Why "Official Thread" fad has been ruining this board

[shmessy]

I'll be honest. I think that Pony's complaint is the equivalent of the Muslim woman in VT complaining about the Sign that had the word Bacon on it.

Ian and Mods - You can't please everyone. Making changes for the extreme minority alienates the majority. And I don't truly believe it helps the board run better. It's already been established that the times that the mods typically merge threads is when it's talking about the same thing. Such as when Mankins was traded. There were 3 threads I believe that went up about it. The board doesn't need 3 threads on it. And, last I looked, the Tommy Kelly appreciation thread didn't get merged with the Tommy Kelly cut thread..

And, contrary to the OP and a couple of other people, the thread merging is truly at a minimum here. Many of the mega-threads of late come from normal interaction. Not from the "inane arguments of 2-3 posters".

I honestly believe the mods do a fantastic job at limiting what threads get merged and what don't and that this complaint is more about personal preference of the user and his not using the tools available than it is a true issue with the board.

Thank you for the kind words. However, I still think Pony is on to something constructive though when it comes to the Game Day threads. I put it out there as a possibility (don't know if Ian can do it regarding space/bandwidth and all those other tech things I cannot comprehend) about separate forums for each regular season game where threads would never be merged. Perhaps there are new, budding Patfankens/Zeus's/Robos out there that we are stifling?

 

[Galeb]

I'll be honest. I think that Pony's complaint is the equivalent of the Muslim woman in VT complaining about the Sign that had the word Bacon on it.

Ian and Mods - You can't please everyone. Making changes for the extreme minority alienates the majority. And I don't truly believe it helps the board run better. It's already been established that the times that the mods typically merge threads is when it's talking about the same thing. Such as when Mankins was traded. There were 3 threads I believe that went up about it. The board doesn't need 3 threads on it. And, last I looked, the Tommy Kelly appreciation thread didn't get merged with the Tommy Kelly cut thread..

And, contrary to the OP and a couple of other people, the thread merging is truly at a minimum here. Many of the mega-threads of late come from normal interaction. Not from the "inane arguments of 2-3 posters".

I honestly believe the mods do a fantastic job at limiting what threads get merged and what don't and that this complaint is more about personal preference of the user and his not using the tools available than it is a true issue with the board.

If they'd just try bacon, they would understand...

 

[Ian]

I thought the spyware/adware ruined this site a few years ago.

That unfortunately affected not just us but the Seattle Times, among many other major publications, although it at least forced all the ad networks to start being more careful about monitoring things better.

But yeah, I'll agree with you, that sucked and I felt - and still feel bad - that we were part of that mess

 

[Ian]

Thank you for the kind words. However, I still think Pony is on to something constructive though when it comes to the Game Day threads. I put it out there as a possibility (don't know if Ian can do it regarding space/bandwidth and all those other tech things I cannot comprehend) about separate forums for each regular season game where threads would never be merged. Perhaps there are new, budding Patfankens/Zeus's/Robos out there that we are stifling?

I'm going to be re-organizing this place anyway and I think that's actually a good idea. The tricky part is just trying to make it so we're not moving around dozens of threads and having good ones get lost in a "Week 1" forum...I'll have to brainstorm a little bit and see what we can come up with.

 

[Triumph]

That unfortunately affected not just us but the Seattle Times, among many other major publications, although it at least forced all the ad networks to start being more careful about monitoring things better.

But yeah, I'll agree with you, that sucked and I felt - and still feel bad - that we were part of that mess

PF is free.

If someone had to click on adds there are worse things in the world.

 

[Galeb]

Is it possible to merge posters?

 

[Ring 6]

My 2 cents: There are competing issues. Having too many threads that things get lost, and having such enormous threads that you just don't want to spend the time to read through them. This is much easier said that done.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Please, whatever happens, I beg that nothing happens to "the Official" Jets suck thread. Pure comedy gold in that there thread.

 

[Galeb]

I'm going to be re-organizing this place anyway and I think that's actually a good idea. The tricky part is just trying to make it so we're not moving around dozens of threads and having good ones get lost in a "Week 1" forum...I'll have to brainstorm a little bit and see what we can come up with.

If there is no mechanism for rating threads in your toolkit, would it be possible add a rating (like, agree etc..) option like "promote" to individual posts? If the OP gets enough of that specific rating, the thread could earn a promotion to the main forum.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I can only speak for myself. The reason that I have remained as a moderator is to be a tyrant, abuse the power given to me, and to aggrevate as many people as I can. This makes life worth living.

Maybe tonight we can go without the "official game thread" for the last pre-season game. We can have many threads commenting on the game, knee jerk reactions threads, and those who have insightful observations during the game can also have their own threads. We can just delete any thread started that is a game thread. Worth a try?

