PDA

View Full Version : Thread splitting



Twirly
23rd-March-2007, 11:55 AM
Yesterday I posted what was supposed to be a quick aside on the “what you’ve learnt in the last 24 hours” thread. I thought it would get buried in subsequent posts quite quickly, as it was something slightly sensitive (but I was happy to post), however it generated a brief discussion, which again I thought would get buried quite quickly. I did consider starting a new thread about it, but decided against it, because I didn’t want a big discussion.

I was therefore not exactly happy when I got three e-mails from moderators saying that my post had been moved. It was on a chit-chat thread anyway, which tend to meander a bit in terms of topic, so I’m not sure why it had to be moved at all, let alone three times.

If I’d been consulted about whether it was appropriate to split it off, I’d have asked for it not to be. Is there any way we can have a bit of consultation on this please? I can understand why it might be necessary if a dance-related thread goes off track, but surely chit chat can be allowed some flexibility? Also, the PMs said “from The Moderating Team”, not even who the moderator was who took the decision to split. Seems a bit impersonal really.

Gav
23rd-March-2007, 11:58 AM
Yesterday I posted what was supposed to be a quick aside on the “what you’ve learnt in the last 24 hours” thread. I thought it would get buried in subsequent posts quite quickly, as it was something slightly sensitive (but I was happy to post), however it generated a brief discussion, which again I thought would get buried quite quickly. I did consider starting a new thread about it, but decided against it, because I didn’t want a big discussion.

I was therefore not exactly happy when I got three e-mails from moderators saying that my post had been moved. It was on a chit-chat thread anyway, which tend to meander a bit in terms of topic, so I’m not sure why it had to be moved at all, let alone three times.

If I’d been consulted about whether it was appropriate to split it off, I’d have asked for it not to be. Is there any way we can have a bit of consultation on this please? I can understand why it might be necessary if a dance-related thread goes off track, but surely chit chat can be allowed some flexibility? Also, the PMs said “from The Moderating Team”, not even who the moderator was who took the decision to split. Seems a bit impersonal really.

Heretic! :whistle:

David Bailey
23rd-March-2007, 12:04 PM
I was therefore not exactly happy when I got three e-mails from moderators saying that my post had been moved.
Well, in that specific case, the thread was split, and then moved, mainly based on requests from other users.


It was on a chit-chat thread anyway, which tend to meander a bit in terms of topic, so I’m not sure why it had to be moved at all, let alone three times.
Normally, yes, chit chat threads are supposed to meander - but not in this case.


If I’d been consulted about whether it was appropriate to split it off, I’d have asked for it not to be. Is there any way we can have a bit of consultation on this please?
I'm not sure how consultation can really be effective - a poll for each moderation decision? That'd be a nightmare... :eek:

Bear in mind that moderators may be acting for reasons which it's not appropriate to make public, and that we generally do discuss most non-trivial actions between ourselves.

For example, despite the impression I may give, I generally do think, at least a little, before doing something which may be controversial.


Also, the PMs said “from The Moderating Team”, not even who the moderator was who took the decision to split. Seems a bit impersonal really.
That's the way the system's set up at the moment - it's an automated system, which provides you the courtesy and transparency of knowing when your posts have been moved / deleted / split etc.

This was implemented in response to people complaining that they never knew when their posts were changed / deleted / etc.

David Bailey
23rd-March-2007, 12:05 PM
Heretic! :whistle:
Stirrer!

Gav
23rd-March-2007, 12:06 PM
Stirrer!

Who? moi?

Give me another year or so of causing trouble and they'll make me a moderator :whistle:

Trousers
23rd-March-2007, 12:12 PM
Been there posted what I considered relevant to the previous posts
Had a New Thread spawned on me
Had a row with the moderators

Threw Teddy bear in corner
and made them delete the blasted thing


As I said in one of my PM's to them or quite possibly in the new spawned thread IF I WANT TO START A THREAD I WILL!.

Hmmmphh!

I have no problem if The Mods think you are OFF TOPIC to them sending a PM and telling you that you are OFF TOPIC and that either that line should be ceased or possibly a new thread started.
However in my case, my throw away point in response to another post would never stand up as a thread and I felt gave my point and possibly me the wrong image.

Its like you are in the middle of a dance at one end of the floor and DJ comes to you and drags you to the other end of the floor and gives you a different partner to finish the dance!

It's RUDE!
It's WRONG
It's HAPPENING TOO MUCH

What say you Forumites?

Personally I will start a thread when I feel I have something that I wish to be discussed or I wish to add some humour.
As a thread starter you have a little responsibility to the thread and to the point or issue you raised and watch it for the information gleened.
Adding to a thread is quite often a one off event - you can add a post and be happy in the fact that you made a point and never need to return there again.
The two things are so different.

To have a thread spawned from a post changes the whole meaning of the post and the weight that it seems you are giving to your point.

I would like to request openly that this should only be done following discussion with the poster.


Ian

Twirly
23rd-March-2007, 12:14 PM
Normally, yes, chit chat threads are supposed to meander - but not in this case.

Who makes that decision? And how much meandering is allowed?



I'm not sure how consultation can really be effective - a poll for each moderation decision? That'd be a nightmare... :eek:

No – consult the person whose one-off post you are about to turn into an entirely new thread. I doubt it happens often (as I said, I’m only irritated in this case as it was a slightly sensitive subject), but it might be worth considering sometimes, maybe depending on the nature of the post. I had made a decision already not to turn this subject into an entirely new thread. I realise now that anything I post might get split off – I shall bear this in mind for the future.



