Heya Mods

[Dogmaphobe]

I'm sure it would be possible to hunt them down .

Excellent idea, Pogo!!


…..ummmmm, you ARE referring to the mods, aren't you?

 

[flacaltenn]

FYI

if your gripe is about the Northam threads, there are 13 threads about Northam and his blackface incident.

and those are just the ones with his name in the title.

More can be found searching for Blackface in the title.

The 'claim' a thread couldn't be found to participate in is ridiculous.

My reference is to a LOT of threads, not a current one necessarily. And almost always, it involves seeing some topic for the first time, seeing it's closed with a "there are already __ threads on this", and seeing no other threads apparent. I'm sure those threads exist but they're not new and not active enough to be showing up in recent activity.

I'm sure it would be possible to hunt them down given enough time to waste poring through every possible forum one at a time, but it would save a whole lot of effort to just see them listed by the mod who already knows about them in the closing post. Exactly the same way a reader does when reporting a duplicate thread: "topic already exists here: (followed by URL)". Just do the same thing.

As I said--- why keep it a secret? Doesn't make sense. Just makes more work for the reader.

Don't tell me you've grown lazy in your dotage?

(I know I have........)

Seems more like the mods have.

The Search "feature" on this site is a joke. Always has been. So that's not a solution.

There's no way to tell what forum something ends up in. I don't even notice what forum I'm in when I see a new thread but hunting down a topic would require combing through each forum, over and over and over and over, page after page. Politics? Current Events? Elections? Media? Latin America? Could be anywhere. Can't believe this mod wants to dismiss it as "ridiculous" rather than break a tiny little sweat just to share what he already has in front of him, and just make more work for everybody. Kind of sadistic. Can't help noticing he doesn't even bother to give a good reason for not doing it, just goes "let 'em eat cake".

If you use the extended search features, you can specify a forum or search everything. I know it's not bing or google, but the mods get along with it fine. OCCASIONALLY, I'll use the BROWSER Search feature on a page of listings instead of the USMB search function, because that search gives you an instant feedback as you type search terms.

As for suggesting alternative threads when one gets closed, this is usually when we're tired of trying funnel 23 "what is a wall" threads into one discussion.. You wouldn't believe the # of threads popping up for something like the SOTU where the OP was simply about someone yawning, or chewing, or clapping.. These aren't really discussion motivators. They are really comments that should be in existing thread.

Makes it hard to say WHERE to look for the same topic -- because listings are changing so fast.. But GUARANTEED -- if it's a hot topic -- and it's closed -- it's because people were ignoring moderator notes to check the listings and use EXISTING threads.. Would only be closed if it was relatively new or too damaged to merge..

 

[Pogo]

FYI

if your gripe is about the Northam threads, there are 13 threads about Northam and his blackface incident.

and those are just the ones with his name in the title.

More can be found searching for Blackface in the title.

The 'claim' a thread couldn't be found to participate in is ridiculous.

My reference is to a LOT of threads, not a current one necessarily. And almost always, it involves seeing some topic for the first time, seeing it's closed with a "there are already __ threads on this", and seeing no other threads apparent. I'm sure those threads exist but they're not new and not active enough to be showing up in recent activity.

I'm sure it would be possible to hunt them down given enough time to waste poring through every possible forum one at a time, but it would save a whole lot of effort to just see them listed by the mod who already knows about them in the closing post. Exactly the same way a reader does when reporting a duplicate thread: "topic already exists here: (followed by URL)". Just do the same thing.

As I said--- why keep it a secret? Doesn't make sense. Just makes more work for the reader.

Don't tell me you've grown lazy in your dotage?

(I know I have........)

Seems more like the mods have.

The Search "feature" on this site is a joke. Always has been. So that's not a solution.

There's no way to tell what forum something ends up in. I don't even notice what forum I'm in when I see a new thread but hunting down a topic would require combing through each forum, over and over and over and over, page after page. Politics? Current Events? Elections? Media? Latin America? Could be anywhere. Can't believe this mod wants to dismiss it as "ridiculous" rather than break a tiny little sweat just to share what he already has in front of him, and just make more work for everybody. Kind of sadistic. Can't help noticing he doesn't even bother to give a good reason for not doing it, just goes "let 'em eat cake".

If you use the extended search features, you can specify a forum or search everything. I know it's not bing or google, but the mods get along with it fine. OCCASIONALLY, I'll use the BROWSER Search feature on a page of listings instead of the USMB search function, because that search gives you an instant feedback as you type search terms.

