Is it easier to keep popular topics in one long thread or should we allow multiple smaller threads for easier navigation ?
Super Threads
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Both options have disadvanatages. We have buckets of berbatovs threads and people make the same points but these 60 pagers evolve which each post. you start a thread about one thing and finish debating about something elese. frequent users shouldnt find it difficult though so.... keep it as it is.
For me, a good argument against changing the status quo is not really knowing which of say, five threads about the same topic, you wanted to revisit. In ways, that could be more confusing than trawling through a very long thread. So there's no right or wrong answer here.
Megathreads are more concise but they need to have a page limit. 100+ pages makes it hard to find posts.
For anyone voting to get rid, what alternative option can you provide ? Just allowing multiple threads on the same topic ? How will that make finding information about a discussion any easier ?
Status quo is fine. As long as any new updates are incorporated in the thread title as it is done now by the mods, it is fine.
Too many threads results in the same arguements being repeated in 6 different places.
Too many threads results in the same arguements being repeated in 6 different places.
I've talked about this quite a bit on here in the past.
Recently in here, I think: Bumping Old Threads - RedCafe.net
The problem is when several different discussions take place in the same thread. In the Berba thread you can have some people discussing whether or not his price should affect how people think of him, whether he should start ahead of Hernandez, whether he should be sold, whether he should take penalties, whether he he'll reach 20 goals next season, whether he'll buy more squirrels, whether he looks like that guy from Rock N Rolla etc.
Thus it's much better to have several discussions spread over several threads with proper thread titles, indicating what's being discussed in said thread.
Cider's "Cheat of the Year - why Nani?" thread is a good example of how it should be in my opinion. That discussion could in theory have been posted in one of the mega Nani threads, but then the debate would have been tangled up with several other discussions.
No to mega threads.
Would you believe it, I didn't even get a raise for that ingenious initiative.
couldn´t you have a super thread that has several links to the various different discussions contained on the same player.
eg: Berbatov super thread
1: is berba bobbins
2: will berba stay
3: how cool is berba
so once you open the super thread you can then click on which debate you want to get involved in.
would it be possible to have this kind of function or is it too much work?
eg: Berbatov super thread
1: is berba bobbins
2: will berba stay
3: how cool is berba
so once you open the super thread you can then click on which debate you want to get involved in.
would it be possible to have this kind of function or is it too much work?
I'm sure there' some sort of happy medium - though that rather leaves it to the discretion of the mods as it's all sorts of shades of grey.
At the moment, for example, every time the Charlie Adams thread is bumped I worry we'll have signed him, but when I check it's just somebody slagging off Gibson or drooling over how "we should really sign Pastore/Modric/Hamsik/Hazard/Sneijder". But equally it's even worse when the front page of the 'caf has 4 or 5 threads about the same player, each with a different starting opinion or update, but each of which has descended into the same argument (usually about Berbatov).
At the moment, for example, every time the Charlie Adams thread is bumped I worry we'll have signed him, but when I check it's just somebody slagging off Gibson or drooling over how "we should really sign Pastore/Modric/Hamsik/Hazard/Sneijder". But equally it's even worse when the front page of the 'caf has 4 or 5 threads about the same player, each with a different starting opinion or update, but each of which has descended into the same argument (usually about Berbatov).
The Transfer Forum is generally very difficult to moderate, because there's rarely any stuff to go on for people, so discussions in there often turn into Football Forum type debates.
This is why I've moved threads from the Transfer Forum to the Football Forum in the past, when the transfer is ruled out or likewise. Or when the season is under way and someone bumps a Transfer Thread only to comment on the ability of the player, rather than whether or not we or someone else should buy the player.
I agree on the shades of grey point as neither absolute is satisfactory. I have March and April in mind when 1 in 3 to 1 in 2 threads in the football forum were regarding Arsenal, some of them were close enough to each other in starting point and therefore the same argument was being waged so they could have been merged, but some of them had a definitive purpose and therefore should have remained as distinct threads.