Bear in mind that moderators may be acting for reasons which it's not appropriate to make public, and that we generally do discuss most non-trivial actions between ourselves.

I wasn’t suggesting making things public to everyone.



That's the way the system's set up at the moment - it's an automated system, which provides you the courtesy and transparency of knowing when your posts have been moved / deleted / split etc.

This was implemented in response to people complaining that they never knew when their posts were changed / deleted / etc.

Fair enough – I was just making an observation.

David Bailey
23rd-March-2007, 12:48 PM
Who makes that decision?
The moderators, based on their judgement and experience. He says, with a straight face.


And how much meandering is allowed?
It varies.

For example, no sane person would attempt to "topic-moderate" a thread like the Singleton's Sofa, and (under normal circumstance) neither would they attempt to "topic-moderate" a thread like "24 hours" - but again, in this case, we were reacting to a request from another user.

However, "high-focus" types of thread - e.g. "Who's who", "The Road To Ceroc" and my personal favourite, "Learning Tango", will be more strictly moderated.


No – consult the person whose one-off post you are about to turn into an entirely new thread.
A/ Takes a lot of time - you have to engage in a discussion, with someone who may not be online, and sometimes you just have to make a judgement call.
B/ If the user disagrees anyway, consultation is kind of pointless, as the moderator's decision is final.

Having said that, there's much more transparency and consultation now than, say, a year ago, because we've got more processes (and more people) involved.


I doubt it happens often (as I said, I’m only irritated in this case as it was a slightly sensitive subject),
Which, I believe, is why that thread was split in the first place - on a request from one of your fellow users. The phrase "can't win" springs to mind :rolleyes:


I had made a decision already not to turn this subject into an entirely new thread. I realise now that anything I post might get split off – I shall bear this in mind for the future.

To quote rule 9 of the Forum Rules:

Going off-topic on a thread will be dealt with at the discretion of moderators who may split the thread to continue discussion or delete the irrelevant posts.

Trouble
23rd-March-2007, 12:54 PM
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

BASICALLY

They will do what they like and you will lump it. :D

Franck
23rd-March-2007, 01:05 PM
No – consult the person whose one-off post you are about to turn into an entirely new thread. I doubt it happens often (as I said, I’m only irritated in this case as it was a slightly sensitive subject), but it might be worth considering sometimes, maybe depending on the nature of the post. I had made a decision already not to turn this subject into an entirely new thread. I realise now that anything I post might get split off – I shall bear this in mind for the future. In this case, the split was discussed between all moderators following a reported post.

Reporting the posts was quite justified as the discussion had become quite sensitive and personal, so deserved to be moved to the 'Private Lounge' to avoid search engines indexing the posts.

As you said yourself, once a post is made, you cannot predict or control what direction the responses will take, but clearly, your initial post sparked an interesting discussion worthy of its own thread, but it had to be moved to a 'private' area of the forum (same as if it had become rude, it would have been moved upstairs).

I'm sorry you feel we over-reacted, but I hope you appreciate the reasons your posts (and subsequent replies) were moved out of sight of search engines.

Twirly
23rd-March-2007, 01:06 PM
A/ Takes a lot of time - you have to engage in a discussion, with someone who may not be online, and sometimes you just have to make a judgement call.
B/ If the user disagrees anyway, consultation is kind of pointless, as the moderator's decision is final.

Well in this instance, I was online and it all happened within the space of about half an hour. I’m only thinking of a quick courtesy e-mail, with say a response time given so you can act if the person doesn’t come back to you pronto. A “we’ve had a request that this post is split off into a new thread, are you OK with that?” In this instance I’d have said no, and would rather have had the post deleted than have it split off – and I’d have told you why (by you I mean whichever moderator, not DJ personally). If you’d decided to leave it, a moderator could have posted a request that the thread get back on track if the objector felt that strongly about it.

If the person doesn’t respond within the timescale, or there is a conflict of interest, fair enough, the moderator has to make a decision. And might possibly provide a quick explanation. But at least the poster will feel as if they’ve been involved in the process, and not had someone else’s decision simply imposed on them from above. After all, the word “Moderator” means ”someone who tries to help other people come to an agreement (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=51368&dict=CALD)”. It doesn’t mean judge.

Removing posts because they’ve caused offence is something quite different – they should be removed as soon as possible. And an explanation provided of course.

I have no problem with dance threads being split.


Having said that, there's much more transparency and consultation now than, say, a year ago, because we've got more processes (and more people) involved.

Which, I believe, is why that thread was split in the first place - on a request from one of your fellow users. The phrase "can't win" springs to mind :rolleyes:

Yep – lucky you! :na:

Double Trouble
23rd-March-2007, 01:08 PM
I'm sorry

Can somebody frame this please.:D

Keefy
23rd-March-2007, 01:10 PM
They will do what they like and you will lump it. :D
Rule #1 : The SysAdmins are always right
Rule #2 : When they aren't please refer to Rule #1 :whistle:

I'm going to side with DJ and the other Mods here - no matter what they do they wont please everybody. It comes down to a matter of judgement a lot of the time, when you've got two opposing views somebody is bound to feel wronged. Believe you me - the Mods don't actually want to moderate the forum! It's a time consuming and thankless job. The best moderators are the forumites themselves - the Mods are never happier than when they don't have to do anything at all :cheers:

Keith

[Yup - I'm also a long suffering vB SysAdmin :( ]

Gav
23rd-March-2007, 01:16 PM
Can somebody frame this please.:D

Trust you to notice that :rolleyes:


I'm going to side with DJ - the Mods don't actually want to moderate the forum! It's a time consuming and thankless job.