As for suggesting alternative threads when one gets closed, this is usually when we're tired of trying funnel 23 "what is a wall" threads into one discussion.. You wouldn't believe the # of threads popping up for something like the SOTU where the OP was simply about someone yawning, or chewing, or clapping.. These aren't really discussion motivators. They are really comments that should be in existing thread.

Makes it hard to say WHERE to look for the same topic -- because listings are changing so fast.. But GUARANTEED -- if it's a hot topic -- and it's closed -- it's because people were ignoring moderator notes to check the listings and use EXISTING threads.. Would only be closed if it was relatively new or too damaged to merge..

Thanks for that feedback. FCT.

I don't get the same experience using the site search -- I notice this when searching out some thread I already know exists somewhere but the search box can't find it while Google (usually but not always) can.

But beyond that the search issue is that when somebody posts a topic they can call it anything they want, which title may be utterly counterintuitive. I don't have a ready recent example but say somebody started a thread about the kid guest sleeping at the SOTU and names it "Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep". Nobody perusing titles would either know that's a reference to the SOTU or know to search SOTU threads with any of those keywords. So it's not only possible, but common, to miss where that thread was, coupled with the fact of overlapping forums where it could be in "Politics", "Current Events", "Congress", "Election Forums", "Media", "General Discussion" or any number of other places where it's obviously not relevant. This means a user has to literally search everything.

I don't know what the solution to that is, I just know that it's there. I've certainly had threads merged with some older title that gave no clue as to what it was about. As long as a title doesn't necessarily identify its topic, it's a crapshoot.

Speaking of which there is a recent thread (this week) proposing that the women among the Democrats at the SOTU wearing white were identifying with the "KKK" --- meanwhile another thread bubbled up saying exactly the same thing, from two years ago. Which if anything tells us the more we discourse the less we learn. IIRC neither of them are under the auspices of a site SOTU thread (though they probably shouldn't be), but shouldn't they be merged?

 

[Auld Phart]

FYI

if your gripe is about the Northam threads, there are 13 threads about Northam and his blackface incident.

and those are just the ones with his name in the title.

More can be found searching for Blackface in the title.

The 'claim' a thread couldn't be found to participate in is ridiculous.

My reference is to a LOT of threads, not a current one necessarily. And almost always, it involves seeing some topic for the first time, seeing it's closed with a "there are already __ threads on this", and seeing no other threads apparent. I'm sure those threads exist but they're not new and not active enough to be showing up in recent activity.

I'm sure it would be possible to hunt them down given enough time to waste poring through every possible forum one at a time, but it would save a whole lot of effort to just see them listed by the mod who already knows about them in the closing post. Exactly the same way a reader does when reporting a duplicate thread: "topic already exists here: (followed by URL)". Just do the same thing.

As I said--- why keep it a secret? Doesn't make sense. Just makes more work for the reader.

Don't tell me you've grown lazy in your dotage?

(I know I have........)

Seems more like the mods have.

The Search "feature" on this site is a joke. Always has been. So that's not a solution.

There's no way to tell what forum something ends up in. I don't even notice what forum I'm in when I see a new thread but hunting down a topic would require combing through each forum, over and over and over and over, page after page. Politics? Current Events? Elections? Media? Latin America? Could be anywhere. Can't believe this mod wants to dismiss it as "ridiculous" rather than break a tiny little sweat just to share what he already has in front of him, and just make more work for everybody. Kind of sadistic. Can't help noticing he doesn't even bother to give a good reason for not doing it, just goes "let 'em eat cake".

If you use the extended search features, you can specify a forum or search everything. I know it's not bing or google, but the mods get along with it fine. OCCASIONALLY, I'll use the BROWSER Search feature on a page of listings instead of the USMB search function, because that search gives you an instant feedback as you type search terms.

As for suggesting alternative threads when one gets closed, this is usually when we're tired of trying funnel 23 "what is a wall" threads into one discussion.. You wouldn't believe the # of threads popping up for something like the SOTU where the OP was simply about someone yawning, or chewing, or clapping.. These aren't really discussion motivators. They are really comments that should be in existing thread.

Makes it hard to say WHERE to look for the same topic -- because listings are changing so fast.. But GUARANTEED -- if it's a hot topic -- and it's closed -- it's because people were ignoring moderator notes to check the listings and use EXISTING threads.. Would only be closed if it was relatively new or too damaged to merge..

Thanks for that feedback. FCT.

I don't get the same experience using the site search -- I notice this when searching out some thread I already know exists somewhere but the search box can't find it while Google (usually but not always) can.

