Locking instead of merging duplicate threads

[Levant]

After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.

Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?

 

[bluzman61]

After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.

Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?

Good question. I've seen some threads locked recently that could've easily been merged. Strange sh*t indeed.

 

[Auld Phart]

USMB Rules and Guidelines

USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations List of Current Active Moderators: AyeCantSeeYou Dont Taz Me Bro Coyote katsteve2012 White 6 Registration Guidelines: Individuals are allowed only one (1) account. Anyone found to be in violation risk having all accounts banned. Site Wide Rules And...

www.usmessageboard.com

"When starting a new Thread, please first check and confirm that there are not Current Threads, on the Same Topic, This will Avoid Merges. "

If you had followed the rules, there would have been no reason to close your thread.

I generally merge 4-5 threads before I start locking them. (I can't speak for the other mods).

How many threads should we merge, before we start closing them?

 

[MisterBeale]

After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.

Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?

So basically, you want mods to spend a whole lot of extra time do a lot of busy work, when you don't want to take the time to do the searching yourself?

. . . interesting.

I am sure it is way more easy to lock a thread than it is to merge shit, that sounds like a pain in the ass if you would only look to see if there is already a thread on it. . .

 

[airplanemechanic]

After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.

Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?

So basically, you want mods to spend a whole lot of extra time do a lot of busy work, when you don't want to take the time to do the searching yourself?

. . . interesting.

I am sure it is way more easy to lock a thread than it is to merge shit, that sounds like a pain in the ass if you would only look to see if there is already a thread on it. . .

Well when a thread about Biden saying something stupid on the campaign trail is entitled "Look at this crazy shit" or something like that, how the hell are we supposed to find that shit? Mods let threads have stupid titles that have ZERO resemblance to the OP of the thread and then get mad at posters when they start a thread with the same subject matter.

I'd say make a rule that the title of the thread MUST be the title of the article linked in the OP like another political forum I'm a member of does. Makes for a very clear forum with almost zero duplicate threads.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Seriously, see if there's posts on the same topic you're about to post on. That isn't so hard.

 

[Persuader]

After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.

Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?

Good question. I've seen some threads locked recently that could've easily been merged. Strange sh*t indeed.

Nothing strange about it....just typical behavior of someone who does not like a thread and decides to get rid of it.

Comes under the rule of 'discretion' ....translation....mods allowed to do whatever they want. As in no one is moderating the mods.

 

[bluzman61]

After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.

Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?

Good question. I've seen some threads locked recently that could've easily been merged. Strange sh*t indeed.

Nothing strange about it....just typical behavior of someone who does not like a thread and decides to get rid of it.

Comes under the rule of 'discretion' ....translation....mods allowed to do whatever they want. As in no one is moderating the mods.

I BELIEVE you are correct. I think it was about a week or so ago when 3 or 4 threads that were anti-Trump and anti-conservative concerning the SAME topic were allowed to run at the same time, with none of them being locked.

 

[Auld Phart]

After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.

Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?

Good question. I've seen some threads locked recently that could've easily been merged. Strange sh*t indeed.

Nothing strange about it....just typical behavior of someone who does not like a thread and decides to get rid of it.

Comes under the rule of 'discretion' ....translation....mods allowed to do whatever they want. As in no one is moderating the mods.

Nothing strange about it....just typical behavior of someone who does not like a thread and decides to get rid of it.

You might have a point, if we closed ALL threads on the topic.

We don't

 

[RetiredGySgt]

After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.

Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?

Good question. I've seen some threads locked recently that could've easily been merged. Strange sh*t indeed.

Nothing strange about it....just typical behavior of someone who does not like a thread and decides to get rid of it.

Comes under the rule of 'discretion' ....translation....mods allowed to do whatever they want. As in no one is moderating the mods.

Nothing strange about it....just typical behavior of someone who does not like a thread and decides to get rid of it.

You might have a point, if we closed ALL threads on the topic.

We don't

No YOU just close the ones that are actually active.

 

[Auld Phart]

After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.

Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?

Good question. I've seen some threads locked recently that could've easily been merged. Strange sh*t indeed.

Nothing strange about it....just typical behavior of someone who does not like a thread and decides to get rid of it.

