MTP (Massive Thread Policy)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nistelrooy10

Tin Foil Hatter
Newbie
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Messages
6,156
is a bit retarded and destroying the quality of the site.

I've noticed massive threads becoming more and more common in the past year or so, and can only imagine it's being done as a matter of policy by the administration, otherwise there woudn't be so many. It works fine for stupid threads in the general or occasional "have a laugh" thread in football forums (ie "Torres Signs"), but for the most part they should be limited to special circumstances and not "Watch" threads that span 100 pages and that originally started when the player in question was conceived by his father.

On the surface it seems like a good idea, but experience seems to show that most of those threads are complete junk. A number of times I've went into one of those and had to wade through IQ-lowering gibberish that makes up 90% of the thread to get to the information that I want. They are made up of repeating posts by same posters who sometimes have 100 posts per thread, what could you discuss so much? If any one of us could write that much quality we'd be writing for magazines and papers not on here. And no one will quit their full-time job to read through everything, so of course the same discussions will go in circle. I lost the number of times a poster proved another poster wrong, only to have a third one come in and start it all over again.

I wouldn't have a problem with this if we were allowed to open threads without them being merged or us banned. Let those who want keep their "watch" threads, let us open a new threads when important information becomes available or a good post is made. For example, take a look at the Antonio Valencia thread and the Kankan thread that Brad made. If a top quality post or article is made in that Valencia thread or Vidic thread, hardly anyone will read it. Sometimes I don't open those threads up at all because I assume it's a bunch of garbage and don't need to get a headache from straining my eyes. In the Ramsey thread, it took me 15 minutes to find a picture of the incident. Why didn't somebody start a new thread after the damn tackle? What's the tackle got to do with his footballing performance from 2 years ago? I don't even know anything about Diouf except from watching him, I dare not go near the Diouf thread with all "The One" shite.

Sorry if it's long winded, I just needed to be specific about the rant, pointless merging and "watch" threads should remain in the domain of rawk, no on here, unless we are allowed to open parallel threads.
 
childish jibberish unfortunately affects a lot of threads

however, we are not going to change our policy to allow posters to open multiple threads on the same topic. Its annoying because you end up having to post your same opinion in multiple threads and it drives other threads off the first page.
 
But you end up posting same opinions again and again anyways on those long ones. And I understand not allowing multiple treads on the same day, or even a week, it's too hard for you lot to moderate and it does push other threads off the first page, but some other threads that are over a year old or are on the same general theme(Diouf) but on a different tangent of sorts (footballing performance vs his new car)? It seems a bit extreme is all...trying to wade through the garbage

EDIT: for clarification purposes
 
While we strongly encourage people not to create identical threads I can't think of an example of where we have demanded that people search for a general thread about a player which hasn't been posted in for months or years when a specific notable event occurs. Much less penalise them for not doing so.
 
A lot of people just do it because they are weird.
 
Good point Weaste

multiple threads annoy me, especially those that start with "i know theres already a thread on this but i think this deserves its own thread.."

which then goes on to regurgitate the same shit thats already been posted in a different thread

lazy feckers. Dont blame the mods, blame the lazy posters
 
I do hate with big thread's when it's difficult to know what's going on because you have to go back so far. I suppose there's a merit to both ways anyway.
 
I absolutely disagree. The fact that we had, at times, about four threads loosely related to Berba v Tevez last season was the straw that broke the camel's back, for me at least.

It's fine the way it is. On a site of this size you'll get a lot of replies (which is what we all want, surely) so it's easy for some posts to get lost. But generally if you make a particularly good post-or conversely, a particularly bad one-there are generally people there to point it out.
 
Nistelrooy10 said:
is a bit retarded and destroying the quality of the site.

I've noticed massive threads becoming more and more common in the past year or so, and can only imagine it's being done as a matter of policy by the administration, otherwise there woudn't be so many. It works fine for stupid threads in the general or occasional "have a laugh" thread in football forums (ie "Torres Signs"), but for the most part they should be limited to special circumstances and not "Watch" threads that span 100 pages and that originally started when the player in question was conceived by his father.