But beyond that the search issue is that when somebody posts a topic they can call it anything they want, which title may be utterly counterintuitive. I don't have a ready recent example but say somebody started a thread about the kid guest sleeping at the SOTU and names it "Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep". Nobody perusing titles would either know that's a reference to the SOTU or know to search SOTU threads with any of those keywords. So it's not only possible, but common, to miss where that thread was, coupled with the fact of overlapping forums where it could be in "Politics", "Current Events", "Congress", "Election Forums", "Media", "General Discussion" or any number of other places where it's obviously not relevant. This means a user has to literally search everything.

I don't know what the solution to that is, I just know that it's there. I've certainly had threads merged with some older title that gave no clue as to what it was about. As long as a title doesn't necessarily identify its topic, it's a crapshoot.

Speaking of which there is a recent thread (this week) proposing that the women among the Democrats at the SOTU wearing white were identifying with the "KKK" --- meanwhile another thread bubbled up saying exactly the same thing, from two years ago. Which if anything tells us the more we discourse the less we learn. IIRC neither of them are under the auspices of a site SOTU thread (though they probably shouldn't be), but shouldn't they be merged?

Not easy on us either.

Had one this a.m., Nazis wear white.

4th thread about 'infanticide' n 2 days.

Seems everyone wants their own thread on every topic

 

[flacaltenn]

But beyond that the search issue is that when somebody posts a topic they can call it anything they want, which title may be utterly counterintuitive. I don't have a ready recent example but say somebody started a thread about the kid guest sleeping at the SOTU and names it "Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep". Nobody perusing titles would either know that's a reference to the SOTU or know to search SOTU threads with any of those keywords.

Exactly. and now you know one of reasons why the rules require thread starters to "include their personal content" in an Opening Post. That way the mod staff can just mouse-over a title and SEE what it is about. If there's enough clues there -- we can open the thread and read more when we're looking for duplicated topics.

I don't know what the solution to that is, I just know that it's there. I've certainly had threads merged with some older title that gave no clue as to what it was about. As long as a title doesn't necessarily identify its topic, it's a crapshoot.

There's a general policy that older, mature threads dont get merged. Makes no sense take something spawned a week earlier or up to 3000 posts and include it in a merge. Just as a fun fact, before we put all the old zone2 and zone3 forums into zone2 about a year ago-- it was even more completed. Because we cannot merge across zones with different levels of moderation either..

Speaking of which there is a recent thread (this week) proposing that the women among the Democrats at the SOTU wearing white were identifying with the "KKK" --- meanwhile another thread bubbled up saying exactly the same thing, from two years ago.

That as I just explained is an oversight. Because nothing from 2 years ago should be part of a merge. But with folks just jonesing to get their own bar brawl discussions, we're merging WAY too many threads and stuff's gonna happen. Merges are one of the only 2 things we can't undo. We're damned if we merge and damned if we dont.. That's the reason moderators get no love... Really just trying to survive 'til the Robo-Mods take over...

 

[Pogo]

My reference is to a LOT of threads, not a current one necessarily. And almost always, it involves seeing some topic for the first time, seeing it's closed with a "there are already __ threads on this", and seeing no other threads apparent. I'm sure those threads exist but they're not new and not active enough to be showing up in recent activity.

I'm sure it would be possible to hunt them down given enough time to waste poring through every possible forum one at a time, but it would save a whole lot of effort to just see them listed by the mod who already knows about them in the closing post. Exactly the same way a reader does when reporting a duplicate thread: "topic already exists here: (followed by URL)". Just do the same thing.

As I said--- why keep it a secret? Doesn't make sense. Just makes more work for the reader.

Don't tell me you've grown lazy in your dotage?

(I know I have........)

Seems more like the mods have.

The Search "feature" on this site is a joke. Always has been. So that's not a solution.

There's no way to tell what forum something ends up in. I don't even notice what forum I'm in when I see a new thread but hunting down a topic would require combing through each forum, over and over and over and over, page after page. Politics? Current Events? Elections? Media? Latin America? Could be anywhere. Can't believe this mod wants to dismiss it as "ridiculous" rather than break a tiny little sweat just to share what he already has in front of him, and just make more work for everybody. Kind of sadistic. Can't help noticing he doesn't even bother to give a good reason for not doing it, just goes "let 'em eat cake".

If you use the extended search features, you can specify a forum or search everything. I know it's not bing or google, but the mods get along with it fine. OCCASIONALLY, I'll use the BROWSER Search feature on a page of listings instead of the USMB search function, because that search gives you an instant feedback as you type search terms.

As for suggesting alternative threads when one gets closed, this is usually when we're tired of trying funnel 23 "what is a wall" threads into one discussion.. You wouldn't believe the # of threads popping up for something like the SOTU where the OP was simply about someone yawning, or chewing, or clapping.. These aren't really discussion motivators. They are really comments that should be in existing thread.