You don't know DJ do you? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Trousers
23rd-March-2007, 01:17 PM
Why does it only take one person to complain to get a post moved yet if you ask nice for something it never happens.


Should the complainant be made the thread starter for the new thread

They can then watch it as they obviously wanted it to start.

If 10 people complain yup I'll go with the mods on that but ONE?


It stands a chance of being the same one every time too


we could start a sweep on who it is :angry:

Twirly
23rd-March-2007, 01:30 PM
In this case, the split was discussed between all moderators following a reported post.

Reporting the posts was quite justified as the discussion had become quite sensitive and personal, so deserved to be moved to the 'Private Lounge' to avoid search engines indexing the posts.

As you said yourself, once a post is made, you cannot predict or control what direction the responses will take, but clearly, your initial post sparked an interesting discussion worthy of its own thread, but it had to be moved to a 'private' area of the forum (same as if it had become rude, it would have been moved upstairs).

I'm sorry you feel we over-reacted, but I hope you appreciate the reasons your posts (and subsequent replies) were moved out of sight of search engines.

Thanks for your response Franck. I do appreciate that the move was done with good intentions, however I still object. After all, I knew perfectly well that where I was posting was a public area of the forum and could possibly be seen from outside/by non-members. So therefore it is somewhat condescending to make the decision to move the post for me, for my own good.

As I’ve already stated, I deliberately put my comments there and nowhere else. I didn’t want a big discussion. Again, I have learnt, and won’t do it again – if I do, I’ll make sure that it’s in the private area. But it’s not likely, as I’m not generally one to discuss private matters on a public forum (and refused to give details yesterday, even when asked).

Caro
23rd-March-2007, 02:00 PM
Why does it only take one person to complain to get a post moved yet if you ask nice for something it never happens.

....

If 10 people complain yup I'll go with the mods on that but ONE?


It stands a chance of being the same one every time too
we could start a sweep on who it is :angry:

I do use the report button quite often (I guess, compared to other members). In fact I used it for the thread in question once it was split (personally I didn't feel it was way off-topic given it was in a chit chat thread, but not knowing Twirly's reasons I'm quite happy it did split, as it is an interesting subject on its own) because it was at first in the 'chit chat' section and given that it was getting quite personal I thought it'd be better placed in the 'private lounge'.

I use the report button quite a lot for mis-placed threads (stuff that should be in the social section for example), a little for off-topic posts on serious (dancing) threads (hell, I've even reported my own posts :rolleyes: ), and a little too for rude stuff that should be moved upstairs (although since I put some people on my ignore list, I seem to do less of that now :innocent: ).

Now that doesn't mean I expect moderators to act on this everytime, I see that merely as a suggestion (it may be that they haven't seen the thread / last posts yet so just pointing it out to them might help), and then I leave it up to themselves to decide if they want to move / split the thread adequately.

I do recognise that having a thread started for you when you never intended to do so is a bit annoying (as it gives the post a whole new, higher profile), but I guess it's just one of the drawbacks of the whole system; you know it can happen. If you feel really strongly about it (as Twirly seems to, and I guess she has good reasons for that), then it might be best to ask them to delete the post altogether / replace it with a 'fake' thread started or explanation if they don't want to delete all the other posts.

Lory
23rd-March-2007, 02:15 PM
Hi Twirly...

Just in case anyone's jumping to the wrong conclusion, it was 'me' who split the thread initially.... (it was moved after)

... A decision I made after receiving a PM from another member, suggesting that it might be an idea to split it and make a separate thread, as people were picking up on your post and responding to it and that it might be helpful for anyone who wanted to discuss this topic further.

Also, when I re-read your post, you in fact ended it with a question, which lead me to believe, you wanted answers?

Sorry, my actions have upset you and i'll be happy to remove the thread if its causing you anguish :flower:

but you have to bare in mind, when writing things on this forum,
that the majority of people writing on here, do so because they 'want' their posts to read with interest and responded to... sometimes they even feel ignored if no one bothers to write back :o

Twirly
23rd-March-2007, 02:25 PM
Also, when I re-read your post, you in fact ended it with a question, which lead me to believe, you wanted answers?

It was sort of meant rhetorically, as really there is nothing you can do to help someone with depression, until they want to help themselves anyway. But you weren’t to know that.


Sorry, my actions have upset you and i'll be happy to remove the thread if its causing you anguish :flower:

Upset is too strong a word – more irritation than anything really. And I felt that a discussion of thread splitting might be useful to clarify why and how it’s done – and since I felt that I should have been consulted, to raise that as a possibility for the future. But thanks for the thought, and don’t worry about removing the thread, it’ll disappear into oblivion soon enough.

Like others, I have also noticed that there does seem to have been a sharp increase in thread splitting since the new moderators came on board. Clearly there are others out there who have similar feelings. And discussion of such things can be useful to let the moderating team and Franck know the forum population’s thoughts on the matter – well, at least if it’s constructive rather than purely critical for a change! :D


but you have to bare in mind, when writing things on this forum,
that the majority of people writing on here, do so because they 'want' their posts to read with interest and responded to... sometimes they even feel ignored if no one bothers to write back :o

Yep – and normally I feel like that too! :wink:

Caro
23rd-March-2007, 02:42 PM
A lot of the upset / anger in such cases seems to come from the fact that people end up as seeming to have started threads when they didn't want to.

So how about getting the moderator who does the split (or a random name, like 'cillia black' for the admiration thingy) to post the first post (the thread starter) with a little explanation (like "from the discussion on here... let's discuss that now...").

