I've noticed an unusual practice here on FT. It seems that if you try to start a topic about anything, quite often a moderator will take it upon themselves to merge it into an older topic of similar nature. It doesn't happen all of the time, but more often than I'd like.

For example.. Lets just say I start a topic about well, anything.. I'd typically get a remark about learning how to use the search function then the moderator would proceed to merge the topic into one with 4,387 pages that started in 2003!

I mean, sometimes you gotta just let some threads die.. I mean I don't know about you guys, but when I participate in a thread, I like to read the whole thing first so I can sort of understand where the conversation is going. I also sort of have an expectation for others to do the same as well. But with these super old massive threads, it's just not possible.

I'd be curious to hear what other people think about this.

You make some good points.

I agree that massive threads are hard to navigate but let me give you a different perspective and also tell you how I read the massive, historical threads.

In the Travel Safety/Security Forum, for example, there is a subject called CLEAR which is the registered traveller program that works with the TSA.

We've got a merged thread that contains, I'll guess, the remnants of 20 individual threads that were started on the topic. If folks would scan the first couple pages of thread topics before starting a new topic perhaps we wouldn't have so many dupe threads to merge. But I digress.

IMO, we have to collect information on a specific topic into a single thread so that folks can find the info they are seeking without having to search for and through two dozen individual threads. Now not every thread about CLEAR is merged into the master thread. We still have a dozen or more floating around that discuss CLEAR at a specific airport or that discuss CLEAR from a unique viewpoint. But the general CLEAR threads get merged into the master thread.

What I personally do when looking through a large, merged thread is to read it backwards, i.e, start with the most recent posts and read back to a point in time where I don't feel the info is any longer relevant.

To merge or not to merge, that is the question.

I'll look forward to additional input on this subject.

I for one appreciate the work the mods do in merging threads. Otherwise the first few pages would be swamped with noob posts "how do I keep my miles from expiring" etc.

In your example, I would think if this thread is still active after 5-6 years, it must have been a master (or even sticky) thread on the chosen topic. If it's a master thread, there must have been a wide range of discussion covered in said thread. If that's the topic of my interest, I will definitely take time to dig up all the info in such thread.

An active topic would have been very easy for any poster to spot on or locate by search. Most likely than not, it should show up either in the 1st or 2nd page in the designated forum.

Speaking for myself, as a participant in any active thread, I will rather go to one focal thread, read all the info and contribute what I have to offer or add. If I see a new thread about an existing topic that I have participated or read before, I will either post a link or RBP to the mod team so the forum mods can decide what to do. Some probably don't mind, but I prefer not to repeat myself in the new thread, if the topic has been addressed (fully or not) in the existing one. Sometimes the newer thread even becomes more active and take over the discussion. That's life, so be it.

As a reader in the fora that I frequent, sometimes I do see new threads popping up with topics that are still very fresh-inked. My first thought usually is either "Did the poster even read the forum front-page (or 2nd page)?" or "Did the poster use search before posting?"

In an ideal world, every poster will know how to search. S/he will search first then start the right thread at the right forum, if search yields no result. Our mod team won't have to encounter numerous threads with similar, if not the same, topics all the time. Sadly we don't live in an ideal world. I do feel sorry for our volunteer mods that they have to deal with this on a daily basis .

Tons of threads take their own course of life in a short period of time.

Just very recently, I saw 2-3 posters bumping threads (started in eary 2000s. I forgot which forums). No one ever posted anything since then, not until the bump. The forum mods simply closed those threads.

I haven't read that many threads but I also haven't seen a mod merge a new thread into another existing old thread that hasn't been generating any new activity for over say 12-18 months.

Besides, correct me if I am wrong, my impression is a thread with the last activity dated back to (more or less) 24-month ago is presumably dead. It shouldn't be bumped nor merged. Unless it was bumped by the OP to provide some updates or status report. In such case, I actually appreciate the poster containing herself/himself in the original thread and enjoy reading the updates.

I believe it's a case-by-case scenario since every thread has a life of its own. If the poster has any objection to the mod's action of merging thread, s/he can PM the mod and appeal the case. I doubt our mod team would mind.

Cholula, didn't a fellow FTer just win her case in the OMNI thread from being merged by you? Oops! I probably shouldn't talk about moderation in public.

