Multiple concurrent discussions will be merged

[ScottSA]

May I ask why threads are being deleted for no apparent reason? To wit, a thread entitled "kosovo," in the "Rest of the world" forum, and which had the beginnings of a good discussion, was simply erased with no explanation. Is this a new policy in effect? Is Greg aware of it?

[M.Dancer]

May I ask why threads are being deleted for no apparent reason? To wit, a thread entitled "kosovo," in the "Rest of the world" forum, and which had the beginnings of a good discussion, was simply erased with no explanation. Is this a new policy in effect? Is Greg aware of it?

Do you mean this one?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=9239

[ScottSA]

May I ask why threads are being deleted for no apparent reason? To wit, a thread entitled "kosovo," in the "Rest of the world" forum, and which had the beginnings of a good discussion, was simply erased with no explanation. Is this a new policy in effect? Is Greg aware of it?

Do you mean this one?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=9239

No. Let me help:

Deleted: to strike out or remove (something written or printed); cancel; erase; expunge.

One would hardly be able to find a thread that has been struck out or removed, would one?

[M.Dancer]

May I ask why threads are being deleted for no apparent reason? To wit, a thread entitled "kosovo," in the "Rest of the world" forum, and which had the beginnings of a good discussion, was simply erased with no explanation. Is this a new policy in effect? Is Greg aware of it?

Do you mean this one?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=9239

No. Let me help:

Deleted: to strike out or remove (something written or printed); cancel; erase; expunge.

One would hardly be able to find a thread that has been struck out or removed, would one?

No but I thought like so often with your pronoucements you were in error.

Perhaps because there is already a Kosovo thread another is redundant?

Unless of course it's the semi coherent musings of some danish xenophobe then all right, let the superfluous threads multiply

[ScottSA]

May I ask why threads are being deleted for no apparent reason? To wit, a thread entitled "kosovo," in the "Rest of the world" forum, and which had the beginnings of a good discussion, was simply erased with no explanation. Is this a new policy in effect? Is Greg aware of it?

Do you mean this one?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=9239

No. Let me help:

Deleted: to strike out or remove (something written or printed); cancel; erase; expunge.

One would hardly be able to find a thread that has been struck out or removed, would one?

No but I thought like so often with your pronoucements you were in error.

Perhaps because there is already a Kosovo thread another is redundant?

Unless of course it's the semi coherent musings of some danish xenophobe then all right, let the superfluous threads multiply

Sorry you were wrong. I didn't mean to force you into a tizzy. I know for a fact that you don't like this practise anymore than I do.

[Charles Anthony]

Before starting a new thread, check to see if there is a current and active thread dealing with the same topic. If there is, continue in the active thread and do not start a new thread.

extracted from the

Kosovo thread

Perhaps because there is already a Kosovo thread another is redundant?

Correct.

One would hardly be able to find a thread that has been struck out or removed, would one?

You could if you recognized your own posts.

May I ask why threads are being deleted for no apparent reason?

No threads were deleted. Two threads were combined.

To wit, a thread entitled "kosovo," in the "Rest of the world" forum, and which had the beginnings of a good discussion, was simply erased with no explanation. Is this a new policy in effect?

The explanation is that there was an active thread on the same topic. Thus, the two threads were combined.

Is Greg aware of it?

He is not aware of the fusion of these two threads in particular. He is aware and has authorized the fusion of multiple threads.

If you disagree with this decision, report it to him.

It's not clear to me why the thread entitled "Kosovo" was erased, so I spose I have to repost the same thing here as was on the erased thread.

Nothing was deleted. The two threads were combined into this previous one created only a few weeks ago. All of the posts are present in this very thread.

I do hope that Greg hasn't created a monster in temporaly giving the keys to someone else.

I hope so too.

Thanks for confirming that...I was at a loss to explain what happened to your "Kosovo" thread.

I am at a loss to explain how it is that some people do not recognize their very own posts from the redundant thread which are now in this thread and intact.

