SFflyer123

I agree with the OP. The merged threads have just turned me off the UA forum. The massive merging basically makes the thread just boring: it is essentially the same few megathreads up there every time I check. Nothing new, nothing fresh, nothing exciting. Just a bunch of the same old megathreads up there.

That being said, however, I've accepted it. I no long open the megathreads to read; I only use them to ask questions now. Some megathreads I am interested in, so I'll open those, but for the most part, I just ignore the megathreads and never click on them.

beaubo

The 'market' usually does a sufficient job in determining the short, medium and long term value of a given thread.

* if enough people respond to a thread keeping it on page 1 or 2, that is a solid indication that the OP or the responses are relevant/compelling/interesting enough to allow it to remain unmerged

* at some point, the thread will lose its momentum at which point, it will fall off of page 1 or 2 and then moderator discretion can kick in about merging into appropriate mega-thread.

* agree that mega-threads should be truncated to include only 12-18 months of posts, with rest of posts being searchable, but archived separately.

SkiAdcock

Agree 100% w/ this.

Cheers. Sharon

nsx

I agree that this approach is superior, but I realize that it's asking a lot of work from moderators. It's not simple to keep track of every one of these new threads in order to merge them with mega-threads when they lose momentum. curbcrusher and I could accomplish this in the Southwest forum, but I doubt we could do so at ten times the number of posts per day.

I hope that the software improves in the future to allow delayed-action thread merges. That would simplify managing these threads.

SkiAdcock

I would suggest that if they lose momentum that they're going to drop pretty far down in the pages listed in the first place & thus might not need merging into the mega-threads.

Truthfully for people doing searches on topics, having different threads w/ titles that might match what they're looking for is probably better.

Speaking for myself, if I have a question & do a search & it pulls up a megathread, odds are after a bit of reading I'll probably throw in the towel & just not bother at that point, which kind of defeats the purpose of trying to get information.

Earlier this year I started a thread in a forum (fill in the blank re: which forum it was ) re: needing help on a specific issue & had a very short timeline to get the response. Because my initial line mentioned where the problem came up, it got shunted to that megathread - even though the problem & what I was asking for advice/needed help on had nothing to do w/ the thread it got merged into - and the merge happened 10 minutes after I posted. We're not talking a long time - we're talking 10 minutes for crikey's sake!

If my problem had to do w/ where the thread got shunted to, I would have understood it. But the mod just read the first line, didn't read the entire post, & shunted it to a thread where it wouldn't get a response & had nothing to do w/ that thread. And I ended up having to PM a bunch of FTers fast to try & get a response. To me that's an example of where a megathread merge should not have occurred.

Ok, that's my example as a regular FT member & where I think the megamerge thing failed.

As a TB member, since the problem isn't universal across all forums & does involve mods I'm not sure what TB specifically is supposed to do (although I'm willng to listen to different viewpoints) & think it may be something the CD might want/need to chime in on here, or at some point at an upcoming mod meeting.

OVMV. Cheers. Sharon

tom911

I thought the 2003 megathread on UA was one of the older ones. Today I saw one from 2002 that was bumped up and had posts merged into it.

For comparison, a similar topic on AA had 9 posts and was not merged with any threads from 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2009, or 2010.

UA 2002 thread: It's so depressing to see that zero.... [Merged Threads]

AA 2011 thread: Account "YTD" now reset to 0/0/0

Again, I don't see what value comes to any forum by dredging up a megathread from 9 years ago. Both the UA and AA threads have rolled back to page 3. If the UA thread hadn't been merged it would probably be even further back.

As a start, can we just apply the TOS to these megathreads? We have to start somewhere. I recognize that direction will need to come from the Community Director.

Avoid Bumping Very Old Threads - link to this guideline
Unless there is a compelling reason, avoid bumping threads that are more than two years old. Often the information is out-dated and it clogs the forums, making it difficult to find current threads.

iluv2fly

I now feel a need to respond to this particular post.

Do you have moderator capabilities? Do you have access to our database? Can you see what was merged? I just checked and nothing was merged into that thread this year. True, it was brought back to life by a member, but nothing was merged into that thread since it was brought back .

And this particular thread - I wouldn't consider this a mega-thread. True, it's 12 pages long, but it is not something that is 50 or 100 pages long. And it's more of a "friendly" thread - similar to those Happy Birthday or Flyertalk Tags Really Work threads in CommunityBuzz! (not picking on CB, believe you me) - which are more for fun than information.

I told myself not to get involved in this thread, but when someone who obviously does not know what he is talking about starts to post inaccurate information, I have to respond. Please get your facts right before you decide to write untruths and try to "pile on". It's very obvious that you have a problem with one/some/all of the UA Mods, but this is certainly not the way to try to help resolve the issue, of which the UA Mods are aware.

seanthepilot

I agree that there is no need to merge as many posts. That a delayed merge is as bad as a speedy one. Let the thread die a natural death. ^


I'm guessing it's the busybody "Report Bad Post" happy members that are the issue here.

My opinion is just because somebody says it has to be moved to another forum or merged to another thread isn't reason enough.

Every act of moderation affects someone and also consumes time. If the OP wanted the seperate thread, I look for a reason to leave it, not move it. How do you all feel when your posts are moved or deleted? Newer members (and us old dogs too) don't always appreciate the 24 hour a days thoughts that it would be better blended with a 1500 post hodgepodge.