The emphasis ought to be kept on easy-to-navigate threads but when prevailing arguments within separate threads begin to converge they ought to be brought together. I realise that makes the site far more difficult to manage but if the focus is to be placed first and foremost on making threads easy to navigate and accurate to their titles and the arguments contained within then that is the way to go.
The emphasis ought to be kept on easy-to-navigate threads but when prevailing arguments within separate threads begin to converge they ought to be brought together. I realise that makes the site far more difficult to manage but if the focus is to be placed first and foremost on making threads easy to navigate and accurate to their titles and the arguments contained within then that is the way to go.
Significant news updates and such often get lost in the rest of the drivel in the super threads, to the point where you don't have a clue what people are talking about. It does get messy when there's alot of threads on the same subject though..
You forgot to add that it's also difficult to moderate because it's populated by hordes of salivating-knee-jerking-wumming-muppets
IMO prob is that, let say berbatov signs a new contract, that it is fashionable to look up a random thread related to berbatov and then post the news in that thread... What you get is mega threads with no clear topic, but a very abstract relation between the posts included in that thread...
I'd prefer topics to be related to one narrowly defined/distinct subject. Then, if threads are created with the exact same subject, close it or merge it with the existing one. But only if it is exactly the same subject... i'd want to avoid the situation where specific news about some player (in itself worthy of a thread) is just added to some random general thread about that player...
I'd prefer topics to be related to one narrowly defined/distinct subject. Then, if threads are created with the exact same subject, close it or merge it with the existing one. But only if it is exactly the same subject... i'd want to avoid the situation where specific news about some player (in itself worthy of a thread) is just added to some random general thread about that player...
It depends on what the subject matter is doesn't it?
It also depends on forcing people to actually make sensible thread titles. What's the point in "Berbatov" or "Berbatov Today" or "Barcelona vs. Manchester United". Can't people make sensible thread titles? Can't people add a date? "Berbatov Today - 04/06/2011" or "Barcelona vs. Manchester United 28/05/2011"?
If people did that, then yes, let multiple threads exist, why not, at least each one has a focus and a description. Personally I'd lock every thread in the football forums without a proper description (always leave a note as to why a thread was locked) and infract repeat offenders. There are also too many people that can't be arsed to look for repeat threads. Large threads have their purpose as long as the conversation is kept on topic. One thing the mods could do also is that when something goes off topic, although related, is spawn new threads and leave a note in the main thread as to why it was done.
The repeat thread thing is something that seriously pisses me off, because why should posters spend the time providing their opinions in one thread for then all of a sudden some knobchop come along and create a thread on exactly the same thing and everyone having to repeat their thoughts over multiple threads? It happened the other day when Owen was given a new contract. The same issues were being discussed in a general Owen thread, an Owen signs a new contract thread (without a fecking date in the thread title) and then also the general Berbatov thread where they were discussing what Owen's new contract meant for Berbatov - in all three!
Sense tells me that you could have one thread "Michael Owen signs a new contract - DATE", where people can discuss if they think that is a wise decision or not, and another "Michael Owen's new contract - DATE - How does it effect other players?".
The moderators need to do what that word suggests IMO, and that's guide the posters. That's what moderation is. The mindset of the keyboard happy poster needs to change (especially with news stories - it's this mindset, oh oh oh, I have to be the first to break the news). I've also seen people start one word thread titles and then continue to write a post of this length as the OP - so they were never in a rush.
I'd make it so that you can't start a thread until you have 5,000 posts!
Vague thread titles are an issue.
Anyone who starts a thread with 'Wow' or 'Oh my' or 'I didn't want to say but...' or anything else that doesn't tell you what the thread is about should have it locked or renamed.
Anyone who starts a thread with 'Wow' or 'Oh my' or 'I didn't want to say but...' or anything else that doesn't tell you what the thread is about should have it locked or renamed.
I'm on another site where they split the thread once the current one reaches ~1000 replies. Personally not fan, but that's perhaps caused by the fact that this is the first forum I've ever invested a significant amount of time into (with feck all to show for it! 
) and whenI joined up there were plenty of super-threads.