Must be the new sheriff in town.

Likely.

Yeah, kinda confused me too.

Do you not recognize your own posts in this thread?

I hope it doesn't get to be a habit.

It will.

----

By the way, I suggest you guys consult the following thread:

Using the [ Quote ] Feature: Avoid using more too many quotes!

Redundant quoting and re-quoting and super-quoting and extra-quoting is next.

[M.Dancer]

Sorry you were wrong. I didn't mean to force you into a tizzy. I know for a fact that you don't like this practise anymore than I do.

[belly laughs at Scotts Expense/]

Really?

[ScottSA]

Yeah, kinda confused me too.

Do you not recognize your own posts in this thread?

I wasn't aware that we are expected to begin at the beginning of each thread each time we opened it to make sure other threads haven't been added to it, or that we need to search through threads with different titles to see if ours has been merged with it.

I was also unaware that a post with a title about a certain aspect of Kosovo (Why so important to the US?) should be invaded with a post about another aspect entirely (Haven for terrorists). Posters complain all the time about being "off topic" when that kind of thing happens. Can we expect to see all threads about, say...Islam...condensed into one thread too? Perhaps all religions should be collapsed into one topic? In fact, it's probably possible to collapse the entire forum into one or two encompassing threads! Maybe even one!

[M.Dancer]

Yeah, kinda confused me too.

Do you not recognize your own posts in this thread?

I wasn't aware that we are expected to begin at the beginning of each thread each time we opened it to make sure other threads haven't been added to it, or that we need to search through threads with different titles to see if ours has been merged with it.

I was also unaware that a post with a title about a certain aspect of Kosovo (Why so important to the US?) should be invaded with a post about another aspect entirely (Haven for terrorists). Posters complain all the time about being "off topic" when that kind of thing happens. Can we expect to see all threads about, say...Islam...condensed into one thread too? Perhaps all religions should be collapsed into one topic? In fact, it's probably possible to collapse the entire forum into one or two encompassing threads! Maybe even one!

I'm pretty sure we could combine all of Cybercoma's threads into one......

[Alexandra]

Before starting a new thread, check to see if there is a current and active thread dealing with the same topic. If there is, continue in the active thread and do not start a new thread.

Interesting. Does this mean that each time jdobbin begins one of his Harper/Conservative party/government threads it will automatically be rolled into the Harper, et al. thread he started at 0730 each and every day, Charles?

If so, the federal politics thread will have one topic!

`

[bush_cheney2004]

I was also unaware that a post with a title about a certain aspect of Kosovo (Why so important to the US?) should be invaded with a post about another aspect entirely (Haven for terrorists). Posters complain all the time about being "off topic" when that kind of thing happens. Can we expect to see all threads about, say...Islam...condensed into one thread too? Perhaps all religions should be collapsed into one topic? In fact, it's probably possible to collapse the entire forum into one or two encompassing threads! Maybe even one!

Must be something special about Kosovo...even Parliament didn't get to have more than one thread...Chretien's!

[scribblet]

How far back should we go for an old thread?

Also, does a lengthy thread ( e.g. 145 pages) ever get closed, some forums close threads when they get too long and start a new one.

[M.Dancer]

How far back should we go for an old thread?

Also, does a lengthy thread ( e.g. 145 pages) ever get closed, some forums close threads when they get too long and start a new one.

I think at very least a PM to the participants of the new thread (that will be merged) giving them a heads up would be in order.

[Charles Anthony]

Before creating a new thread, please do a brief forum search to see if there is an active thread discussing the same issue. If there is an active topic, do not create a new one but rather continue your contribution in the previous thread.

Recently, there have been several multiple concurrent threads created on the same or similar topics. I have had to merge several -- a lot more than usual. Sometimes I have sent messages to the thread creators and sometimes I have not -- depending on my available time.

When you do create a new thread, try your best to compose a brief title which accurately reflects the topic. My suggestion is that you place the most important the keywords in the first title field -- it appears that the search function lends the most weight to that line. Also, make sure that your spelling and grammar are correct in the titles.

