Over-Merging of threads?

Daseal · 03-02-2006, 01:33 PM

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.

That Guy · 03-02-2006, 01:34 PM

eighteenth time, cutting brunell will not save us money

Monksdown · 03-02-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

eighteenth time, cutting brunell will not save us money

Would we save money if we cut Brunell?

That Guy · 03-02-2006, 01:36 PM

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 :/

wilsowilso · 03-02-2006, 01:38 PM

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

BrudLee · 03-02-2006, 02:08 PM

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".

Paintrain · 03-02-2006, 02:48 PM

Can you merge this into the duplicate threads sticky thread?

SmootSmack · 03-02-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Can you merge this into the duplicate threads sticky thread?

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?

Schneed10 · 03-02-2006, 03:06 PM

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.

SmootSmack · 03-02-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Duffman003 · 03-02-2006, 03:14 PM

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

Schneed10 · 03-02-2006, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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"?

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.

That Guy · 03-02-2006, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

VTSkins897 · 03-02-2006, 03:30 PM

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

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 03-02-2006, 03:42 PM

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.

View Poll Results: Should the mods ease up on the merging of threads?
Yes, the threads are becoming unmanagebly big and new ones should be started.	29	52.73%
Yes, threads on different topics are being merged	6	10.91%
No, there are too many threads on the same topic	17	30.91%
No, for whatever reason.	3	5.45%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

03-02-2006, 01:33 PM	#1
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 41 Posts: 8,341	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. __________________ Best. Player. Available.

03-02-2006, 01:36 PM	#4
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	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 :/

03-02-2006, 01:38 PM	#5
wilsowilso Registered User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Los Angeles Age: 51 Posts: 2,841	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.

03-02-2006, 02:08 PM	#6
BrudLee Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Rehoboth Beach, DE Posts: 3,494	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". __________________ There's nowhere to go but up. Or down. I guess we could stay where we are, too.

03-02-2006, 01:34 PM	#2
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	Re: Over-Merging of threads? eighteenth time, cutting brunell will not save us money

03-02-2006, 02:48 PM	#7
Paintrain Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL Age: 54 Posts: 5,006	Re: Over-Merging of threads? Can you merge this into the duplicate threads sticky thread? __________________ Paintrain's Redskins Fandom 1981-2014 I'm not dead but this team is dead to me...but now that McCloughan is here they may have new life! Jay Gruden = Zorny McSpurrier Kirk Cousins = Next Grossman

03-02-2006, 03:06 PM	#9
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 45 Posts: 12,426	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. __________________ God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.

03-02-2006, 03:14 PM	#11
Duffman003 Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 602	Re: Over-Merging of threads? I don't mind seeing similar threads as long as it's not the same exact thing

03-02-2006, 03:30 PM	#14
VTSkins897 Impact Rookie Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Richmond, VA Age: 41 Posts: 890	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

03-02-2006, 03:42 PM	#15
Sheriff Gonna Getcha Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 45 Posts: 8,317	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.

Over-Merging of threads?

Locker Room Main Forum