��my impression is a thread with the last activity dated back to (more or less) 24-month ago is presumably dead.�

Maybe that is where you start. For fun, I just searched �Hilton San Francisco�. I got a list of 1034 hits, but only 305 (ish) were from the last 2 years, meaning the last post was from 2006.

I would say that you could pick a previous date (2 years? 3 years?) beyond which the information is so stale as to be irrelevant, unless you are specifically searching for a past incident etc. The database of threads could be divided into current and archive, with standard searches done in the (much smaller) current database. Archive searches could be available as an option. Then, given a search for threads on a topic, one would end up finding and �bumping� only relatively recent information.

This has likely been considered before. Maybe you need different archive periods for different fora, but it could be a way to both avoid very lengthy threads with little current information, as well as improve search performance.

id personally rather see fewer master threads than more. sometimes it seems like the decision making is based more along the lines of - "what can i merge this into?"

but it is somewhat of a tough issue.

I find that once a thread goes beyond 5 pages (30 posts per page) it becomes hard for me to catch up and post because often by the time i've finished those pages another has already been added.

I think it is good to merge away with some of the "asked and answered" threads, but I also think sometimes it's best to start with a new thread if something major has changed.

Although only tangentially related I do like when a thread title is edited to confirm previous speculation like from "speculation: US to start charging for drinks" to "Confirmed: US to start charging for drinks" so I know the result of the speculation and can skip ahead a few pages to real discussion instead of just random speculation. Maybe at the point of confirmation we should just start a new thread, lock the speculation thread, and put the final post as a link to the new thread.

But random newbie "can I upgrade with my grandma's sister's brother's mile on my dirt cheap tour fare to Timbuktu?" should just get filed away since usually some sticky or master thread of FAQ already covers it.

I'd love a feature where we could archive some of the older posts in "master" or merged threads to keep the threads current and not make people wade through old data to find the answers they seek.

I think it would be great if all of the "bad experience complaint" threads were merged into a single master thread for each forum.

It doesn't make sense to have a separate thread for every single "trip report"-style negative experience.

On a similar note, the positive individual experiences can be consolidated this way as well.

Agree. A couple of my fave fora have been diminished by overzealous consolidation and merging, though it depends on the vagaries of individual moderators [who I have PMed]. Nobody is going to find your new post hidden in that huge consolidated thread.

mbstone, I also agree

Personally I am all for merging. Most of these "new" threads are either started by newbies or FT members that don't have the patience to read through the main thread that includes all the relevant information.

Just look what have happened to BD and PC forums.

Everyone has their own thoughts on merging. As a moderator on another site, I know that even within the mod team, there are opposing views. There are obvious topics which need to be contained within one thread- you all know within your favourite forum which these are. A pm to the original poster where the merge would not be obvious is a good idea in an ideal world. However, we have to remember that mods are often also in full time jobs and some days just do not have the time to do everything they would like to do.
Where a thread becomes too lengthy a suggestion would be to start a fresh thread and leave a link to the original one on the first post.

For the past 3.5+ years I thought this kind of discussion (aside from the 'new' OMNI team) on any action of moderators was taboo.

Since I believed that was the case, I've only been in contact with the appropriate volunteers if there ever was an issue.

Seeing as this is okay to discuss or express an opinion - I think that it is the moderator's prerogative, based on their experience and judgment, to merge as they see fit.
It seems to be common practice AND part of the TOS that really old (24mth+) threads not be bumped or merged.

For some sparse threads it might make sense to do so, but I agree with the sensible suggestions above that threads dormant for >24mths be tagged as archived/closed.
People who manage the forums would have the power to reopen those threads.

It has been interesting reading and discussing a taboo topic!

BB

Actually I'd say that your basis may be off in this. The facts are ... that more than 85% of this type of activity is not based at all from the moderators actions, but rather the moderator acting on behalf of members - several if not more - who have contacted him/her with suggestions to merge said threads. Very rarely, if ever, does a moderator simply wake up one day and decide to merge a thread. What you and others may want to be aware of is the tremendous input volume we get from our members from the RBP. It is not really used only for Report Bad Post, but to report things like suggestions to merge threads. Anyway, just a small factoid for your consideration.