) and whenI joined up there were plenty of super-threads.As been said elsewhere, some of the posters with higher post counts have them just because they 'spam' response everywhere with 'funny' pictures or white text or the usual 'Evra will get banned' comments, etc, and not necessarily be reflective of positing ability. Not many, but some so perhaps post-count restriction on being able to start new threads wouldn't necessarily work.
Well, the question there is how did they get out of the newbie in the first place? I think that you need a shift in the newbie such that people are not given reputation points on the posts that they make per se, although good well thought out posts should be rewarded (not because the moderator agrees with the content of the post, but rather the way that the point is backed up with reasoned argument), but rather towards people that make well thought out new threads in the newbie. How you'd balance it I don't know, but you could for example give 1 point for a good post and say 10 points for making a well thought out and well titled thread with a proper description.
The 5,000 number was an exaggeration BTW.
I reckon I got at least 30 points by paying Marcos out alone.
I'm on another site where they split the thread once the current one reaches ~1000 replies. Personally not fan, but that's perhaps caused by the fact that this is the first forum I've ever invested a significant amount of time into (with feck all to show for it!
As I said, there is nothing wrong with super threads as long as they have a specific topic. It's the super threads that talk in a generic fashion about this that and the other related to some simple base, such as "Berbatov" or "Flowers" or "Cars" or "Footballs". Threads such as that have no focus!
An issue that I have with the current reputation points system from the newbies is that it often encourages too many 'notice me' threads, in that someone starts a thread not really for the interest of debate or discussion, but to get noticed starting an 'impressive' thread, if you see what I mean. I think a lot of newbies know this and try and get moderator attention by doing so. They then get 'points' through not necessarily being someone who contributes well towards threads and debates.
In the end we get people who think it's 'good' to start new threads all the time rather than contribute towards others whilst posters up there who do contribute towards debate get overlooked as they don't start threads all the time.
I have no problem with more threads. However I do have a problem with titles. Users should be encouraged to have far more descriptive titles.
A lot of times users will name their thread "Giggs" or "A point" or "Guardian bollocks" or something similarly vague which gives no insight into what the thread is about. This way the thread is later bumped 3 weeks later with the title "Giggs" but the bumped thread has nothing to do with what the original thread was about.
Something like "Giggs Vs Birmingham" or "That backheel by Giggs" would give a far better insight.
We will also get far less duplicate threads if users have descriptive titles.
A lot of times users will name their thread "Giggs" or "A point" or "Guardian bollocks" or something similarly vague which gives no insight into what the thread is about. This way the thread is later bumped 3 weeks later with the title "Giggs" but the bumped thread has nothing to do with what the original thread was about.
Something like "Giggs Vs Birmingham" or "That backheel by Giggs" would give a far better insight.
We will also get far less duplicate threads if users have descriptive titles.
I prefer smaller threads instead of one giant one. And as mentioned the titles need to be more precise.
The long threads after a few hours or so you can get page after page you lose track and I just tend to skip them
The long threads after a few hours or so you can get page after page you lose track and I just tend to skip them
Long threads are a cnut as you have to trawl through them to find stuff you want, like the Michael Owen one, I wanted to see the start of the talk about him signing an one year extension, but it was hard to find it as it was merged with the original thread of him being signed.
The thread needs another option in the poll, because with certain threads it works, with others it doesn't.
I think there's no need to reorganise anything really, just let threads take their course. Moderators only need to intervene in exceptional cases. But "reorganising" is pointless. If someone wants to start a tangential thread for a reason, let them. If someone suggests merging threads together, consider it. etc. etc. etc.
- Moderating for Dummies
- Moderating for Dummies
That's pretty much how I feel about it. I think more enforcement of simple rules like - use the search function before you post, use descriptive thread titles, don't post duplicate threads - combined with closure of duplicate threads rather than merging and infraction of repeat offenders would soon change the culture of posting on this private forum of relatively small numbers of posters.