So that the nobody ends up with its name associated to a thread they didn't create. :flower:

What do people / the mod team think about that? Is it implement-able?

Twirly
23rd-March-2007, 02:44 PM
A lot of the upset / anger in such cases seems to come from the fact that people end up as seeming to have started threads when they didn't want to.

So how about getting the moderator who does the split (or a random name, like 'cillia black' for the admiration thingy) to post the first post (the thread starter) with a little explanation (like "from the discussion on here... let's discuss that now...").

So that the nobody ends up with its name associated to a thread they didn't create. :flower:

What do people / the mod team think about that? Is it implement-able?

:yeah: Very good idea. And possibly an explanation as to why it's been split/moved, such as "it was felt that this would be more appropriate to the private area of the forum".

Trousers
23rd-March-2007, 02:49 PM
I think i'm gonna start pressing all the buttons I can on my forum interface to see if I can return some of the annoyance I have been caused .

I can see my first target right there!

WheyHey here we go
:devil:

David Bailey
23rd-March-2007, 03:00 PM
So how about getting the moderator who does the split (or a random name, like 'cillia black' for the admiration thingy) to post the first post (the thread starter) with a little explanation (like "from the discussion on here... let's discuss that now...").
I usually add a "explanation" post when I do something like that - the trouble is that the posts are all listed chronological order, so the "thread starter" is the first poster - that's just the way the system is set up at the moment.

Dunno if we can "back-date" posts - I'm also not sure if that's a good idea anyway...

Twirly
23rd-March-2007, 03:02 PM
I usually add a "explanation" post when I do something like that - the trouble is that the posts are all listed chronological order, so the "thread starter" is the first poster - that's just the way the system is set up at the moment.

Dunno if we can "back-date" posts - I'm also not sure if that's a good idea anyway...

Not sure what you mean by back date posts :confused:

And just because the system is set up a certain way at the moment doesn't mean that it has to stay that way! Couldn't the moderator start the thread and then move the relevant posts across afterwards?

Caro
23rd-March-2007, 03:04 PM
Dunno if we can "back-date" posts - I'm also not sure if that's a good idea anyway...

Fair point. How about making only one profile (cilia black or call it something else) able to do that then? Just for that particular purpose of starting a new thread.

Lory
23rd-March-2007, 03:27 PM
So how about getting the moderator who does the split (or a random name, like 'cillia black' for the admiration thingy) to post the first post (the thread starter) with a little explanation (like "from the discussion on here... let's discuss that now...").

What do people / the mod team think about that? Is it implement-able?


Not sure what you mean by back date posts :confused:

And just because the system is set up a certain way at the moment doesn't mean that it has to stay that way! Couldn't the moderator start the thread and then move the relevant posts across afterwards?

Sorry, I don't think it can be done, as the post will appear on the page in the order they're dated!

I tried a little test


The best we can offer, is to insert an explaination, into the first post but the thread will still appear to have been started by the the other person

David Bailey
23rd-March-2007, 03:32 PM
Not sure what you mean by back date posts :confused:
Threads are listed in chronological order - so the first thread selected becomes the "thread starter" even when it isn't. So to alter the first post, we'd have to artificially date a "starter" post or something equally clever...

At the moment, the only other way of doing it would be to edit the first post to say "XYZ Moderator has created a thread from this post", which just looks naff...


And just because the system is set up a certain way at the moment doesn't mean that it has to stay that way!
Sure - but that's a question for administrators (Franck, really) rather than moderators. Even I have limits to my godlike powers :)


Couldn't the moderator start the thread and then move the relevant posts across afterwards?
No, because the moved posts would still be ordered chronologically - so the thread started would still appear to be the person with the oldest post.

EDIT: what Lory said, basically :blush:

Trousers
23rd-March-2007, 03:43 PM
The best we can offer, is to insert an explaination, into the first post but the thread will still appear to have been started by the the other person

Would a better and less invasive suggestion be simply to insert a moderator posting with a moderator flag (rather than Lory (the best moderator) or DavidJames (another Moderator)) that just says

Please note: This thread is off topic!
. . . . . . . . .Should you wish to follow this new discussion please start a new thread!

PLace the offenders name in there as well to make sure we know who is off topic and Hey Presto! No one gets naffed off!


:rolleyes:

Divissima
23rd-March-2007, 03:43 PM
I can think of one way it could be done (presuming this version of vB is the same as used for the MJDA and CMJ fora). It would be very cumbersome to implement, I think.

The idea would be to have a restricted access forum visible only to admins/mods with a whole load of 'seed' threads in it - i.e. blank threads, no title, no content, etc. just waiting and hoping to graduate onto the proper forum. Then, when a mod wants to split an existing thread to create a new thread (and depending on their admin/mod permissions), they take a seed thread (which pre-dates the post to be split), populate it with information, move it to the public forum then use it as the first post to which the split posts are added.

Whether, as a policy decision, one might want to do this is a different matter.

David Bailey
23rd-March-2007, 03:55 PM
DavidJames (another Moderator))
I like it :clap:


PLace the offenders name in there as well to make sure we know who is off topic and Hey Presto! No one gets naffed off!
If you really think that a moderator comment of that kind will defuse rather than inflame the situation, I suspect you're being, shall we say, rather optimistic :rofl:

David Bailey
23rd-March-2007, 03:59 PM
{ suggestion }
Blimey, that's clever. Cumbersome as hell, yes, but it's doable...


Whether, as a policy decision, one might want to do this is a different matter.
Honestly, I don't think we should - it's misleading to have "fake" posts.

