Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Merging threads

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Sleeping Giants
    Silver Seat
    • Mar 2009
    • 3215

    #1

    Merging threads

    Polite question....But why is everyone so fascinated with merging threads? I know I'm probably in a minority here but I don't like it....A message posted today and relevant today gets lost on page 83 of a post from three weeks ago. Just thought I'd share.
  • qpr
    Platinum Seat
    • Mar 2009
    • 10372

    #2
    For the record I agree
    Under Les Ferdinand:
    Luke Freeman, top assists in the league: 4million
    Alex Smithies, great goalie for this club: 3,5million
    Charlie Austin, 19 Premier League goals: 4million
    Jack Robinson: Contract ran out, left for free
    And many more mistakes

    LES FERDINAND, IT'S TIME TO GO

    Comment

    • BUSHRANGER1982
      Gold Seat
      • Mar 2009
      • 5666

      #3
      I agree also. The continuous merging of threads turns the merged thread into a confusing mish-mash.
      Once threads have merged with one another, I tend to stop reading them.

      Comment

      • Yousef
        Gold Seat
        • Jul 2009
        • 9553

        #4
        I used to prefer merging, but after reading this I have changed my mind and have to agree with you.
        QPR fan since1987

        @yousef_qpr

        Comment

        • Dale
          Silver Seat
          • Dec 2010
          • 2232

          #5
          Probably best off locking the topic then merging

          If the thread starter is too lazy to look for a thread discussing the same issue then why not lock it

          Can be annoying having the same topic discussed in several threads so understand why its merged but can get confusing sometimes and best to lock and leave a link to the thread were its being discussed

          Comment

          • Will M
            Silver Seat
            • May 2012
            • 2737

            #6
            It doesn't get lost though, because when there's new activity on a thread it jumps to the top of a page. I'm not really seeing how a new post on an old thread is any more difficult to find than a brand new thread?

            Comment

            • Sleeping Giants
              Silver Seat
              • Mar 2009
              • 3215

              #7
              Originally posted by Will M
              It doesn't get lost though, because when there's new activity on a thread it jumps to the top of a page. I'm not really seeing how a new post on an old thread is any more difficult to find than a brand new thread?
              Just my personal opinion really....is it really that irritating to discuss the same topic twice? If it is, then why not just ignore the second discussion and let those who haven't read the previous one or those who simply have no objection to having a second, more up to date discussion on the same topic, carry on and do so?

              Comment

              • Will M
                Silver Seat
                • May 2012
                • 2737

                #8
                Originally posted by Sleeping Giants
                Just my personal opinion really....is it really that irritating to discuss the same topic twice? If it is, then why not just ignore the second discussion and let those who haven't read the previous one or those who simply have no objection to having a second, more up to date discussion on the same topic, carry on and do so?
                But when new posts are made to the existing topic, that changes anything how? There will still be a discussion on the topic, and it will be up to date. You're still offering no reason why threads shouldn't be merged.

                And it is irritating when the first page is full of threads about the same topic, not just one or two either.

                Comment

                • Sleeping Giants
                  Silver Seat
                  • Mar 2009
                  • 3215

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Will M
                  But when new posts are made to the existing topic, that changes anything how? There will still be a discussion on the topic, and it will be up to date. You're still offering no reason why threads shouldn't be merged.

                  And it is irritating when the first page is full of threads about the same topic, not just one or two either.
                  Hi...I'm not trying to change people's minds....I just personally don't like it. You clearly do like it. That's life.

                  Comment

                  • Will M
                    Silver Seat
                    • May 2012
                    • 2737

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Sleeping Giants
                    Hi...I'm not trying to change people's minds....I just personally don't like it. You clearly do like it. That's life.
                    It's just standard protocol for messageboards really. The mods here are very fair, but I've seen some messageboards where you will get flamed for starting off a new thread when there's one knocking around (even if it's like gone to the second page!) or even just have it deleted or locked pointing to the existing thread.

                    Was just trying to illustrate the reasoning behind why threads are merged tbh.

                    Comment

                    • W12_Ranger
                      Platinum Seat
                      • Mar 2009
                      • 11447

                      #11
                      The problem isn't the merging of the threads the problem is people starting unnecessary threads which make them become merged. Too many youngsters getting excited on here recently duplicating threads and repeatedly asking the same questions when you can revert to an old thread.

                      My problem with regards to merging is when Ive started a new thread with a different angle discussing a similar topic only to see it disappear. This really pisses me off as it has happened and number of times and I would appreciate the moderators taking time to acknowledge the point of discussion and leave it unmerged
                      Last edited by W12_Ranger; 22-07-2012, 11:04 AM.

                      Comment

                      • Rich
                        Silver Seat
                        • Mar 2009
                        • 3412

                        #12
                        This thread needs to be merged ;)

                        Comment

                        • EYR
                          Gold Seat
                          • Mar 2009
                          • 5470

                          #13
                          People too lazy to read through the board before posting up the same stuff and links, or 4 different posters starting threads on 'any hoilett update'.

                          Comment

                          • Westway
                            Silver Seat
                            • Mar 2011
                            • 1200

                            #14
                            Originally posted by BUSHRANGER1982
                            I agree also. The continuous merging of threads turns the merged thread into a confusing mish-mash.
                            Once threads have merged with one another, I tend to stop reading them.
                            I'm with you. Once a thread has been merged and the posts don't read correctly I give up.

                            Comment

                            • D3nisBail3ySliP
                              Bronze Seat
                              • Mar 2010
                              • 797

                              #15
                              I f**kin hate mergin' so there!

                              Comment

                              Working...