When you encounter a thread that seems redundant or a multiple active topic, please use the Report Post function to inform us. Several people have been doing so and it is extremely appreciated.

I think at very least a PM to the participants of the new thread (that will be merged) giving them a heads up would be in order.

There is no automatic function which facilitates sending out a form message to all of the participants in the thread. Therefore, I would have to send individual message and I do not always have the time for that.

How far back should we go for an old thread?

We have not formalized an objective guideline. Just use your best judgement.

Also, does a lengthy thread ( e.g. 145 pages) ever get closed, some forums close threads when they get too long and start a new one.

That is not a policy in this forum.

[August1991]

Interesting. Does this mean that each time jdobbin begins one of his Harper/Conservative party/government threads it will automatically be rolled into the Harper, et al. thread he started at 0730 each and every day, Charles?

If so, the federal politics thread will have one topic!

This is my opinion too.

Dobbin started a thread "Canadian Political Polls" that now is over 100 pages long. In a sense, we could have one single thread "Canadian Federal Politics" that would cover everything - and be several thousand pages long. (Dobbin started several such threads. eg. "Afghanistan - The Latest")

IMO, such long threads are not inviting to new posters. I think it's appropriate to start new threads when new events occur. For example, I started a thread "Is Brian Mulroney a Crook?" Frankly, I see no harm if we have other new threads about Harper's enquiry or Liberal reaction to it. These are legitimately different issues from Mulroney's possible guilt.

Then again, when an event occurs, we don't need several threads on the single event started on the same day. It makes sense to fold these threads into one.

OTOH, we have several threads in the Moral category that arise from the dead and the conversation usefully continues.

In short, I don't want a multiplicity of threads but I don't want single, long threads either. If the topic is general (or moral), a single, lengthy thread might do. If the topic is current (or specific), a new thread is better. One test would be to ask if the topic is interesting enough to encourage a new poster to read through the entire thread. (eg. Bill C's thread about unlocking pensions or my thread about a Canadian republic). If it doesn't meet that test, then a new thread is warranted.

Anyway, I'll defer to Charles' judgment on this.

Edited November 15, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Interesting. Does this mean that each time jdobbin begins one of his Harper/Conservative party/government threads it will automatically be rolled into the Harper, et al. thread he started at 0730 each and every day, Charles?

If so, the federal politics thread will have one topic!

`

It will make things easy for you. You could post in the hooray for Harper thread and avoid the other ones.

[jdobbin]

This is my opinion too.

Dobbin started a thread "Canadian Political Polls" that now is over 100 pages long. In a sense, we could have one single thread "Canadian Federal Politics" that would cover everything - and be several thousand pages long. (Dobbin started several such threads. eg. "Afghanistan - The Latest")

I started both thread because people said they wanted things in one thread only for ease of finding it.

I am not sure what people want: Separate threads for every poll or Afghanistan story or a single thread.

Obviously, we can't have it both ways. Charles says to combine posts wherever possible. I generally do that now but even so, I miss threads that might be months old or think that there is enough difference in a story angle to warrant its own thread.

[Charles Anthony]

You guys are presenting a formidable challenge!

I will step back a little more. When I suspect a new thread is redundant, I will leave it alone for a little while longer and let it evolve. However, I want everybody to continue to Report threads or to send me PMs about your personal opinions on new threads. Please do not think I am ignoring your messages if you do not see an immediate action on my part or if you do not get an immediate reply.

Let me comment on a few peculiarities:

I started both thread because people said they wanted things in one thread only for ease of finding it.

I am not sure what people want: Separate threads for every poll or Afghanistan story or a single thread.

I am not sure what people want either but often threads like those appear to be nothing more than news-tickers without any original contribution from the poster. Whether people want that or not, I do not think that style fits the mandate of the discussion forum.

