Can we please stop merging threads?

[apodman]

it works pretty well as it is and gives me very few problems

2apodman ... if you think you know better ...

Huh? Somebody asked for thoughts and I spewed a few. It's deep theoretical stuff, you know. Nothing I said was intended to be inconsistent with the noncritical statement I quote myself making above. I appreciate the job you do. I don't see a big problem, I don't see a need for action or change, and I didn't start this thread. Heck, I don't even understand all the choices in the poll that I can't even vote in, let alone think one of them is correct. With over 6000 views now and still only 10 votes, I'm thinking maybe I'm not the only one who can't use the poll.

I think the Forum administrators, who all wear multiple hats already, are well advised to use the phpBB software straight from the can even if it has design flaws that occasionally might invite extra threads. You can tinker with commercial software, but then you're committed to doing it all over again when the next version of the product is released.

I can see that if you don't read a paragraph like this carefully, you might think it's advice for the administrators. But if you take your time, you will see that it's not - it just explains the pertinent facts to the contributors who complain about a phpBB feature (e.g., the "new topic" button) as if it's the invention of the moderators (wrong) and as if it's a good idea to mess with it (wrong). To translate one more time, I said the administrators are too busy doing real work to bark up the wrong tree on the "button" complaints. I would translate all my paragraphs to show I mean no malice; but the more I write, the more Godwin's law looms on the horizon.

[makc]

Heck, I don't even understand all the choices in the poll that I can't even vote in, let alone think one of them is correct. With over 6000 views now and still only 10 votes, I'm thinking maybe I'm not the only one who can't use the poll.

Take a note that this poll was set up almost two years ago, and logically expired soon after that. I can reopen it any time, if you want.

it just explains the pertinent facts to the contributors who complain about a phpBB feature (e.g., the "new topic" button)

If you look carefully yourself, you would notice that it was I ranting about "new topic" button.

Few years back asterisk was totally neglected by admins, and makc account was the only one with moderator powers. Since I couldnt contact anyone, I gave few people a password and used ckam to post as myself unambiguously.

To translate one more time, I said the administrators are too busy doing real work...

To translate one more time, if you successfully apply for moderatorship, they might be a little less busy. I assume you mean Nereid by "administrators", because other admins still aren't doing anything visible for this place... check out "most recent posts" link at the top of the page - it has been like that for years, and noone cares.

[Tatiana]

Did I miss the vote? I'm in favor of less moderation. Over-moderating kills a forum. That's my humble opinion, for what it's worth. =)

[apodman]

Take a note that this poll was set up almost two years ago, and logically expired soon after that. I can reopen it any time, if you want.

I'm not the careful reader I want others to be. This was very unobservant of me. I saw it at the top of the list and assumed it to be new. Please do not reopen it, at least for me.

[jesusfreak16]

I wasn't complaining about the moderators.I was just saying that with 27,000 users, and 31,108 articles,there's bound to be doubled or tripled topics.Merging is probably the easiest way to keep them under control.

[apodman]

Here's a real-world example of the choices the administrators and moderators are up against. I use the terms "administrator" and "moderator" loosely because I'm not really informed on titles and division of duties.

It's 2008 September 23. There's an APOD of dwarf planet Haumea and its two satellites. At this time, there are three separate threads running about this APOD:

1. "Eggs in Orbit (20080923)" - about technical/astronomical issues (4 posts)
2. "Wrong picture ..." - about the selection of the "big" image (3 posts)
3. "Haumea" - about the grammar in the APOD description (4 posts)

On one hand, these threads have nothing to do with each other, and so they should not be combined.

On the other hand, three short threads is a lot for one APOD, and so they should be combined.

Due to fortuitous timing of the posts (so far), there would be only one post out of topical sequence if the posts were combined at this time.

Since I can't make a clear choice what I would like to see happen with these threads, I have to say that anything a moderator does or does not do is fine with me.

However, it would be nice for me when looking through the list of topics in the future if all the threads had in their titles (a) the date, (b) the APOD subject, and (c) the thread subject. Items (a) and (b) would identify the APOD and would identify all three threads as being about that APOD. Item (c) would differentiate among the three different thread topics.

[makc]

Due to fortuitous timing of the posts (so far), there would be only one post out of topical sequence if the posts were combined at this time.

Let's merge and see

[soupphysics]

It's making it difficult to follow the line of conversation, aside from that, who cares about a couple of duplicate threads when 90% of threads are spam anyway?

cheers!

Maybe; but why even start a second thread when it's just as easy to post a reply to the original?
Orin

Because long merged threads makes it hard to follow. As he already said!

[soupphysics]

1. "Eggs in Orbit (20080923)" - about technical/astronomical issues (4 posts)
2. "Wrong picture ..." - about the selection of the "big" image (3 posts)
3. "Haumea" - about the grammar in the APOD description (4 posts)

On one hand, these threads have nothing to do with each other, and so they should not be combined.

On the other hand, three short threads is a lot for one APOD, and so they should be combined.

They should absolutely never be merged. That kind of merging would just completely ruin a forum. 3 threads is also absolutely nothing.

They are seperate issues, and merging them is worse for a forum than having many small threads.

Merging threads makes messy threads.

Not merging them, means that people can stay on a topic and have a meaningful conversation, and threads that are not popular will automatically go away (down the list) since not used.

Opening an old thread to write something instead of starting a new one, is not a good idea either, unless it is the EXACT same issue that is being brought up. And even so, if the thread is very old, it's better to start a fresh one.

[orin stepanek]

Threads aren't being merged since we got Otto Posterman!