Comes under the rule of 'discretion' ....translation....mods allowed to do whatever they want. As in no one is moderating the mods.

Nothing strange about it....just typical behavior of someone who does not like a thread and decides to get rid of it.

You might have a point, if we closed ALL threads on the topic.

We don't

No YOU just close the ones that are actually active.

No YOU just close the ones that are actually active.

IF I close one that is active, it's because there are other threads on the topic, very likely already merged, and the OP failed to do a search before starting their thread.

 

[Persuader]

After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.

Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?

Good question. I've seen some threads locked recently that could've easily been merged. Strange sh*t indeed.

Nothing strange about it....just typical behavior of someone who does not like a thread and decides to get rid of it.

Comes under the rule of 'discretion' ....translation....mods allowed to do whatever they want. As in no one is moderating the mods.

Nothing strange about it....just typical behavior of someone who does not like a thread and decides to get rid of it.

You might have a point, if we closed ALL threads on the topic.

We don't

No YOU just close the ones that are actually active.

You nailed it.

 

[MisterBeale]

How hard is it to copy and past "quote function" over discussions from the active thread that is being discussed that gets locked, over to the thread that is not locked?

Why do you folks want to make our mods do all the work for you?

If you weren't lazy in the first place, I honestly don't see where this would be an issue?

 

[MisterBeale]

Hell, a lot of times, I will do the courtesy of linking the threads for folks that opened a new thread. . . so that folks will and can do such a thing.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Much as I hate to admit it, Wilbur is right about this.

 

[MisterBeale]

Much as I hate to admit it, Wilbur is right about this.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.

Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?

Well some OPs are nearly identical and that is why I think they get locked instead of merged into an existing thread.

 

[flacaltenn]

After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.

Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?

Once we've merged several --- others simply get caught quickly and locked. That's why they have "no posts"... If we allowed THREE dupes -- 14 people would TRY to ignore searching for existing discussions before starting a thread...

If we don't catch it quickly, the "good" ones get merged.. The redundant or failing ones get closed. The SCOPE of discussion allowed on a topic is broad enough that UNLESS you have critical news or a UNIQUE take on the event/issue -- it's gonna get merged..

Mods are trained not to merge or merge threads that have been active for more then 2 or 3 days.. So all this is supposed to take place right quick after creation.. The exception of course is the EARLIEST THREAD on the topic which gets the 1st post position in the merge..

 

[flacaltenn]

After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.

Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?

So basically, you want mods to spend a whole lot of extra time do a lot of busy work, when you don't want to take the time to do the searching yourself?

. . . interesting.

I am sure it is way more easy to lock a thread than it is to merge shit, that sounds like a pain in the ass if you would only look to see if there is already a thread on it. . .

Well when a thread about Biden saying something stupid on the campaign trail is entitled "Look at this crazy shit" or something like that, how the hell are we supposed to find that shit? Mods let threads have stupid titles that have ZERO resemblance to the OP of the thread and then get mad at posters when they start a thread with the same subject matter.

I'd say make a rule that the title of the thread MUST be the title of the article linked in the OP like another political forum I'm a member of does. Makes for a very clear forum with almost zero duplicate threads.

Not so much since we published the "clean title/Opost" guidelines.. When we merge -- we cannot change the TIME ORDER of posts, but we can select the BEST title if the EARLY OP is a bad title.

Already strongly urged thread starters to write descriptive, "clean" titles.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

USMB Rules and Guidelines

USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations List of Current Active Moderators: AyeCantSeeYou Dont Taz Me Bro Coyote katsteve2012 White 6 Registration Guidelines: Individuals are allowed only one (1) account. Anyone found to be in violation risk having all accounts banned. Site Wide Rules And...

www.usmessageboard.com

"When starting a new Thread, please first check and confirm that there are not Current Threads, on the Same Topic, This will Avoid Merges. "

If you had followed the rules, there would have been no reason to close your thread.

I generally merge 4-5 threads before I start locking them. (I can't speak for the other mods).

How many threads should we merge, before we start closing them?

I think merging 4-5 threads is sensible and no more IF you were merging 6-10 or 6-15 etc then what we would have would be a MASSIVE thread that would be a nightmare to navigate.