 

[Kontradiction]

I think PonyExpress has a point, though, when it comes to the game threads.

I repeat my idea I threw out there. How about separate forums for each game, where threads are simply not merged?

The problem with this idea is that Ian would have to purchase more bandwidth after a loss.

 

[tasmlab]

Ian:

Based on my experiences with another (non-sports) board, I would suggest this general (but not exhaustive) rule:

* "BREAKING NEWS" posts (i.e., ones that just re-post tweets/links) should be merged.
* "Analytical" posts (i.e., ones that involve original thinking) should be left alone.

For example, patfanken's game threads shouldn't be merged with the general "official post-game thread," but a post merely linking BB's post-game presser should be merged.

This sounds right to me. I'd add that the Original Poster be burdened with distinguishing why their thread of a matching topic is differentiated in the title, and then follow up with a substantively differentiated post.

 

[chasa]

speaking from experience on other forums, anytime you start the "official" thread of different subjects it turns into a giant clusterfunk and people start to leave because they have to sift through so much junk just to find the posts by the people they enjoy talking to.

Obviously things get a little messy when something big happens and three people create a post within a few seconds of each other, but the forum members should get to choose which thread they want to participate in instead of being forced together, resulting in most cases non stop arguments and **** measuring.

I'm not a fan of "official posts" but I do think thread starters should at least exercise caution when creating a duplicate thread.

 

[dales804]

speaking from experience on other forums, anytime you start the "official" thread of different subjects it turns into a giant clusterfunk and people start to leave because they have to sift through so much junk just to find the posts by the people they enjoy talking to.

Obviously things get a little messy when something big happens and three people create a post within a few seconds of each other, but the forum members should get to choose which thread they want to participate in instead of being forced together, resulting in most cases non stop arguments and **** measuring.

I'm not a fan of "official posts" but I do think thread starters should at least exercise caution when creating a duplicate thread.

Why have multiple threads on the same exact topic? Because you want to exclude what others say and focus on what a select few do? I'd much rather skim through a single thread than jump from one to the other searching for where someone posted. If people are that interested in what some posters have to say, just follow them from their profile page. You'll get notified when they do post.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm going to be re-organizing this place anyway and I think that's actually a good idea. The tricky part is just trying to make it so we're not moving around dozens of threads and having good ones get lost in a "Week 1" forum...I'll have to brainstorm a little bit and see what we can come up with.

I don't see why you should make more work for yourself. Just delaying most (not even all) of the post-game thread mergers would accomplish essentially the same thing, and it wouldn't require new forums being made all the time.

 

[Galeb]

Why have multiple threads on the same exact topic? Because you want to exclude what others say and focus on what a select few do? I'd much rather skim through a single thread than jump from one to the other searching for where someone posted. If people are that interested in what some posters have to say, just follow them from their profile page. You'll get notified when they do post.

Single broad threads with several merges results in frequent pissing contests. These pissing contests often stifle the development of new ideas or angles. As others have said, there is a balance. Gigantic threads suck.

 

[Avenger]

Fwiw I like how this forum doesn't have redundant threads, I think the mods do a good job merging

 

[Galeb]

I don't see why you should make more work for yourself. Just delaying most (not even all) of the post-game thread mergers would accomplish essentially the same thing, and it wouldn't require new forums being made all the time.

There would only be 16 subforums created each year. It could result in queries (searches) being much more focused and not pounding the main database.

 

[dales804]

Single broad threads with several merges results in frequent pissing contests. These pissing contests often stifle the development of new ideas or angles. As others have said, there is a balance. Gigantic threads suck.

I know what you're saying. So you think the pissing matches will subside if there are a lot more threads? Threads get derailed by them because of the content of the posts not the length of the thread. I usually just skim by the crap that I don't care about.

Regardless, Ian said there'll be changes coming, though I don't know what they are. It's simply my preference to have a cleaned up forum and long threads versus clutter and jumping from one thread to another.

 

[borg]

I can only speak for myself. The reason that I have remained as a moderator is to be a tyrant, abuse the power given to me, and to aggrevate as many people as I can. This makes life worth living.

Maybe tonight we can go without the "official game thread" for the last pre-season game. We can have many threads commenting on the game, knee jerk reactions threads, and those who have insightful observations during the game can also have their own threads. We can just delete any thread started that is a game thread. Worth a try?

The funny thing is....I didn't even know Preseason Game #4 was tonight. I've been too mesmerized/engrossed by these touchy feeling sharing sessions. I personally can't wait for real football so I can rip into fumbling Ridley...or Glassendola. And if Mallett doesn't hold his clip board on the sideline with proper technique, I might have to go all PatsFanKen and list my ten deepest thoughts regarding the goofy Razorback