(Also, messing around with the space-time continuum is never a good idea.)

To do it properly, you'd need a visible non-post notice, of the form "Split from thread X by Y because of Z", or something like that, and that might require software work - or at least, some messing around with the configuration.

Trousers
23rd-March-2007, 04:01 PM
I like it :clap:


If you really think that a moderator comment of that kind will defuse rather than inflame the situation, I suspect you're being, shall we say, rather optimistic :rofl:

Defuse - Sounds like we arn't talking about the same thing.

It was you lot splitting threads and starting new ones because someone said a post was off topic. There would be nothing to defuse there methinks Bar the thread splitting

This thread however is simmering nicely but still on topic, but if it were to get abusive then that could require defusing.
Unless of course you know a different meaning for the word Defuse that I ain't come across yet

Lory
23rd-March-2007, 05:47 PM
Would a better and less invasive suggestion be simply to insert a moderator posting with a moderator flag (rather than Lory (the best moderator) or DavidJames (another Moderator)) that just says

Please note: This thread is off topic!
. . . . . . . . .Should you wish to follow this new discussion please start a new thread!



I think this is rather assuming that all posts that go off topic are considered 'bad' :confused: (yes, a lot ARE tedious drivel:wink: ).

Sometimes some very interesting threads are developed out of the posts that take a debate in another direction.

I would hate to discourage people from posting replies by constantly reminding them they're off topic. And its sounds a bit authoritarian to keep writing warning notes :sick:

Basically, we just have to use our own judgement, (sometimes we get it wrong:blush: ) as we don't want to discourage folk from contributing full stop because they have to consider the ''rules too much, which would also be a shame (fat chance:whistle: )

Lastly, sometimes threads go off in another direction for quite a few posts before a moderator even gets round to noticing and to leave those posts in place, might make it difficult to bring it back to the original subject at all


BTW, I like 'it' more than DJ :clap: :rofl:

Trousers
24th-March-2007, 03:05 PM
{LongSensibleModeratorPost Snip}....{unsnip}

I think the point that I was trying to make on top of Twitly's post was that this process of splitting threads is Rude. To force someone to the top of the pile with a thread started in their name without consultation that cannot be fair or proper.

I had a right ol' row with Franck when it got done to me and feel strongly for anyone who isn't self assured enought to make noise about it.

I ask you to take a look at my analogy about being dragged about a dance floor because I think it works.

Lory you know I hold you in high esteem for your handling of many 'incidents' I have been party to and I am hopeful that if you do indeed 'like it more than DJ' may start using a simple hint rather than the huge blunt sledge hammer response to wayward posts (as you the moderators see them) and I hope (although i cannot guarantee a better response to them) that people can police themselvess more, well with respect to starting new discussion threads and refocusing original threads.

The chance of success may only be a million to one but it just may work (to coin a well known phrase)

David Bailey
24th-March-2007, 07:51 PM
I think the point that I was trying to make on top of Twitly's post was that this process of splitting threads is Rude.
Thread splitting, based on judgement, is a standard part of the task for most forum moderators - part of the moderator role involves focussing discussions so that people, especially new people, know what's being discussed and can contribute if they want.

Effectively, it's a continuous informal information-architecting task, in some ways.

There's a reasonably informative article on moderator functions here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_moderator).


To force someone to the top of the pile with a thread started in their name without consultation that cannot be fair or proper.

I had a right ol' row with Franck when it got done to me and feel strongly for anyone who isn't self assured enought to make noise about it.
I agree that being a "false thread starter" isn't ideal. I remember "starting" an infamous thread about teacher quality levels about 18 months ago, and having to defend myself against the accusation of starting a delibrately-inflammatory thread (moi? :innocent: ) - yes, it's annoying.

But I'd suggest that this is a "system improvement" request, rather than anything else - if the system could be tweaked, I'd be very happy for a "thread creation" notice to be provided at the start of the thread.

MartinHarper
24th-March-2007, 08:30 PM
How about making the new title of the split thread something like:

"Dancing with Unicorns (split from: Have you danced with animals?)"

This would provide greater context as to the source of a thread of discussion.

(dancing with unicorns is great, but steer clear of combs unless you need curing of poison)

Lory
25th-March-2007, 03:54 AM
(dancing with unicorns is great, but steer clear of combs unless you need curing of poison)

I tend to avoid them myself, it can get a bit embarrassing, dancing with a partner with a horn :innocent:

StokeBloke
25th-March-2007, 04:51 AM
I tend to avoid them myself, it can get a bit embarrassing, dancing with a partner with a horn :innocent:
Fnarr fnarr :na: :na:

Minnie M
25th-March-2007, 09:37 AM
Just recently I made a comment about (not saying) which appeared to damage a certain forumite's ego - subseqent posts upheld my comment. Which led to the said forumite calling me "Bone Headed". I thought this was rather harsh as it was not a critism and was certainly not meant to offend. A certain moderator decided to split this thread at this stage :mad: result .......... the thread died and not only did I not get my apology or an explanation of such an uncalled statement (which I thought was warrented) the said forumite has totally ignored me since :rolleyes:

Dance Demon
25th-March-2007, 09:55 AM
It's RUDE!
It's WRONG
It's HAPPENING TOO MUCH




Like others, I have also noticed that there does seem to have been a sharp increase in thread splitting since the new moderators came on board. Clearly there are others out there who have similar feelings.

Yes there has, and a certain moderator seems to think that it's his duty to make a comment on nearly every thread.....:rolleyes:...and the thread splitting is definitely happening too much.....