Makes it hard to say WHERE to look for the same topic -- because listings are changing so fast.. But GUARANTEED -- if it's a hot topic -- and it's closed -- it's because people were ignoring moderator notes to check the listings and use EXISTING threads.. Would only be closed if it was relatively new or too damaged to merge..

Thanks for that feedback. FCT.

I don't get the same experience using the site search -- I notice this when searching out some thread I already know exists somewhere but the search box can't find it while Google (usually but not always) can.

But beyond that the search issue is that when somebody posts a topic they can call it anything they want, which title may be utterly counterintuitive. I don't have a ready recent example but say somebody started a thread about the kid guest sleeping at the SOTU and names it "Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep". Nobody perusing titles would either know that's a reference to the SOTU or know to search SOTU threads with any of those keywords. So it's not only possible, but common, to miss where that thread was, coupled with the fact of overlapping forums where it could be in "Politics", "Current Events", "Congress", "Election Forums", "Media", "General Discussion" or any number of other places where it's obviously not relevant. This means a user has to literally search everything.

I don't know what the solution to that is, I just know that it's there. I've certainly had threads merged with some older title that gave no clue as to what it was about. As long as a title doesn't necessarily identify its topic, it's a crapshoot.

Speaking of which there is a recent thread (this week) proposing that the women among the Democrats at the SOTU wearing white were identifying with the "KKK" --- meanwhile another thread bubbled up saying exactly the same thing, from two years ago. Which if anything tells us the more we discourse the less we learn. IIRC neither of them are under the auspices of a site SOTU thread (though they probably shouldn't be), but shouldn't they be merged?

Not easy on us either.

Had one this a.m., Nazis wear white.

4th thread about 'infanticide' n 2 days.

Seems everyone wants their own thread on every topic

Sometimes that's it, other times it's a simple matter that the new OP didn't happen to be online when the original one splashed and now it's off the radar. That's certainly happened to mine.

Had one this a.m., Nazis wear white.

Did it get merged? If not can you point me to it?

 

[Auld Phart]

Don't tell me you've grown lazy in your dotage?

(I know I have........)

Seems more like the mods have.

The Search "feature" on this site is a joke. Always has been. So that's not a solution.

There's no way to tell what forum something ends up in. I don't even notice what forum I'm in when I see a new thread but hunting down a topic would require combing through each forum, over and over and over and over, page after page. Politics? Current Events? Elections? Media? Latin America? Could be anywhere. Can't believe this mod wants to dismiss it as "ridiculous" rather than break a tiny little sweat just to share what he already has in front of him, and just make more work for everybody. Kind of sadistic. Can't help noticing he doesn't even bother to give a good reason for not doing it, just goes "let 'em eat cake".

If you use the extended search features, you can specify a forum or search everything. I know it's not bing or google, but the mods get along with it fine. OCCASIONALLY, I'll use the BROWSER Search feature on a page of listings instead of the USMB search function, because that search gives you an instant feedback as you type search terms.

As for suggesting alternative threads when one gets closed, this is usually when we're tired of trying funnel 23 "what is a wall" threads into one discussion.. You wouldn't believe the # of threads popping up for something like the SOTU where the OP was simply about someone yawning, or chewing, or clapping.. These aren't really discussion motivators. They are really comments that should be in existing thread.

Makes it hard to say WHERE to look for the same topic -- because listings are changing so fast.. But GUARANTEED -- if it's a hot topic -- and it's closed -- it's because people were ignoring moderator notes to check the listings and use EXISTING threads.. Would only be closed if it was relatively new or too damaged to merge..

Thanks for that feedback. FCT.

I don't get the same experience using the site search -- I notice this when searching out some thread I already know exists somewhere but the search box can't find it while Google (usually but not always) can.

But beyond that the search issue is that when somebody posts a topic they can call it anything they want, which title may be utterly counterintuitive. I don't have a ready recent example but say somebody started a thread about the kid guest sleeping at the SOTU and names it "Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep". Nobody perusing titles would either know that's a reference to the SOTU or know to search SOTU threads with any of those keywords. So it's not only possible, but common, to miss where that thread was, coupled with the fact of overlapping forums where it could be in "Politics", "Current Events", "Congress", "Election Forums", "Media", "General Discussion" or any number of other places where it's obviously not relevant. This means a user has to literally search everything.

I don't know what the solution to that is, I just know that it's there. I've certainly had threads merged with some older title that gave no clue as to what it was about. As long as a title doesn't necessarily identify its topic, it's a crapshoot.

