Policy and practice of merging threads

[jimlews]

[Moderator note - discussion of policy and practice of merging threads split off from 'Yha sell off' thread -viewtopic.php?t=157083]

Discussion of "YHA sell off":
[Threads merged and link removed]

Jonathan

Why ?
Is the site short of space?
This makes a bit of a nonsense of the thread continuity, leaving disparate disconnected bleeding stumps all jumbled together.
Please don't meddle !

[slowster]

There are currently no clear guidelines regarding separate threads on the same specific subject, nor about moderators merging (or not merging) such threads, and there probably do need to be some guidelines to help ensure a consistent and generally accepted approach.

For the most part I am inclined not to merge threads, and generally do not unless I consider there is a strong argument for doing so. That was the case in this instance, because it is a topical subject and there was already a reasonably lengthy thread where members had commented on the various issues. I don't think readers will have much difficulty following the merged thread, and in this case it would be worse having two or more separate threads on such a topical subject.

[jimlews]

There are currently no clear guidelines regarding separate threads on the same specific subject, nor about moderators merging (or not merging) such threads, and there probably do need to be some guidelines to help ensure a consistent and generally accepted approach.

For the most part I am inclined not to merge threads, and generally do not unless I consider there is a strong argument for doing so. That was the case in this instance, because it is a topical subject and there was already a reasonably lengthy thread where members had commented on the various issues. I don't think readers will have much difficulty following the merged thread, and in this case it would be worse having two or more separate threads on such a topical subject.

Thank you for your prompt response, "slowster".
What you say is all very reasonable. But can you appreciate that the reason that I posted under 'Touring and Expedition' is that the closure of hostels has a direct and unfortunate effect on the cycle tourist ?
'The tea shop' is a bit of an argumentative ghetto and many on this site avoid it precisely for that reason. Some of those who fear to tread here will be cycle tourists.
Also, personally speaking, I find it disconcerting to find that my post has been arbitrarily exiled to Siberia without prior notification to myself. It simply disappeared. Not good practise, I respectfully suggest.

[slowster]

I was slightly surprised that the existing thread was in the Tea Shop, and I agree that Touring and Expedition would be a better home for it, so I have moved it.

Giving advance warning, or consulting an OP or other posters, before merging or moving threads is generally not going to be practical. That is why I mentioned this subject not being covered in the Forum Guidelines (viewtopic.php?p=1700476#p1700476). It's better to have published guidelines which let people know generally what to expect, e.g. under what circumstances threads are likely to be merged.

NB These posts are off topic, and I will shortly split them off from this thread, and move them to a new thread in 'Using the Forum - request help : report difficulties'

[mjr]

. I don't think readers will have much difficulty following the merged thread, and in this case it would be worse having two or more separate threads on such a topical subject.

Readers often have difficultly following because merging often resets the "read" status on the whole topic. This isn't awful when it's two pages, but it's very disquieting when one is dozens of pages over years and your own posts are among the unread, especially for someone like me who has gaps in their memory before 2010. Please be considerate to past posters and don't merge unless it's really necessary. It would be far better to link the threads and lock all but one.

[slowster]

This issue is about the "forum user experience". I cannot speak for the other moderators, but I would implement whatever members want, as long as it is practical and does not entail any additional work for moderators, and ideally reduces work. However, I am doubtful that there would be consensus amongst members about how this should be dealt with.

In my limited experience it does appear that other forums lock duplicate threads on topical subjects rather than merging them. I am not so sure that aproach is suited to threads on non-topical subjects.

The major problem is that there are no guidelines or criteria regarding when threads should or should not be merged. A while ago I attempted to formulate some as follows:

The following are my suggested guidelines. Obviously there would still be a degree of subjectivity involved in applying them.

1. The default starting point should always be not to merge or split, i.e. avoid intervening as much as possible.

2. The benefits must substantially outweigh the disadvantages when threads are merged or split. Regard should therefore be given to:

a. The potential for it to result in members who have bookmarked or subscribed to threads getting notifications which they do not want (and vice versa?).

b. The potential for any links to threads or individual posts to be broken by merging or splitting. We will not know if there are any such links, and therefore would need to err on the side of caution.

c. The ages of the threads. A subject may have been discussed at some length a year or more ago. That discussion may have involved different members and/or have been largely forgotten. It is not necessarily of value to effectively bump old threads by merging them with a new one. If the new thread has been prompted by some new development, the default presumption should be that the new development is sufficient to justify starting a separate new thread. In contrast two new threads started to discuss the same topical issue should usually be merged.

d. The subject matter. This is a cycling forum. The Tea Shop is not intended to be a curated resource of information about non-cycling subjects. Therefore in general non-cycling related threads should not be merged (Edit - with the exception of new threads started about the same topical subject, e.g. in response to a news article). For cycling related threads, the decision whether to merge/split should be determined by the importance and value of the technical content. For example threads about touring on the same Eurovelo route should almost certainly be merged, unless one is so old that it is known/likely that the useful information in it is now out of date. However, we also want to avoid a thread containing useful technical information becoming too broad, e.g. the thread 'Cycling using trains (in UK and EU)' has grown like Topsy - with hindsight it would have been better if it had been split early on between UK and EU, and now it would be far too difficult and time-consuming to do that.
...
Regarding links being broken, I *think* that might only occur with a links to a thread, where that thread is merged with another older thread. I *think* that links to posts will not be broken by merging or splitting, because I believe their unique identifying post number is not changed. However, I am not entirely sure what does and does not result in the unique identifying number of a post or a thread being changed, e.g. this case about which mjr complained - viewtopic.php?t=156686. Similarly, I do not know how merging and splitting threads will affect notifications for the threads.