Then again, when an event occurs, we don't need several threads on the single event started on the same day. It makes sense to fold these threads into one.

Agreed. I will not hold back on those situations.

[GostHacked]

As long as the notification goes out to all before the threads are combined. Combining two threads on the same topic will get messed up in the flow of the discussions. Some threads are too long to sit through and read it all.

As long as a warning BEFORE the threads are merged and the reasons why is clearly indicated to all of us who post on MLW, then I really don't see an issue with it. But I share ScottSA's concern in that some stuff can get deleted and lost in the shuffle.

[Charles Anthony]

Maybe I am not being clear enough.

Redundant threads are not deleted -- they are merged. All of the posts are preserved.

[jdobbin]

I am not sure what people want either but often threads like those appear to be nothing more than news-tickers without any original contribution from the poster. Whether people want that or not, I do not think that style fits the mandate of the discussion forum.

I usually add my thoughts if I post a poll or Afghan story as per the rules of the board. At the end of the year though, I may do a Canadian Political Polls 2008 thread and abandon the old thread to the archives. Likewise, I may do the same for "Afghanistan, the latest" thread and do an Afghanistan 2008 thread.

I'll try to make sure that what I post in a thread has original content combined with the link posted.

Edited November 15, 2007 by jdobbin

[Canuck E Stan]

At the end of the year though, I may do a Canadian Political Polls 2008 thread and abandon the old thread to the archives. Likewise, I may do the same for "Afghanistan, the latest" thread and do an Afghanistan 2008 thread.

I'll try to make sure that what I post in a thread has original content combined with the link posted.

Who cares what you may do.Others may not want it.

Like a true arrogant Liberal, you seem to think that what you plan means something.

Guess what?

Your big end of year plans for this forum means little because of one thing......this isn't J.Dobbin's forum.

The topics posted will be by the forum community and it will happen at the year's end by the forum community.

It won't be based on Dobbin's future plans for forum topics.

[jdobbin]

Who cares what you may do.Others may not want it.

Like a true arrogant Liberal, you seem to think that what you plan means something.

Guess what?

Your big end of year plans for this forum means little because of one thing......this isn't J.Dobbin's forum.

The topics posted will be by the forum community and it will happen at the year's end by the forum community.

It won't be based on Dobbin's future plans for forum topics.

I guess I won't be seeing you in those threads then. I wouldn't want you getting upset or anything.

In any event, my response was to Charles and to August in regards to threads that run extremely long on the same theme, not to you who seem hostile for some reason and look to toss insults around.

I created the political polls and Afghanistan thread because of the thread proliferation and because several people from various political stripes asked that discussions on a theme be combined. August had a point that some of these threads run 100 pages. To that end, I thought I would abandon the two long threads I created and where many others have contributed in favour of something that combined theme and year. Anyone is free to do something different or even place polls elsewhere if they want and Charles is just as free to merge them into one thread if he thinks there is thread proliferation.

As per Charles statement that he doesn't want polls or other theme threads to simply be newsfeeds, I agreed with that thought and for my part will try to make sure I post more original content along with any link that I post. I can't speak on anyone else's behalf and would never attempt to do in a wide open forum such as this.

Your anger is misplaced and unfounded. You can do what you want in these forums. This is the support and questions section where discussions of how the forums work, technical issues, support and what improvements can be made to the forums can be talked about. Since you have posted in both the political polls and Afghanistan threads in the past, I assumed you thought it was a good idea to have a central thread where things could be discussed even if people had a different opinion that yours. I guess I was wrong.

Edited November 17, 2007 by jdobbin

[jefferiah]

[belly laughs at Scotts Expense/]

Really?

Scott and Momo. I think you two are MLW's Jack Lemmon and Walter Mathau. But which one is which?

[shavluk]

I guess I won't be seeing you in those threads then. I wouldn't want you getting upset or anything.

-quote jdobbin

Yes exactly some people are just against you and not what you post,,isnt it great? hahha

Edited November 17, 2007 by shavluk