The Chainlink

Seems like a lot of crabbing about this today.  I thought I'd provide my 2 cents:

-with the lack of functionality of the current internal search, the expectation that one search to see if a topic has already been covered is borderline unrealistic

-with only 10 topics showing on the main page, and several levels to click down through to get to older threads, it's asking a lot to expect anyone to search more than the first 3 pages or so, and a relatively new user will likely not even be aware that there's a way to get to discussion #11 and onward

-with the current format, a discussion becomes next to impossible for all but very regular users to follow once it breaks onto a second page; virtulally nobody is going to read through seven or 8 pages of discussion when coming upon a discussion for the first time before posting.  So left to its own devices, a discussion will ultimately reach a point where it's not much easier to follow than discussion broken over several threads.

 

I'm not trying to argue for the wonton creation of duplicate threads, but I do think it's a bit ridiculous to blame the user most of the time.  So until we get a working forum interface, which looks like it may be imminent considering the apparent success of the fundraising effort, I would suggest that people try to be as descriptive in their subject lines as possible, but also have a little tolerance for some duplication.

 

I'm sure nobody else has an opinion on this and the thread will quickly sink, so thanks for reading.

Views: 313

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have an opinion about everything.

I agree that the search function is not what it should be and threads can get posted or re-posted even after someone diligently searches for past discussions of the same topic.

My objection is when someone feels the need to post another version of a thread when 3 out of the 10 threads displayed on the main page are already on the same topic.

I'll give you that one.

Kevin C said:

My objection is when someone feels the need to post another version of a thread when 3 out of the 10 threads displayed on the main page are already on the same topic.

Normally I'll give repetitive threads a pass as old threads are hard to find, but at one point yesterday 4 of 10 threads were a about a certain unpleasant columnist. Most of them had descriptive enough titles that they would have at least warranted a closer look if you had come to talk about the Tribune's page fillers. Asking people to scan the first page for relevant posts doesn't seem unreasonable.

+1  With the amount of discussion yesterday about a certain person, it would not have been difficult to scan the first page before posting redundant threads.

That being said, I look forward to the Chainlink upgrade, because the search function really needs a lot of help.

Cameron Puetz said:

Normally I'll give repetitive threads a pass as old threads are hard to find, but at one point yesterday 4 of 10 threads were a about a certain unpleasant columnist. Most of them had descriptive enough titles that they would have at least warranted a closer look if you had come to talk about the Tribune's page fillers. Asking people to scan the first page for relevant posts doesn't seem unreasonable.

One thing the offending post author can do is to close the duplicate post that they created.  Which is what I did after receiving gentle chastising from the post police.

I'm all for repetitive posts. Just think: one unique thread gets one click from each of us. Five similar threads generates five clicks from each of us, making The Chainlink™ five times more valuable to its advertisers, which in turn keeps this place afloat. Ergo, duplicates are good.

Is there a word to describe the fact that this very thread, intended to help people more effectively use these forums, will be drowned out soon by other (possibly duplicate) threads?  

"Schadenfreude"
 
Zoetrope said:

Is there a word to describe the fact that this very thread, intended to help people more effectively use these forums, will be drowned out soon by other (possibly duplicate) threads?  

I would be alright with moderators deleting duplicate threads and/or moving relevant posts. Especially in cases like the recent Kass-tastrophy.

Isn't Schadenfreude the phenomena of someone taking pleasure from the misfortune of others? I'm not sure how that applies here.

I will admit that I was very sorely tempted to add another duplicate thread of this one.


Thunder Snow said:

"Schadenfreude"
 
Zoetrope said:

Is there a word to describe the fact that this very thread, intended to help people more effectively use these forums, will be drowned out soon by other (possibly duplicate) threads?  

In general I'm opposed to closing threads as it hinders free exchange, but in this case I agree completely!

in it to win it said:

One thing the offending post author can do is to close the duplicate post that they created.  Which is what I did after receiving gentle chastising from the post police.

Yep, I'm laughing heartily at all of us being mired in thread after thread, each saying the same thing.  "Schadenfreude."
 
Tony Adams said:

Isn't Schadenfreude the phenomena of someone taking pleasure from the misfortune of others? I'm not sure how that applies here.

RSS

Connect

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service
http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/multiple-threads-on-same-topic
www.thechainlink.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2016-36
75454
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:CSBQSRER2UVHOAV37QYLYLVGDO4TXXC7
<urn:uuid:4ae41298-243d-46f9-8de7-27a018a40da5>
2016-08-31T21:44:07Z
208.82.16.68
sha1:UGQGSYXU3HSDEY3XAPNHGVPKK3M2X27L
<urn:uuid:3555dad0-559a-44ed-ba27-cb5d76bc262d>
http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/multiple-threads-on-same-topic
length
response
<urn:uuid:c3161377-017d-43c1-a57f-5c482082856d>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-153-172-175.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-36
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf