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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.