Sometimes a new thread is needed even though the subject has been addressed

[Carla_Danger]

New posts are the lifeline of the USMB forum. It seems strange to me that they automatically cut off duplicate posts on the same topic even if they have a different slant on the subject.

This is interesting that you post this.

What are your thoughts about say a thread with 90 plus posts being taken away from the OP and then given to someone who has posted a thread with one post, their own post and then the 90 plus post thread's OP is replaced with the one post thread OP, ie. giving a larger thread to someone else.

The 90 plus post thread also contains a variety and wide range of links, the one post thread thread contains ONE link and nothing else.

I would forget about it and get out of the house. The internet, that's some serious business!

A lot of people put effort and pride in their work. Let them compete and standards will rise. Co-mingle them and effort and quality will suffer.

Merging threads doesn't change anybody's content Pinkie. Think about it.

Is it my imagination, or do some posters around here have some really thin skin?

 

[Carla_Danger]

I'm sure the mods know what they're doing when they merge a thread.

 

[DarkFury]

New posts are the lifeline of the USMB forum. It seems strange to me that they automatically cut off duplicate posts on the same topic even if they have a different slant on the subject.

This is interesting that you post this.

What are your thoughts about say a thread with 90 plus posts being taken away from the OP and then given to someone who has posted a thread with one post, their own post and then the 90 plus post thread's OP is replaced with the one post thread OP, ie. giving a larger thread to someone else.

The 90 plus post thread also contains a variety and wide range of links, the one post thread thread contains ONE link and nothing else.

I would forget about it and get out of the house. The internet, that's some serious business!

A lot of people put effort and pride in their work. Let them compete and standards will rise. Co-mingle them and effort and quality will suffer.

Merging threads doesn't change anybody's content Pinkie. Think about it.

Is it my imagination, or do some posters around here have some really thin skin?

Talented people are often protective of their work. The board has what cereal_killer needs right now anyway. He needs OP/ED writers and what better way to find them then to let them compete.

You merge the threads and you lose the quality. Several things make up the value of a board and one is the ability to compete.
As I said allowing competition RAISES standards on its own. The OP/ED writers are already here but you are not going to know them if you cut your forest to see a lone tree.

 

[Pogo]

New posts are the lifeline of the USMB forum. It seems strange to me that they automatically cut off duplicate posts on the same topic even if they have a different slant on the subject.

This is interesting that you post this.

What are your thoughts about say a thread with 90 plus posts being taken away from the OP and then given to someone who has posted a thread with one post, their own post and then the 90 plus post thread's OP is replaced with the one post thread OP, ie. giving a larger thread to someone else.

The 90 plus post thread also contains a variety and wide range of links, the one post thread thread contains ONE link and nothing else.

I would forget about it and get out of the house. The internet, that's some serious business!

A lot of people put effort and pride in their work. Let them compete and standards will rise. Co-mingle them and effort and quality will suffer.

Merging threads doesn't change anybody's content Pinkie. Think about it.

Its the communist approach to posting. The AMERICAN approach would allow and encourage competition thus raising the bar constantly.

That might even beat out "waaah-- a headline said "truck attack" instead of "individual person-driver using a truck attack" for the most absurd stretch of the weak.

 

[JoeMoma]

My personal policy is let the posters compete for the readers.
The readers will sort out who rises or falls based on clarity and points.

Like a 90 plus post thread for example, you'd say that people have already decided that's a good thread? As opposed to a one post thread that hasn't had any subsequent posts to it, that is until the 90 plus post thread is given to that other person and taken away from the original OP.

Why so possessive, Oosie? You really need to let this go -- they were duplicate reports of the same story, and although yours was clearly the superior presentation, the software they use simply arranges everything in chronological order. Had that other thread contained a dozen posts before the merge (and maybe it did, I dunno), they would have all been rearranged into the time order in which they were each posted. It's not necessary to concoct conspiracy theories for a simple disinterested software stroke.

Give credit to your readers to see the value of your posts, regardless where they end up after rearragement. We all told you that already.

Sometime rearranging posts through a merge garbles the context of the posts.

 

[Pogo]

My personal policy is let the posters compete for the readers.
The readers will sort out who rises or falls based on clarity and points.

Like a 90 plus post thread for example, you'd say that people have already decided that's a good thread? As opposed to a one post thread that hasn't had any subsequent posts to it, that is until the 90 plus post thread is given to that other person and taken away from the original OP.

Why so possessive, Oosie? You really need to let this go -- they were duplicate reports of the same story, and although yours was clearly the superior presentation, the software they use simply arranges everything in chronological order. Had that other thread contained a dozen posts before the merge (and maybe it did, I dunno), they would have all been rearranged into the time order in which they were each posted. It's not necessary to concoct conspiracy theories for a simple disinterested software stroke.

Give credit to your readers to see the value of your posts, regardless where they end up after rearragement. We all told you that already.

Sometime rearranging posts through a merge garbles the context of the posts.

Yeah, that happens when somebody responds without quoting who they're responding to, ass-uming that theirs will be the next post and always stay the next post. Not a safe assumption.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ending the rule against flooding with multiple threads on the same topic would simply be a windfall to the trolls who delight in doing this sort of thing.