Minnie M
25th-March-2007, 10:18 AM
Just recently I made a comment about (not saying) which appeared to damage a certain forumite's ego - subseqent posts upheld my comment. Which led to the said forumite calling me "Bone Headed". I thought this was rather harsh as it was not a critism and was certainly not meant to offend. A certain moderator decided to split this thread at this stage :mad: result .......... the thread died and not only did I not get my apology or an explanation of such an uncalled statement (which I thought was warrented) the said forumite has totally ignored me since :rolleyes:


(which I thought was warrented)
whooops - I did mean UNwarrented :blush:

Gadget
25th-March-2007, 04:16 PM
Re thread splitting: if you think an area of discussion needs a new thread (as a user) then do the following:
- "Quote" the thread
- Select all the text in the reply box
- [ctrl]X to cut the text
- Find the area you think the new thread should be in
- Create a new thread
- Insert the text "Inspired by this quote from another thread..."
- [ctrl]V to paste the text
- Post thread.
{Perhaps add a new opst under the origional thread saying that you've done this and linking to it}

I have done this several times when I thought something interesting was being burried or deserved a new thread.

:shrug: It's the user's forum - the moderators just police it and tidy the edges. I don't think that there are any splits I dissagree with... in fact there are a few other threads that I think the chit-chat should be culled into another thread. :wink::devil:

Twirly
26th-March-2007, 11:16 AM
Re thread splitting: if you think an area of discussion needs a new thread (as a user) then do the following:
- "Quote" the thread
- Select all the text in the reply box
- [ctrl]X to cut the text
- Find the area you think the new thread should be in
- Create a new thread
- Insert the text "Inspired by this quote from another thread..."
- [ctrl]V to paste the text
- Post thread.
{Perhaps add a new opst under the origional thread saying that you've done this and linking to it}

I have done this several times when I thought something interesting was being burried or deserved a new thread.

:shrug: It's the user's forum - the moderators just police it and tidy the edges. I don't think that there are any splits I dissagree with... in fact there are a few other threads that I think the chit-chat should be culled into another thread. :wink::devil:

:yeah: I was thinking just this myself over the weekend and was going to post myself this morning, but thanks Gadget for saving me the effort.

Lory
26th-March-2007, 11:33 AM
:shrug: It's the user's forum - the moderators just police it and tidy the edges. I don't think that there are any splits I dissagree with... in fact there are a few other threads that I think the chit-chat should be culled into another thread. :wink::devil:

As you say, its the 'users' forum, so why don't you do your suggestion more often OR press the report button and bring the 'suggested culling', to our attention?

The trouble is, they'll always be some people who think we do too much and some people think we do too little. Its a no win situation!

Gadget
26th-March-2007, 12:50 PM
As you say, its the 'users' forum, so why don't you do your suggestion more often OR press the report button and bring the 'suggested culling', to our attention?
Because of two main reasons:
1) 'cry wolf' syndrome - If I did this for every little niggle, then when/if something came up I wanted delt with, the mods may think "oh, not another request from Gadget :rolleyes:" and put it to the back of a queue.

2) I can't be arsed. I've been on here long enough that I can generally skim all the chit-chat at the same speed as it scrolls up the screen. Some people must like it because folks post replies to "drivel"* :what:

*{My term for chit-chat type posts that take a lot of words to say nothing... erm... a lot like most of mine.}

Lory
26th-March-2007, 01:33 PM
I can't be arsed.


Fair enough :)

David Bailey
26th-March-2007, 01:56 PM
OK, ignoring the whole "moderators should do more / less moderating"* discussions, there's definitely an issue about "fake thread ownership", which we can probably address.

I think there have been 3 potential solutions proposed:

Include a reference in the thread title - e.g. "New Thread (was: old thread)"
Create a "fake" first post using an old post and changing it
Edit the content of the first post to make it clear that it's part of a thread-split.


I think the last suggestion will be the best combination of readability and transparency, so we'll probably give that a go and see what happens - that also allows us to link back to the parent thread if required.

Thanks for the suggestions, everyone.

* Hmmm, I mis-typed "moderating" as "moredating" the first time through :rofl:

Trousers
26th-March-2007, 02:38 PM
{SnipNotPlanningOnMakingChangesCosI'mTheModerator HooYah. . . .} yawn {UnSnip}

Whoosh. . .

Damn what was that .. . .?

Oh yeah it was. . . . . The Point!


If I can get back to the thread a moment - This is about having a post in one thread moved into a whole new thread without a by your leave.
It matters not how the new thread is started.
It matters much that it was started at all.

Should Joe Public or maybe more aptly Arthur Forumite wish to start a thread because He, She, IT decides that a post they just read should be some where else then He, She or IT should do so, possibly in a manner to be disscussed in your soon to be started thread about that subject DJ. They should not however use the big red report button to initiate the thread as some people seem to want to do.

The Damn button don't work anyway I tried it out twice recently and not even a note from a moderator came back.
You probably need moderator rights to make the button work.

Trouble
26th-March-2007, 03:11 PM
Blimey guys. I dont understand what all the fuss is about really. Nobody is ever going to be happy at the same time. The forum should be seen as what it is, a nice little diversion through the daily routines or our lives that act as a social/interest/gossip/info stream with a few little smillies chucked in for good measure.

There is no need to take things so seriously.... so what if what you put down is put into another area, so what, am i missing something, is it life changing?

I think the moderators can get it wrong sometimes, sometimes they get it right, but at the end of the day its a bit of fun.