Speaking of which there is a recent thread (this week) proposing that the women among the Democrats at the SOTU wearing white were identifying with the "KKK" --- meanwhile another thread bubbled up saying exactly the same thing, from two years ago. Which if anything tells us the more we discourse the less we learn. IIRC neither of them are under the auspices of a site SOTU thread (though they probably shouldn't be), but shouldn't they be merged?

Not easy on us either.

Had one this a.m., Nazis wear white.

4th thread about 'infanticide' n 2 days.

Seems everyone wants their own thread on every topic

Sometimes that's it, other times it's a simple matter that the new OP didn't happen to be online when the original one splashed and now it's off the radar. That's certainly happened to mine.

Had one this a.m., Nazis wear white.

Did it get merged? If not can you point me to it?

it got merged

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't tell me you've grown lazy in your dotage?

(I know I have........)

Seems more like the mods have.

The Search "feature" on this site is a joke. Always has been. So that's not a solution.

There's no way to tell what forum something ends up in. I don't even notice what forum I'm in when I see a new thread but hunting down a topic would require combing through each forum, over and over and over and over, page after page. Politics? Current Events? Elections? Media? Latin America? Could be anywhere. Can't believe this mod wants to dismiss it as "ridiculous" rather than break a tiny little sweat just to share what he already has in front of him, and just make more work for everybody. Kind of sadistic. Can't help noticing he doesn't even bother to give a good reason for not doing it, just goes "let 'em eat cake".

If you use the extended search features, you can specify a forum or search everything. I know it's not bing or google, but the mods get along with it fine. OCCASIONALLY, I'll use the BROWSER Search feature on a page of listings instead of the USMB search function, because that search gives you an instant feedback as you type search terms.

As for suggesting alternative threads when one gets closed, this is usually when we're tired of trying funnel 23 "what is a wall" threads into one discussion.. You wouldn't believe the # of threads popping up for something like the SOTU where the OP was simply about someone yawning, or chewing, or clapping.. These aren't really discussion motivators. They are really comments that should be in existing thread.

Makes it hard to say WHERE to look for the same topic -- because listings are changing so fast.. But GUARANTEED -- if it's a hot topic -- and it's closed -- it's because people were ignoring moderator notes to check the listings and use EXISTING threads.. Would only be closed if it was relatively new or too damaged to merge..

Thanks for that feedback. FCT.

I don't get the same experience using the site search -- I notice this when searching out some thread I already know exists somewhere but the search box can't find it while Google (usually but not always) can.

But beyond that the search issue is that when somebody posts a topic they can call it anything they want, which title may be utterly counterintuitive. I don't have a ready recent example but say somebody started a thread about the kid guest sleeping at the SOTU and names it "Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep". Nobody perusing titles would either know that's a reference to the SOTU or know to search SOTU threads with any of those keywords. So it's not only possible, but common, to miss where that thread was, coupled with the fact of overlapping forums where it could be in "Politics", "Current Events", "Congress", "Election Forums", "Media", "General Discussion" or any number of other places where it's obviously not relevant. This means a user has to literally search everything.

I don't know what the solution to that is, I just know that it's there. I've certainly had threads merged with some older title that gave no clue as to what it was about. As long as a title doesn't necessarily identify its topic, it's a crapshoot.

Speaking of which there is a recent thread (this week) proposing that the women among the Democrats at the SOTU wearing white were identifying with the "KKK" --- meanwhile another thread bubbled up saying exactly the same thing, from two years ago. Which if anything tells us the more we discourse the less we learn. IIRC neither of them are under the auspices of a site SOTU thread (though they probably shouldn't be), but shouldn't they be merged?

Not easy on us either.

Had one this a.m., Nazis wear white.

4th thread about 'infanticide' n 2 days.

Seems everyone wants their own thread on every topic

Sometimes that's it, other times it's a simple matter that the new OP didn't happen to be online when the original one splashed and now it's off the radar. That's certainly happened to mine.

Had one this a.m., Nazis wear white.

Did it get merged? If not can you point me to it?

Merges leave redirection links in the listings. You can tell a redirect link by the blue curvy arrow and no "last post".. We're trying to get every mod to leave LONGER redirect links in the listings. The time duration for all the merging threads is set during the process. So if we leave them up for 8 or 12 hours, nobody's gonna get confused. And if you're responding to your post alerts, those links will always take you to the merged thread.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

.......We're damned if we merge and damned if we dont.. That's the reason moderators get no love... ......

That statement just sounds... wrong.

*****CHUCKLE*****