Perhaps important topics should go on separate threads. For example "Untied bid for Ashley Young" (in which only discussions about the bid and perhaps how he would adapt to the team, transfer fee etc would be more appropiate) separate from "Ashley Young" (in which the player is discussed as a player, like the way in which the Alexis Sanchez thread started). That'd be ideal in theory but I know in practice it would be more difficult.
Would one single thread to discuss all things ashley young not be better?
i still reckon my idea from post #8 in this thread would work.
I'm not a fan of super threads, they keep the forum tidier but make it hard to follow info. I remember during the Rooney saga it became extremely hard to follow when all the threads were merged.
threads wouldnt have to be merged or pruned if posters put a bit more thought into their threads (as Weaste has alluded to)
the problem with this place is everytime someone has a brain fart they decide to make a topic - usually theres already a thread on the topic. Now, both threads saying the same thing with different posters giving their opinions. Now you have 2 multiple page threads. Then, both threads go off on different tangents. The moderator comes along, reads the first few pages and decides both topics are the same so undestandably merges. Then its a mess.
Throw in the fact that posters try to beat each other to the honour of posting the thread first and you end up with 6 threads about the same thing on the first page
posters, take more care
the problem with this place is everytime someone has a brain fart they decide to make a topic - usually theres already a thread on the topic. Now, both threads saying the same thing with different posters giving their opinions. Now you have 2 multiple page threads. Then, both threads go off on different tangents. The moderator comes along, reads the first few pages and decides both topics are the same so undestandably merges. Then its a mess.
Throw in the fact that posters try to beat each other to the honour of posting the thread first and you end up with 6 threads about the same thing on the first page
posters, take more care
In my opinion, no. The thread on Alexis Sanchez was to discuss the player and turned into transfer muppetry AND discussion about the player. So, if we have an Alexis Sanchez thread we would only discuss "he's good, his movement is great, pacey - got three goals today - his development has been great" and in the "Alexis Sanchez could move" thread would only discuss things like "30m would be a rip off, Inter are also after him, United are rumoured to be after him" etc.
Sometimes it's difficult to follow trains of thought with posts about the player and about transfers all mixed. That's my opinion.
Transfer forum - yes
But in the United forum we have 1 thread for Hernandez, that started the day we signed him.
But in the United forum we have 1 thread for Hernandez, that started the day we signed him.
It's subjective to the topic being discussed.
I believe 2 threads for say the Ozil saga would have been relevant. At times, the amount of discussion surrounding him was hectic. The single thread was packed with a few different conversations and it was hard to make a new point or keep track.
For big discussions like so, I think the best way to avoid confusion would be having a thread on speculation of the player and another on how he'd fit in with United.
I felt the CL discussion was healthy. There was the build-up thread and how'd we line up being the headline CL threads, but also chance to focus on certain aspects with seperate posters making threads on specific topics.
I believe 2 threads for say the Ozil saga would have been relevant. At times, the amount of discussion surrounding him was hectic. The single thread was packed with a few different conversations and it was hard to make a new point or keep track.
For big discussions like so, I think the best way to avoid confusion would be having a thread on speculation of the player and another on how he'd fit in with United.
I felt the CL discussion was healthy. There was the build-up thread and how'd we line up being the headline CL threads, but also chance to focus on certain aspects with seperate posters making threads on specific topics.
At the end of the day it's down to posters being responsible when making new threads. That's all it requires. The trouble is.......
I have to admit that the main thing I learnt whilst in the newbies was to keep things in the same threads. Most of the newbies knew to keep posts in threads and it is one of the things that originally attracted me to RedCafe. Yes it can take a while to flick through the thread pages but at least you know that everything is contained in one thread.
Like others have said, the only alternative is making sure threads are created responsibly... But I can never see that happening, it doesn't quite happen now!
Like others have said, the only alternative is making sure threads are created responsibly... But I can never see that happening, it doesn't quite happen now!
I generally change thread titles when they don't say anything about the content of the OP.
Like "Would you..." and then the actual question doesn't appear until you open the thread (or hoover over the title)
Like "Would you..." and then the actual question doesn't appear until you open the thread (or hoover over the title)