Thats my opinion anyway. :flower:

David Bailey
26th-March-2007, 03:12 PM
If I can get back to the thread a moment - This is about having a post in one thread moved into a whole new thread without a by your leave.
Well, them's the rules of the game I'm afraid.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that sort of thing is what moderators do.

We edit posts, we delete posts, we move posts, we edit threads, we move threads and we delete threads - we do all manner of things to posts, and this has always happened. It's part of the rules of the game, in most forums.

Franck's introduced a lot more transparency into the process - for example, you're now informed when a post is deleted, which never used to happen. So it may be that these operations are more visible now than they were.

In addition, there are more moderators, so we can spend more time doing non-emergency work - yes, it wasn't done much before, but that wasn't a "policy", that was mainly because we didn't have enough people doing moderation (poor Lory was doing far too much work as it was).

So yes, there's more going on, and it's more visible. We're trying to make it more clear, and resolving any quirks as we go, but "Should moderation happen?" is a question for Franck rather than anyone else.


The Damn button don't work anyway I tried it out twice recently and not even a note from a moderator came back.
You probably need moderator rights to make the button work.
I can confirm that does indeed work, but the "reply" function is purely manual - sorry, I think that slipped through the net somewhere :blush:

Would an automatice "acknowledgement" PM be useful?

David Bailey
26th-March-2007, 03:15 PM
Getting back (vaguely) on-topic, the original post was:

Is there any way we can have a bit of consultation on this please?
The answer, at the moment, is "No, but we'll make it as clear as possible who's split it, and why".

As always, we'll keep on reviewing this stuff.

Twirly
26th-March-2007, 03:21 PM
Getting back (vaguely) on-topic, the original post was:

The answer, at the moment, is "No, but we'll make it as clear as possible who's split it, and why".

As always, we'll keep on reviewing this stuff.

Please bear this suggestion in mind though - particularly for more sensitive subjects. btw - what I didn't even consider doing and maybe should have done, is to have sent a PM to the moderators objecting vociforously to what had happened. That could've been interesting!

I'd still encourage to people to do as Gadget described though. If someone thinks it's a worthwhile subject, then start your own thread quoting the relevant post. I wouldn't have minded half so much if I'd simply provided inspiration. :nice:

Trousers
26th-March-2007, 03:36 PM
Hey this is looking almost like a thread concluded.

Maybe not concluded as well as some could hope but nevertheless!


Bravo everyone!
We stayed reasonably well on thread, made some good points and the odd sarky jibe ( :blush: ).


:eek: :whistle: :rolleyes: :clap: :rofl:

Lynn
26th-March-2007, 03:37 PM
As someone whose second ever post led to a thread split (wandering off into a discussion about which weekend I was going to be in London and whether Boomer would be in Scotland, the things you remember!) - I was totally confused about where my post had gone (being new to forums) so think that a lot of the 'telling people when things have been done' bit is a good improvement.

'Telling people why things have been done' might be a helpful addition - eg 'off topic/reported post/sensitive subject' etc?

The main issue for me is the 'new thread started by' when it hasn't been. I agree, if I want to start a new thread on something then I will, so some sort of anon Mod person doing a first post 'we thought this merited a new thread' type thing would be really helpful.



Oh, and who is Arthur?

Dreadful Scathe
26th-March-2007, 04:49 PM
... A decision I made after receiving a PM from another member, suggesting that it might be an idea to split it and make a separate thread, as people were picking up on your post and responding to it and that it might be helpful for anyone who wanted to discuss this topic further.

Makes me wonder, do people often PM moderators with trivial nonsense like this? "Please Moderator - OMG read this thread" or "you should move this post" or "you should listen to what i say" :)

This is a big forum, if the moderators sense of organisation does not match your own...why are you surprised and why do you care ?

The moderators should do something REALLY controversial like post their favourite PM's. Not just the one they receive, but other peoples. They do read them all you know, the forum rules explicitly say so ;)

David Bailey
26th-March-2007, 04:56 PM
The moderators should do something REALLY controversial like post their favourite PM's
We do - but that's in the Secret Moderator Forum :wink:


They do read them all you know, the forum rules explicitly say so ;)
I wish :tears:

Actually, I can't think of anything more boring than reading people's mail - Oh wait, I can, reading their PM comments :rolleyes:

Dreadful Scathe
26th-March-2007, 05:00 PM
Franck's introduced a lot more transparency into the process - for example, you're now informed when a post is deleted, which never used to happen. So it may be that these operations are more visible now than they were.

Not sure about your definition of "transparent" :rofl: - things just "happened" before and it was therefore seamless - now with the messages, a new layer of information is created which will no doubt make some people feel involved in the moderator process and therefore perfectly justified in complaining. This is a bit daft in my opinion, and it should go back to the true transparency of "not telling the members what does not concern them". :)

David Bailey
26th-March-2007, 05:12 PM
Not sure about your definition of "transparent"
Hmmm, perhaps I meant "open"... :blush:

LMC
26th-March-2007, 05:19 PM
Perhaps the problem is that the rules are too long.

May I suggest an amendment along the lines of:

Rule 1: Do not act incautiously when confronting little bald wrinkly smiling men
Rule 2: Everything that Forum administration or any moderator does is Right. With no exceptions.
Rule 3: See Rules 1 and 2.

EDIT: Even that's probably too long

ducasi
26th-March-2007, 05:24 PM
The issue is "what should happen in a off-topic thread appears inside an existing thread"?

The choices for moderators are...


Let it run...
Splits it into a new thread...
Delete it all.


Before splitting, in the proto-thread there may be several posts – perhaps as few as two, perhaps more than a dozen.