On the surface it seems like a good idea, but experience seems to show that most of those threads are complete junk. A number of times I've went into one of those and had to wade through IQ-lowering gibberish that makes up 90% of the thread to get to the information that I want. They are made up of repeating posts by same posters who sometimes have 100 posts per thread, what could you discuss so much? If any one of us could write that much quality we'd be writing for magazines and papers not on here. And no one will quit their full-time job to read through everything, so of course the same discussions will go in circle. I lost the number of times a poster proved another poster wrong, only to have a third one come in and start it all over again.

I wouldn't have a problem with this if we were allowed to open threads without them being merged or us banned. Let those who want keep their "watch" threads, let us open a new threads when important information becomes available or a good post is made. For example, take a look at the Antonio Valencia thread and the Kankan thread that Brad made. If a top quality post or article is made in that Valencia thread or Vidic thread, hardly anyone will read it. Sometimes I don't open those threads up at all because I assume it's a bunch of garbage and don't need to get a headache from straining my eyes. In the Ramsey thread, it took me 15 minutes to find a picture of the incident. Why didn't somebody start a new thread after the damn tackle? What's the tackle got to do with his footballing performance from 2 years ago? I don't even know anything about Diouf except from watching him, I dare not go near the Diouf thread with all "The One" shite.

Sorry if it's long winded, I just needed to be specific about the rant, pointless merging and "watch" threads should remain in the domain of rawk, no on here, unless we are allowed to open parallel threads.
Click to expand...

Point well taken, although its inescapable that longer single threads are far less annoying that multiple threads on the same topic, complete with redundant discussions. Its simply a much more efficient way to run an ever growing forum.
 
what happened to trying to keep all match related threads in one post like a few month ago I think it was

I just avoid the long threads with loads and loads of pages, just read the news on bbc or sky sports as I don't fancy having to keep going back page after page to find what everyones talking about
 
WeasteDevil said:
I'd just like some context in the thread titles, rather than "Berbatov".....
Click to expand...

This this this this this

Some sort of policy for this would be nice. Considering I hope people have their post coherently thought out, it's not too hard to come up with a meaningful title.

Like "Berbatov has been playing well lately" or "I like Berbatov's hair". All you have to do is figure out what the hell is your main point and make that your title. I'm sure it would help Niall with SEO as well.

Also (but not as important) it would be nice if any references to "Today" in the thread title were replaced (by rule so the mods don't have to do extra work every time someone makes a dumb thread title) with the date or week or something else besides just "today" or "this week" because "Rooney's goal today" can be construed to refer to something completely different a few weeks after the day of the original post (which is not shown on the thread list) and sometimes threads like this don't die out quickly enough to avoid confusion, and it makes it a bit difficult to search for those threads as well.
 
The reason many threads are named in such general terms is that the longer they become, the broader the original topic becomes. A 2 page thread about Park can easily deviate into a 20 page thread about many other things about Park. The longer the thread, the less need there is to have specific context within its title. Obviously there will be exceptions to this from time to time.
 
Raoul said:
The reason many threads are named in such general terms is that the longer they become, the broader the original topic becomes. A 2 page thread about Park can easily deviate into a 20 page thread about many other things about Park. The longer the thread, the less need there is to have specific context within its title.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but doesn't it make more sense to start with a specific title, then change the title later if the thread starts to encompass more? Short threads that die out are far more common so it seems a bit presumptuous to make a thread with a general title just in case it gets to be a long thread.
 
jveezy said:
Fair enough, but doesn't it make more sense to start with a specific title, then change the title later if the thread starts to encompass more? Short threads that die out are far more common so it seems a bit presumptuous to make a thread with a general title just in case it gets to be a long thread.
Click to expand...

That's generally up to whoever starts the thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.