slowster wrote: ↑29 Dec 2023, 10:38am
I gave some examples above, because it's necessary to consider how any possible guidelines might work for different situations. Here is a current actual example:
This thread - viewtopic.php?t=159271 has been reported with the suggestion that it should be merged with this thread - viewtopic.php?t=158558. Do you think they should be merged? If so, what is the rationale for merging?
To help me answer this
Q1 if I did a search of 'topic titles only' for "reflective jacket" would the then merged thread with title Proviz EN CE 20471 come in the search results?
If it does then merge if it doesn’t then I’d be inclined to no. There is a clear link there to a more comprehensive thread.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
Paulatic wrote: ↑30 Dec 2023, 6:23pm
if I did a search of 'topic titles only' for "reflective jacket" would the then merged thread with title Proviz EN CE 20471 come in the search results?
I think it is generally inadvisable to search 'topic titles only'.
The reason the results of the first search do not even include the thread titled 'Reflective 360 jackets, verdict?' is because the title contains the word 'jackets', not 'jacket'. The phpBB search function is not as sophisticated as Google.
slowster wrote: ↑30 Dec 2023, 6:02pm
Below are the the last ten opening posts of threads which ended up being merged into a previous thread. Threads with an uninformative title are not a significant factor in the creation of threads on the same subject.
Surface dressing could be a different discussion to road repairs. The headings might not be uninformative but the problem being the OP of road repairs was actually referring to surface dressing.
I think it is generally inadvisable to search 'topic titles only'.
I agree and it’s not something i do. The function is there though and could be attractive to someone not skilled in searching.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
slowster wrote: ↑30 Dec 2023, 6:02pm
Below are the the last ten opening posts of threads which ended up being merged into a previous thread. Threads with an uninformative title are not a significant factor in the creation of threads on the same subject.
slowster wrote: ↑30 Dec 2023, 12:12pm
...
One reason for merging would be that people who had responded to the first thread, might be frustrated and even annoyed that the creation of a separate new thread on the same topical subject had effectively sidelined their earlier contributions to the discussion of the subject.
And there's a related issue. Experts might not feel like typing the same things over again.
Psamathe wrote: ↑30 Dec 2023, 12:27pm
I find parallel threads running on the same subject immensely frustrating. You respond in one and fing you almost need to cut and paste into the other as same discussion in parallel ...
1. Helpful if users could check before starting a thread
2. Helpful if those starting a thread could give it a sensible "Subject" to help others checking is discussion already happening (already raised by othersa before)
...
Paulatic wrote: ↑30 Dec 2023, 6:23pmTo help me answer this
Q1 if I did a search of 'topic titles only' for "reflective jacket" would the then merged thread with title Proviz EN CE 20471 come in the search results?
If it does then merge if it doesn’t then I’d be inclined to no. There is a clear link there to a more comprehensive thread.
That search is quite likely to miss. So I'd support merging.
What's the advantage of locking and linking rather than merging? And would that always include reposting the new post in the old unlocked thread? I'd expect the new poster to be annoyed if that weren't done.
I fancy one important thing involves the titles given to posts which may then form threads
IMO a particularly obvious example is illustrated by threads titled eg +++ The twaddle thread +++ which seems to me to be the tail pre-empting the activities of any future dog.
If posters restricted themselves to a purely descriptive subject title, perhaps reorganising the results might be a bit more straightforward
I've seen the comments about Subjects upthread. And the other recent discussion.
Yes, I agree that they are relevant to this.
I prefer Subjects that are more like topics than assertions. The latter often become confusing as the thread develops because posts are sometimes read as supporting the assertion rather than simply continuing the discussion about the topic.
Jdsk wrote: ↑7 Jan 2024, 11:47am
What's the advantage of locking and linking rather than merging? And would that always include reposting the new post in the old unlocked thread? I'd expect the new poster to be annoyed if that weren't done.
The advantage is that it won't reset the "read" flag like merging seems to.
The new poster shouldn't be annoyed because it's their own fault their new thread got locked.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
I'd like to choose for myself how relevant an older thread on the same subject is, things change, anyone new coming to it might not realise how dated the information is, posting dates are not obvious unless you know to look, I've been caught out reading a page or two before realising.
One of the examples upthread is the merging of two threads asking about the Dartford Crossing, the question and wording are similar, but the threads are seven years apart. If I wanted information, then someones old experience is of no value to me unless someone can confirm the situation is unchanged. Why expect someone to read an old thread before getting to that relevant information? Imagine reading through a thread then getting to a post telling you it's all changed, or those products are no longer available, or there's different options.
Then there's the repetition within a thread, which IMO is worse than repetitive threads, There are those happier to reply to an OP as if it were a Q&A rather than a more conversational type thread, you get this even without merging, it's just more likely the longer the thread. I tend to skip those posts that start with "I haven't read the thread..." there's still no shortage of posts written by someone who clearly hasn't, often containing nothing that hasn't already been said, sometimes even with the same links. If I want to avoid replying like that, it means reading through the old and new, deciding how different the mid thread question is, then how relevant the prior posts are, then deciding if I have anything to contribute. I'd rather just read and maybe reply to a new thread, even if some do think it's been asked before.
I fancy that the local knowledge "service" went AWOL when the district association (DA) structure was dismantled long ago. Only old memories now, but IIRC DAs had deignated consuls keeping local knowledge up-to-date.