This brings us back to the concept of Overmoderation. It's by virture of wanting to be helpful. But the tides have shifted. And we need to respond to the ever evolving product that FT has become.
.
.

tom911

I do not have moderator capabilities. I saw a new post earlier today and thought it was merged into this thread. Clearly I was mistaken based on what you see and it was the poster that bumped the 2002 thread. Please accept my apology for making this error.

If you look at it from the other direction, though, it is a thread started 9 years ago, and I just don't see the value in bumping them up by even adding to it once a year when a forum is so busy. I know the UA forum used to be the busiest of FT, and that may be the case again now that the Travel Safety/Security forum has slowed down some in the last month. I just looked back and it takes 5 pages to cover the last 24 hours on that forum. For those with the default setting, they see 10 pages. That's a lot of material.

I think the merging of threads creates MORE work for the moderators and not less. If some of the newer threads that could be answered with one or two posts, or a link to an existing thread (not necessarily from a moderator, could be from another member), instead of merged with a bigger thread, there would be less work for all our moderators and they would scroll off the screen. This type of policy could apply across all of FT, though. We should not have a policy just for one or two forums.

My problem is not with the moderators but rather with the megathreads (which I consider threads covering multiple years). A lot of those predate our current forum moderators even being in place and have taken on lives of their own. I have not mentioned any moderator by name, and have not done any research as to which moderators in any particular forum are merging into the megathreads. I'm not the only one that has posted links to them.

I appreciate the hard work our volunteer moderators do on a daily basis. I just think that whoever coordinates moderation, and we've pretty much decided that is not the Talk Board, needs to address a policy that covers ALL forums and megathreads (and that would include a definition of what a megathread is, as it may not match mine). To me it is more obvious on the UA forum compared to AA, the two main forums I post on, but there could be other airline forums with the same issue. I don't frequent Delta or Continental, for instance, so it's hard for me to comment what's going on there. They may have the same issues there, but no one from those forums has been along to post links here.

One problem we have is very few members here are aware there is a Talk Board forum, so you do end up with a lot of the same posters posting here over and over and you don't get the type of input you would see on a hotel or airline forum. We've been fortunate on this thread to have five Talk Board members participate which is a good response. I wonder if all the moderators even know this forum exists.

I'd like to see more moderators post their point of view on megathreads so we do have more input here. One poster previously told me that megathreads were not being discussed on the moderator forum.

What do you see as the solution for megathreads that cover multiple years?

We've heard from a few Talk Board members here, and members, but not a lot of moderators have offered their point of view. Is there some way to make your job easier when it relates to megathreads? Aren't there over 100 moderators now? What type of policy would work best across all the FT forums to make them easier to read for the members, and easier to manage for the moderators? There must be some ground in the middle we can all meet at.

Could it be as simple as letting new threads scroll past for a few days and never be seen again? What would work best across all forums?

Again, iluv2fly, my apologies for the incorrect information in the thread you cited above. I'll try not to make an error of that sort again.

jackal

That was me.

Since that post, the subject has indeed been brought up in the private moderator forum and indeed is being discussed with vigor.

I am personally still investigating my own stance on megathreads, having only seen a few of the type discussed in this thread and not having developed any firm opinion on the matter prior to this.

I'm also looking at what exactly the TB's role should (or can, given the restriction on our mandate) be in this type of a situation, especially as it doesn't seem to be a problem across the entire board.

I am, however, watching this thread with great interest.

tom911

I'm glad to hear the topic is under discussion off-forum. I do think a lot of good suggestions have been made here as to strategies in looking at these types of threads, and I appreciate those members that have taken the time to post their thoughts on the issue for the Talk Board members, and for kokonutz for bringing up the issue for Talk Board's review. I also appreciate those Talk Board members who have taken the time to post their thoughts on the issue.

Moderator2

The rhetoric has gotten too heated. Time for a break.

In the interim, please re-read kokonutz original posting. I doubt his goal was to get into macro moderation discussions. This should be about a board-wide policy adoption:

The point of FT is to be able to easily find information on frequency programs and get questions answered.

This core function is becoming difficult to the point of impossible due to the proliferation of mega-threads that have become as general as 'complaints about flight attendant service.' Come freaking on, I am supposed to dig through 15 50-post pages of such a thread to find out if there are one or two FAs on a certain aircraft type in FC? And that's just one example. Look around, the mega-threads are out of control.

Further, when questions are placed in mega-threads they often go unanswered. I'm not going to click on a 20 page thread to look at a general topic, even though I may have a specific answer to a specific question posed in a mega-thread rather than a stand-alone thread, where I would have clicked and provided input.

Some subjects certainly do call for mega-threads. But not NEARLY so many as exist in the major frequency program forums now.

Can the TB consider amending the TOS to limit the over-use of mega-threads?

They really are destroying the user experience on FT.

SanDiego1K

Thanks to Moderator2 for closing this temporarily. With this note, I am closing it permanently.

Thank you everyone for your comments on this complicated issue. Some good thoughts have been shared here. Just as one dress size would never fit all women or one shirt size all men, one policy on thread mergers would never fit all forums. Thus, this really is a matter for each forum moderator team as it strives to organize information so that readers can most easily find it.

As you know, we have had a long-standing practice of separating moderator-related issues from TalkBoard issues. I have no intention of changing that practice as the new Community Director. The merging and handling of threads are clearly moderator issues, and, as such, not within the scope of Talkboard�s purview.

Should anyone have thoughts specific to a forum, please PM the forum moderators. Should anyone have more general thoughts not yet shared above, please direct them to me via Private Message.

Thank you.

SanDiego1K