Perhaps the first poster of the proto-thread didn't think their post would generate any discussion, or didn't want to create a separate thread as they didn't want a discussion on that topic, or thought their post fitted better where they put it.

However, once there are a few off-topic posts, all those reasons are void – there is discussion, whether wanted or not, and if it is off-topic, then it is off-topic. At that point it is then up to the moderators to decide what to do.

There are a number of factors which help us make the decision – some of them will be the motivations of the original poster and subsequent posters, the intended audience, how long the thread of discussion is likely to last, notifications we receive, and how interesting or useful the discussion is compared to its current context.

The inclusion of the motivations of the subsequent "posters" is important – it's not just what the first person was thinking when he or she posted – it's what everyone's motivations in posting appear to be. So an off-the-cuff remark from one person which generates a useful off-topic thread of posts may be split despite the intentions of the first poster.

Deletion is a last resort action. Especially if it involves a lot of posts. We are unlikely to delete a whole sequence of posts just because the person who brought the topic up has decided they didn't want a discussion after all.


While I'd encourage people to use the self-spilt new thread creation system outlined by Gadget here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/356369-post42.html), not everybody will, and sometimes it's just too late once a new off-topic proto-thread has been created.


I reject entirely the idea that splitting a thread is "rude". Keeping the forum clean and tidy is one of the main things we do. Off-topic discussions can be seen as rude, and so we try to keep them to a minimum.

It's what we do – and we do it to make the forum a better place for everyone. :)

Caro
26th-March-2007, 05:28 PM
The Damn button don't work anyway I tried it out twice recently and not even a note from a moderator came back.
You probably need moderator rights to make the button work.

Not quite true... everytime I used it, the moderator(s) have chosen to go along with the proposed action. Might be something to do with what you're reporting and the action you're suggesting? :whistle: :innocent:

ducasi
26th-March-2007, 05:29 PM
[...] is to have sent a PM to the moderators objecting vociforously to what had happened. That could've been interesting!
Don't PM a random moderator (who may be busy getting a life) – use the "report this post" button. That's what it's there for! It even works on posts you've made. :)

If we'd known your thoughts earlier in that thread we might have taken a different action.

Trousers
26th-March-2007, 05:46 PM
Not quite true... everytime I used it, the moderator(s) have chosen to go along with the proposed action. Might be something to do with what you're reporting and the action you're suggesting? :whistle: :innocent:

Oh so it's a report and suggest button too?

Nah never works - well not seemingly on the subjects that upset me dearest!

David Bailey
26th-March-2007, 05:49 PM
Don't PM a random moderator (who may be busy getting a life) – use the "report this post" button. That's what it's there for! It even works on posts you've made. :)
:yeah: - I've reported my own posts a few times :)


If we'd known your thoughts earlier in that thread we might have taken a different action.
FWIW, I've put a nice shiny Moderator note on "your" thread :flower:


Nah never works - well not seemingly on the subjects that upset me dearest!
It always "works" - i.e. it always gets noticed, and usually gets some discussion. But it doesn't force us to do anything, although we should of course reply - apologies again if we haven't done so in the past.

Trousers
26th-March-2007, 06:31 PM
It always "works" - i.e. it always gets noticed, and usually gets some discussion. But it doesn't force us to do anything, although we should of course reply - apologies again if we haven't done so in the past.


Hey I'm easy but not THAT easy!

Lory
26th-March-2007, 06:53 PM
This is a bit daft in my opinion, and it should go back to the true transparency of "not telling the members what does not concern them". :)

I think I'm beginning to agree with you :na:

Dreadful Scathe
27th-March-2007, 10:51 AM
Place the offenders name in there as well to make sure we know who is off topic and Hey Presto! No one gets naffed off!


No one? That would "naff" me off. The moderators are there to keep the forum organised, not to insert new comments, send PMs informing people whats happening and act like over zealous bouncers at a kylie concert.


I think the point that I was trying to make on top of Twitly's post was that this process of splitting threads is Rude. To force someone to the top of the pile with a thread started in their name without consultation that cannot be fair or proper.

Its as rude as the police patrolling the streets and moving on large groups of unruly teenagers. Thats a good thing. I don't understand how it can be seen as rude at all :confused:. I also dont see how its any of our business - the forum needs organising and Franck has got a few new moderators in to help.



I ask you to take a look at my analogy about being dragged about a dance floor because I think it works.

Couldn't see it, but it sounds like a daft analogy to me :)


Yes there has, and a certain moderator seems to think that it's his duty to make a comment on nearly every thread.

That seems harsh, especially when DJ felt it was his duty to respond to every thread "before" he was a moderator. :)

Shodan
30th-March-2007, 03:54 PM
I'm a bit late into this fray as I've been away. My post refers to the original first post in this thread.

Like yourself, I'd made a comment a while back in a thread that was suited to the comment I had posted. My comment made sense in that thread, was a *at that time relevant* comment that I was happy to post knowing it'd die away quickly. Without even being consulted a moderator took it upon themself to split my comment off into a new thread and gave it a subject title that was completely different to the point of the comment I was trying to make. This unfortunately gave me a lot of grief from fellow members that didn't understand my comment as it had been taken out of context int the new splitted thread, and thus obviously didn't realise *I* hadn't posted the new thread with that subject title even though the new thread had my username next to it.

PLEASE moderators, do consult us before splitting / moving topics as it can inadvertently cause harm. On all other forums I'm a member of they at least tell us our threads have been split, or in some cases even ask us beforehand. Thanks. :nice: