Thread splitting

[Minnie M]

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 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

(which I thought was warrented)

whooops - I did mean UNwarrented

[Gadget]

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.

[Twirly]

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.

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]

: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.

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]

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 " 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"*

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

[Lory]

I can't be arsed.

Fair enough

[David Bailey]

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:

1. Include a reference in the thread title - e.g. "New Thread (was: old thread)"
2. Create a "fake" first post using an old post and changing it
3. 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

[Trousers]

{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]

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.

[David Bailey]

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

Would an automatice "acknowledgement" PM be useful?

[David Bailey]

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]

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.

[Trousers]

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 ( ).

[Lynn]

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]

... 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]

The moderators should do something REALLY controversial like post their favourite PM's

We do - but that's in the Secret Moderator Forum

They do read them all you know, the forum rules explicitly say so

I wish

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

[Dreadful Scathe]

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" - 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]

Not sure about your definition of "transparent"

Hmmm, perhaps I meant "open"...

[LMC]

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]

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, 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.