I would still submit that archiving old threads, or old thread components makes sense. As one who does more reading than writing, I would stick with my suggestion above that some archiving be considered to both avoid the pain of looking through irrelevant 5 year old posts as well as allowing better search performance. There are different ways of doing this.. of course it is intuitive enough that likely this has been considered, researched and rejected at some point in the past.....

I too find the practice of merging threads often frustrating.

On the other hand, it's often very useful. I think there should be some rough rules of thumb. For example I think stuff that qualifies as "news" and engenders a lot of discussion is well confined to one thread. A great example would be a change in award levels, a new set of promos, an announcement of a merger, etc. It's hard for me to see a real value in having three discussions about the same thing. Though with that said, if the discussions have various facets then perhaps that warrants more than one thread. For example if there's a major merger one thread about the consolidation of FF programs, and another about planned route cuts, could make sense. That's a big event and there's a lot to talk about.

Similarly if a person asks something and it's been answered very recently I could see the point in merging threads. If someone asks about award availability to YXYZ airport (that's a grass strip in northern canada by the way ;)) and someone else asks the same thing 3 weeks later and it was well answered before than great, merge.

The thing I find frustrating is when a thread contains inaccurate information and is bumped or merged. To throw out a random example, suppose there's a thread asking which fare classes are eligible for SWU upgrades, first post in 2005. On page 5 of that thread a reliable poster says X, Y, and Z are upgradable. But on page 15, maybe 2 years later, someone posts that this has changed and X, Y, and Z are no longer upgradable. Just an illustrative example, but I do see this kind of thing. The fewmiles link on the AA forum lasted WAY longer than it should have and prompted dozens of newbie threads, just for one real life example.

Also, some things change rapidly, or suddenly, and are often tough to determine by online searches. Again I frequent the AA website, but I've noticed that AA.com has a nasty habit of leaving up old content, sometimes in the form of press releases, sometimes actual pages, which can be found with google but are not accurate. A listing of Admirals Club info is an example I discovered once to my annoyance. I once also found an outdated reward mileage chart with a still-live link. Frustrating.

But getting to the point, certain things -- great examples include presence/absence of elite security lines at a given airport, lounge access, which terminal an airline uses, MCT information, and many more I can think of -- really do change all the time, sometimes with little or no fanfare on FT. Or sometimes with a person unaware of the change posting a later thread that is not accurate.

It can be quite hard to navigate such discussions. I'm getting to be more of a vet (slowly) but I still find it so easy to miss the post date when reading a thread. I've come close to replying to a question in what seems like a recent thread that was asked 4 years ago. I've seen others do this many times. Sometimes posting a thoughtful reply to a question on page 3 of a 4 page thread, when the question is years old.

Sure they should pay more attention maybe. But I think this could stand to be improved. I think most threads that have clearly stated inaccurate (ie outdated) information in them should be left to die EVEN if it's clearly corrected or updated several pages later. It's just needlessly confusing.

I also don't like 400 page threads really for almost any reason, they're just impossible to read. But I appear to be in the minority here.

But at least the above issue should be considered. A master thread is one thing, it often gets updated and has an authoritative first post with a link to various subtopics. But some threads are just long and confusing. Frankly, I think a 50+ page thread is about the least efficient way of conveying information, it's drastically more time consuming than a shorter more current thread. A 50+ page discussion is entirely different. But not a 50 page riddled-with-outdated-info in the earlier pages thread. The internet is good at presenting information concisely, let's use its power.

For new questions -- the bandwidth of a new thread is the same as adding to an old one for the most part. Yes, there are fewer threads, but if someone asks a question there's one thread about it on the first page. If it's merged there still is one thread on the first page. Not exactly a drastic improvement in reducing clutter.

And for things that change often, all the things I mentioned above, like surcharges, presence/absence of a lounge, MCT's, elite security lines, and many more, I think there should be a couple months at most where a new question is merged with the previous one. These things change a lot, and I think this approach helps further the goal of keeping information up to date and clear.

Just another perspective.

A Wiki-Style Thread System Will Get the Job Done...
 

If I understand your post correctly, I would say most of your concerns are not about merging threads per se. It's more about how to manage updates more effectively in the current vBulletin structure. As a matter of fact, an embedded wiki system will make it possible and improve FT. There's another thread in Suggestions Forum on this very topic/suggestion.

Even me and others had asked admin to chime in to share their thoughts on this real "improvement", our HOM hasn't taken time to address it to the FT Public yet. :(

if that's the case, then the request is being made by someone other than the person asking the question (starting the new thread). i think the complaint is that certain situations warrant a new thread, and the person posting the new thread is the best judge of that situation.

i see both sides, but multiple-page threads are extremely difficult to navigate, frequently out-of-date and often don't address the specific situation brought by the new poster.

the biggest problem: if you need an answer, explanation or opinion, you are FAR LESS LIKELY to get it on page 6 of a tired (related) thread than on a new thread.

that's my biggest complaint. when i ask for help at the end of a related thread i don't get the responses that i get when i start my own thread specific to my situation.

First things first. If the poster's question is really unique and need "special" attention, I have no problem to see a new thread for it.