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?

[PH]

I'm happy to see threads merged it they started at around the same time, about an identical subject, I'd assume the second thread had been started without noticing the first. The alternative, I see used, of locking one with a link to the other is a better option if there haven't been many replies.
Anything else, no, The subjects are rarely identical, the YHA example and those suggested above are similar enough to have a lot of overlap, but they're specific enough that they might elicit different responses.
There's always the option to point someone to a previous thread, though unless it's identical I'll credit the poster with the ability to search for themselves. Even then, pointing out similar threads shouldn't be seen as a thread killer or there be any assumption that a reader/responder will have considered that thread.
Thanks as always to the moderators, ultimately it is their decision and I of course respect that. But is this an issue that needs moderation? Unless it's causing problems I don't see any advantage to moderators getting involved and as with all interventions, they won't please everyone.

[Paulatic]

@slowster your point C covers all for me.

It’s not healthy that around 30 threads in the last few years the notification "threads merged" appears within one members posts. Whether true or not it looks like the tail wagging the dog.

The recent YHA example merge was annoying and as @PH says a lot in common but designed for different responses.

[mjr]

Yet again, I'm shown one of my own posts as "unread".

Please either fix the bug, or stop frivolously doing these merges and splits that trigger it. There are
still plenty of uncivil or derailing comments showing which could be moderated if time's available.

[slowster]

The subjects are rarely identical, the YHA example and those suggested above are similar enough to have a lot of overlap, but they're specific enough that they might elicit different responses.

The recent YHA example merge was annoying and as @PH says a lot in common but designed for different responses.

The thread which jimlews started was about exactly the same subject as the thread I merged it with. Moreover it was a topical subject. Consequently it seemed to me that it was a very good example of a thread which should be merged.

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.

[Psamathe]

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)

3. Where 1st or 2nd post in thread is "Already being discussed <link>" some then ignore that and persist in the duplicate thread. Moving and joining in the existing thread would mean no need for a merge.

People do get it wrong (I've got it wrong before).

Minor suggestions
1. Moderators edit the thread subject where it's not suitably descriptive - making it much easier for others to find rather than duplicate.

2. Might some situations work by locking one thread and posting links to one "main" thread (and vice versa). Maybe work best with old threads being "reactivated"? Very much down to particular circumstances.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

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)

3. Where 1st or 2nd post in thread is "Already being discussed <link>" some then ignore that and persist in the duplicate thread. Moving and joining in the existing thread would mean no need for a merge.

People do get it wrong (I've got it wrong before).

Minor suggestions
1. Moderators edit the thread subject where it's not suitably descriptive - making it much easier for others to find rather than duplicate.

2. Might some situations work by locking one thread and posting links to one "main" thread (and vice versa). Maybe work best with old threads being "reactivated"? Very much down to particular circumstances.

Ian

If this is done, the fact of a moderator's intervention is not automatically shown, which can be confusing or worse. At one point, graham introduced a system whereby if he took action of that type he added his own explanation.

I'm cautious about pointing out something like this because it's easy to give others work, but we really are struggling to see the wood for the trees

[slowster]

There is already a separate thread on the issue of informative thread titles. Please let us use this thread just to discuss the issue of whether and under what circumstances threads should or should not be merged, and whether/when to lock a duplicate thread instead of merging.

[Psamathe]

There is already a separate thread on the issue of informative thread titles. Please let us use this thread just to discuss the issue of whether and under what circumstances threads should or should not be merged, and whether/when to lock a duplicate thread instead of merging.

Raised only as it is relevant to helping avoid/reduce the number of duplicate threads started. Make it easier for people to spot an existing thread on the same subject they are about to start and fewer parallel threads on the same subject so merging threads becomes less of an issue.

To my mind they best solution to the question is for there not to be parallel threads on the same subject. So reduce that and you reduce the "problem".

Ian

[slowster]

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.

viewtopic.php?p=1816585#p1816585

viewtopic.php?p=1815023#p1815023

viewtopic.php?p=1811922#p1811922 & viewtopic.php?p=1815154#p1815154

viewtopic.php?p=1814851#p1814851

viewtopic.php?p=1813051#p1813051

viewtopic.php?p=1809819#p1809819

viewtopic.php?p=1809389#p1809389

viewtopic.php?p=1809362#p1809362

viewtopic.php?p=1807891#p1807891