote]
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.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

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.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

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.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

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

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

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

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

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.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

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.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

I voted #1

Thanks for asking guys.

Hail Skins

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

#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.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

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.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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!

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

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!!! :D 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.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

do we have a rift among ranks?

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

[QUOTE=dmek25]do we have a rift among ranks?[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

I like Squawk, he's a pretty parrot :)

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]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.[/QUOTE]

auto-locking and max post counts are a lot of work and they won't please anyone... when you have a progresional topic though, like the cba/how can we get under thing, after a while it'd make sense to take the collective solutions and answers an summarize them in a sticky or something... so instead of 200 posts of reading, someone can be caught up in under 5minutes.

the problem is digging out the answers to where everyone sees them to prevent (literally) hundreds of repeated questions in under a week... sometimes (like the cba thread again) it takes us days to actually figure out the answers and be comfortable that our conclusions are correct.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

My suggestion is that the moderators focus on seeing that threads are labelled clearly and that any debate doesn't disintegrate into personal attacks.

What difference does it make to the rest of us if two or three posters want to rehash the Brunell-Ramsey topic? We're not obligated to read it.

As for limiting the number of posts, I don't see the sense in that. Recently, while lurking on a Dophins board, I came across a 700+ posts thread discussing the 2006 draft that was the most interesting I've come across on fansites. The main posters were very knowledgeable. If they weren't Dolphins' scouts, they could have been.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

I think this thread needs to be merged

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

Lavar

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

[QUOTE=GoSkins!]Lavar[/QUOTE]

Brunell :duel:

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

I didn't meant his as any sort of attack on TWP staff, most people I think are a bit timid because of the duplicate thread posts and was just an idea.

Re: Over-Merging of threads?
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]I didn't meant his as any sort of attack on TWP staff, most people I think are a bit timid because of the duplicate thread posts and was just an idea.[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone has taken your posts as an attack. Well Mattyk might have, but that's only because he has a huge ego. ;)