In your scenario, if a thread already generated 6 pages of good discussion on FT, I would think most of the main issues/concerns are raised in the first 3 pages (i.e. 45 posts) already. I don't think I ever read a FT thread with 45 posts or longer that contains no answer to the original question/s. (OMNI is another story. :D)

The problem is chances are your questions have been asked and answered in either page 1 or 2 that you don't have to re-ask on page 6.

The problem I see in your "biggest" problem is that posters don't read (or search) before asking the "less unique" question/s. Posters think "MY" questions are different from all others.

Here's a perfect example: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/miles...s-amex-cc.html. Currently this thread has 63 pages (931 posts). One of the main reasons why the thread gets so long is because "newer' posters keep asking the same questions over and over and over again. Post #853 had been addressed on page 1 (or page 2) but the poster decided to beat the dead horse anyway. If all posters do read and don't ask repeated questions, I would think this thread could have been at least 50% shorter.

My biggest complaint to your biggest complaint is if so many threads on the same topic had been asked and answered, why do you have to start a brand new thread so you can have YOUR answers?

Search is not that difficult to do. If you don't like IB's buggy Beta Search, we still have Google. ;)

Let me give you another example. There are tons of threads about skipping legs in TravelBuzz! Forum. There are at least 3 in the last 30 days. Everyone wants to know if the tix will be cancelled. I've visited TravelBuzz! often enough to know how soon another "new skipped leg" thread pops up. Does each one of those skipping leg thread need to be a standalone thread? Would poster A's tix get cancelled but B's not when B asked the same question? I am afraid the answer is no. For the moment being, the mods haven't merged all those skipping leg threads. I would think one thread on this topic (skipped leg & cancelled tix) is plenty enough.

Granted, a LONG thread may contain outdated or inaccurate info. The Amex TC thread I referenced above actually has a new 30-day policy since mid-November. The discuccion didn't start to cover it until post #704 on page 47. I doubt any "new comers" would be patient enough to read through the first 46 pages. If they had only read the 1st or 2nd pages, they wouldn't be informed of the new change.

If FT will implement the new wiki-post system that I re-raised two posts earlier, this policy change will be very easily reflected in the 2nd post of the embedded-wiki-post thread.

your scenarios involve me not using search function (and/or being too lazy to read), and as such they are inherently flawed.

of course i use the search function - how else would i find the thread that is already tired and that i didn't want to add to (for fear that my question would get lost)?

and if the question was answered previously, why would i be asking it again?

:(

believe it or not, there are multiple-page discussions on specific topics that fail to answer all related questions - especially questions that have never been raised. i never implied that my (hypothetical) question was the exact question in the (hypothetical) OP. i did imply (if not state) that my question was not previously answered (despite being very much related to other topics that have generated threads).

should i be forced to post on page 6 behind all the redundant questions that you acknowledge in your post, or should i be able to post the unique question on its own - free from merging?

before taking a dump on me, you said that people could post unique questions in new threads - then you went into an explanation that surely every question had already been answered, that i was self-important, that i didn't use search, and that i was lazy. if that was unintended, please refrain from using the word "you" when making derogatory comments in replies to my posts.

The word "you" in my post was used to refer to the "general FT public", not to SAM - DFW alone. I keep the "you" word because I assumed you had used it as a general purpose in your original post. From your post, I assumed you were using a hypothetical scenario since you didn't give any personal example nor provided any referenced thread. Addressing it to a "you" was easier.

It was not my intention to make you feel like being personally attacked. That's why I also gave specific examples to illustrate what I was referring to. The post #853 incident happens when folks don't search or read, especially when their questions are not new. In long thread discussion, generally speaking, all basic questions would have been addressed. I consider your hypothetical 6-page thread as a long one, since most of the FT thread will stop at no more than page 3 if there's no merit of discussion. A thread covers good discussion with 6 pages should have nailed all the main points. Hope you are seeing my logic behind it now.

As for you specific question, I am sure you do search before posting. I didn't and don't imply laziness in you. I thought my referenced threads would have made it very clear what I see as problems.

My ending remark is the same as I opened my previous post. If the questions raised are unique and haven't been addressed, I fail to see the problem of starting new threads. I also doubt any mod would merge those threads if each had its own standing.

I only provided one concrete example. You'll be be surprised how many others are doing exactly that, asking questions that had been addressed previously in a long thread.

I appreciate merged threads FWIW as it keeps the clutter to a minimum.

I, on the other hand find that merged threads can sometimes increase the clutter. Separate threads can indicate separate topics, but they can also be used to separate what is now historic data from current data. A thread over 5 years with hundreds of posts isn't organization - it's a nightmare.

For example, in the luxury hotels forum, people regularly ask for comparison of London's luxury hotels. While it might seem that this is redundant (and I agree, people ask too frequently without searching for other recently created threads), I fully understand the desire to find current information rather than old. A comparison of London's top hotels in 2003 is meaningless today, with properties changing management, new hotels being founded, old ones being renovated (or not). A post more than a year or two old on this subject may be interesting history, but it won't really help the person seeking current information to make a decision.

In lin821's amex example, the problem of a critical piece of information on post #704 on page 47 of 63 is another problem. I like the proposed wiki solution, but until that is implemented, I would urge moderators to consider the quality of the information that they are merging threads into, and determine whether some of it should be allowed to rest as history rather than be merged into a massive thread that is too unwieldy to effectively yield information.