Locking instead of merging duplicate threads

[Lucy Hamilton]

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

As you have brought Mister Ed into this thread, you know I got to understanding the fundamentals of Baseball from watching a Mister Ed episode about him playing for the Dodgers

 

[flacaltenn]

USMB Rules and Guidelines

USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations List of Current Active Moderators: AyeCantSeeYou Dont Taz Me Bro katsteve2012 White 6 OKTexas 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.

It it just ENCOURAGE folks to create duplicate threads.. That's the real problem.. Folks already in the merged thread will create a NEW one that's really more of a "thread comment" than a whole new discussion..

Having members run from thread to thread arguing about the same event/issue just makes for less actual discussion and more personal tensions and noise..

 

[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?

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. . .

No; I actually don't want them to do a darn thing about duplicate threads. The highest quality thread will win out. It's like thread capitalism. Threads don't cost anything; they take a single row of data - considering that if all the posts were in one thread or in 100 threads, the post count is the same - besides, post count is how forums get viewers which exposes more advertising.

 

[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?

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. . .

No; I actually don't want them to do a darn thing about duplicate threads. The highest quality thread will win out. It's like thread capitalism. Threads don't cost anything; they take a single row of data - considering that if all the posts were in one thread or in 100 threads, the post count is the same - besides, post count is how forums get viewers which exposes more advertising.

You do realise IF we have a ton of duplicate threads they will ruin the Politics Section and the Current Events Section? Imagine going to eg. the Politics Section and the ENTIRE thing is full of 20 threads on the SAME story? WTF?!

 

[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?

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.

I've had threads locked when there were no active threads on the topic. I started a thread on how violent the protests were and, in post #1, linked to the guy kicked in the head. My thread was locked because there were other threads about the guy kicked in the head. Nothing in my thread title implied my thread was about a guy getting kicked in the head; the guy was just an example of the violence. But my thread was locked, just the same.

It's getting harder and harder to invest brain power and time into the site because over moderation means discussions get cut short.

 

[Levant]

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?

Just curious; do they have a form you filled out to request to be a mod and you're waiting for an answer? Or are you just auditioning?

 

[Lewdog]

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.

That is also against the rules now. Thread titles are supposed to be about the topic of the thread and not just some baiting title.

 

[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?

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

When they lock a thread that have even just a few replies, they have trashed the work of those members who took time and trouble to respond and increase post count and increase advertising viewings. I find myself not responding to a lot of threads, especially if there are multiple, because my work will likely be wasted and I have no way of knowing which thread will get locked and which will be allowed to continue.

 

[Levant]

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?

It's far more work than it is to merge the threads. If the mods are actually copying posts over manually they need to get a new admin. I'd write an app in an hour or so that will merge any two threads. Execution of the app, once written, would take about 30 seconds to choose the losing thread and the winning thread, 2 seconds to click the merge button, and about 3 seconds to actually perform the merge.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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

We are told something like "Theres already a thread on this topic"

Usually I either cant find the thread, or it's not worth the effort.

If you close a thread is it too much to ask for a link to be posted directing us to the "correct" thread?

 

[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?

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

I've seen duplicate threads, with one locked, where there was just a single minute of time difference between the two threads - where there were several posts in both. Clearly when OP2 started writing his thread, OP1 hadn't posted yet; OP1 got the the Post first but it doesn't mean OP2 was negligent.

 

[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?

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

I've seen duplicate threads, with one locked, where there was just a single minute of time difference between the two threads - where there were several posts in both. Clearly when OP2 started writing his thread, OP1 hadn't posted yet; OP1 got the the Post first but it doesn't mean OP2 was negligent.

Which is why making a dupe thread isn't a crime that gets an infraction unless you do it on purpose just to bait the mods.

 

[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?

Just curious; do they have a form you filled out to request to be a mod and you're waiting for an answer? Or are you just auditioning?

 

[flacaltenn]

I find myself not responding to a lot of threads, especially if there are multiple, because my work will likely be wasted and I have no way of knowing which thread will get locked and which will be allowed to continue.

Your work would wasted if you had to rummage thru "100 threads as you suggest" to MAKE a specific point on USMB.. Tell me it wouldn't happen.. Because WE SEE FOLKS doing that with even 2 or 4 threads on the same topic/issue running from thread to thread arguing the SAME ARGUMENTS.

 

[Levant]

Your work would wasted if you had to rummage thru "100 threads as you suggest" to MAKE a specific point on USMB.. Tell me it wouldn't happen.. Because WE SEE FOLKS doing that with even 2 or 4 threads on the same topic/issue running from thread to thread arguing the SAME ARGUMENTS.

Valid point. Merging might solve both our views.

 

[flacaltenn]

..... with the SAME folks they just argued with in the OTHER 2 threads.. Hysterical to watch, but it's no way to have topical discussions..

 

[MisterBeale]

..... with the SAME folks they just argued with in the OTHER 2 threads.. Hysterical to watch, but it's no way to have topical discussions..

. . . but don't you know? Everything Levant has to say must be archived and stored on open threads, because what HE has to opine on any topic is so very, oh very important.

This is why it is crucial he not waste his precious energy writing in threads that could be. . . arbitrarily closed. That would be a waste of his brilliant time, effort and work. . .

IN fact? He has graciously offered the forum his services to upgrade and do IT work if any needs done, all for free I am sure . . . .


. . . all so that none of his efforts should be wasted, because, I am sure, what he has to say, and contribute, is so, so much more important, than everyone else that has ever been here, or will ever be here. . .

 

[Persuader]

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?

Just curious; do they have a form you filled out to request to be a mod and you're waiting for an answer? Or are you just auditioning?

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa good point.

 

[Levant]

Another good thread, one about communism, was closed because the OP posted too much about communism for the mods. That's pretty much it for me. I've only been a member a few months but the site has gone from fantastic to crazy-over-moderation in that time.

 

[MisterBeale]

Another good thread, one about communism, was closed because the OP posted too much about communism for the mods. That's pretty much it for me. I've only been a member a few months but the site has gone from fantastic to crazy-over-moderation in that time.

lol.

Then there really is no forum on the web for you.

IMO, this is the least moderated forum on the web.