Any chance we could stop combining threads?

[lpd1982]

DBR is the best. DBR readers and posters are terrific, informed, loyal and civil. That being said, after years of loyalty to DBR, I find myself spending more time on another Duke board because of this propensity to combine threads. I like seeing new, shorter threads that are topical. It keeps the board fresh and readers interested. Sometimes I will follow a 'moved' thread only to find myself directed to page 1 of a 120 page thread. I don't have the time or inclination to find where the item I was momentarily intrigued by has gone. Also, sometimes I find myself with a quick question or a tidbit of somewhat inside info that I think my fellow die hards might enjoy, yet I don't post because I know it will be merged (maybe that is the plan??) I wish this would change back to the old ways. I used to check many times a day in between internet tasks to see what was 'new'. Now it just appears to be the same 9 threads or so. I just go elsewhere for my fix. Come back DBR of old. I miss you!

[-jk]

I completely understand your frustration. There is a constant tension between merging similar threads, and having multiple threads on the same topic and pushing topics off the front page too quickly. It's been a problem for years and I don't think there is a clear solution.

We routinely merge:
Recruiting (with a thread for a class, and a thread each for specific, identified targets).
Pre- and In-game threads
Post-game threads
And we try to minimize the number of unc and uk threads - they all tend to circle back.

I'd love to hear folks' thoughts on it.

(And if you are logged in, you should use the "New" button. It generally will keep your place in a thread bookmarked, unless a merge gets messed up.)

-jk

[Olympic Fan]

I understand what you are trying to do ... but I agree with the original poster -- too many neverending threads ... do I really want to check page 120 of the UNC investigation to see if there is something new? Did I miss something on page 117?

The recent Bledsoe news deserved its own thread, not to be lumped into a year-old thread about Kentucky transgressions.

At least that's my opinion ... maybe the majority of posters would nrather go the other way. But while I understand preventing duplicate threads on exactly the same topic, I think the moderators tend to go too far --

[ChillinDuke]

As an avid, long-time lurker and infrequent poster on DBR, I completely understand the pickle that the mods have trying to keep the board organized (re merging threads).

I do agree with OF though. Certain discussions/topics may be better served having their own (shorter) threads. They are easier to wade through and digest than the UK/UNC/John Wall mega-threads. Perhaps waiting on a discussion to develop would help determine if merging is the right course of action or not? Sometimes merges seem a little premature. Just an idea.

[Kedsy]

I think you should merge this thread with the "Introducing..." thread. ;)

[moonpie23]

I agree that it can be tedious trying to back-track through many quotes muddled by merging....

i also like small, short NEW threads about "austin rivers", "QM", UK EVIL and like to see the immediate responses to THOSE new threads not converging (out of context sometimes) with what just went before it..


i would vote for ending merging of threads...

and while we're at it.....can we get the ok to have animated gifs as sigs?

http://ui32.gamespot.com/479/702headbanginstick_2.gif

[gep]

I, too, have been a long time visitor (sometimes poster) of DBR (back in the posting codes days), and I also agree that merging threads can become very cumbersome. I also prefer shorter, current topics threads, rather that a very long thread covering many months of mini-topics that relate to a larger, broader subject. Clicking on "new" on these mega-threads sometimes takes me to the new, unread merged thread, but I find that many times, the "new" takes me to previously merged threads that I've already read (as s single thread), so gotta wade through until I find the actual new, moved thread.

Maybe some kind of link to older, related threads instead of merging threads... if at all possible... like sub-threads, with the sub-threads being the older threads?

[Billy Dat]

I prefer merged threads. By definition, the newer ideas are on the last page of the thread...just skip to the last page and read. I like that in the mega Austin Rivers thread, I can trace it all the way back or just read the last few pages for the current thinking. To me, that's better than looking through 10 different Austin Rivers threads. Keep merging!

[lpd1982]

One example I have to offer is some recent juicy news I got on a KY player that was pretty inside stuff having lived in Birmingham. If it had not been shared yet it would have been the kind of info I would have posted...but I didn't. The old thread on the player was long and I didnt have time to go through the whole thing. I didnt know if the info had been covered and I didnt want to get slammed if my source had just provided old news. In the past I would have skimmed for new threads on page one or two and if it wasnt there I would have posted. If my info wasnt relevant it would not have gotten replies and it would have faded quickly.

P.S. I want to say that I have complete respect and appreciation for what the mods do and whatever the rules are I understand. I just know in business that if a customer stops buying, I want to know why.

[Kedsy]

One example I have to offer is some recent juicy news I got on a KY player that was pretty inside stuff having lived in Birmingham. If it had not been shared yet it would have been the kind of info I would have posted...but I didn't. The old thread on the player was long and I didnt have time to go through the whole thing. I didnt know if the info had been covered and I didnt want to get slammed if my source had just provided old news. In the past I would have skimmed for new threads on page one or two and if it wasnt there I would have posted. If my info wasnt relevant it would not have gotten replies and it would have faded quickly.

P.S. I want to say that I have complete respect and appreciation for what the mods do and whatever the rules are I understand. I just know in business that if a customer stops buying, I want to know why.

Would the search function not have helped you to figure out if the info had been covered?

(I'm not being snide, I'm just wondering if that could be a factor in the merge/don't merge debate.)

[left_hook_lacey]

I tend to agree with the merging of the threads by the mods. I think the simplicity of the thread topics is something that sets DBR apart from other boards and overall makes it easier to find what we're looking for. I'll admit, I've started following a thread here or there that ended up being merged and I lost what I had been reading about, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

I think if the mods stopped policing the thread topics as vigorously as they do, we would soon be drowning in a pool of similar threads about the same topics, making it difficult to stay on top of the latest news of the topic interest. The current structure isn't perfect, but I prefer it to the alternative.

[-jk]

I understand what you are trying to do ... but I agree with the original poster -- too many neverending threads ... do I really want to check page 120 of the UNC investigation to see if there is something new? Did I miss something on page 117?

The recent Bledsoe news deserved its own thread, not to be lumped into a year-old thread about Kentucky transgressions.

At least that's my opinion ... maybe the majority of posters would nrather go the other way. But while I understand preventing duplicate threads on exactly the same topic, I think the moderators tend to go too far --

Regarding the recent Bledsoe news - that thread stood, and hasn't seen a merge. The first post was Bledsoe, but the thread spontaneously became all UK, all Cali, all the time. It's a great example of how uk (and unc) threads always seem to wander in circles.

-jk

[SupaDave]

I think if the mods stopped policing the thread topics as vigorously as they do, we would soon be drowning in a pool of similar threads about the same topics, making it difficult to stay on top of the latest news of the topic interest. The current structure isn't perfect, but I prefer it to the alternative.

Hey, there's no reason to bring the IC into this. :)

[watzone]

Hey, there's no reason to bring the IC into this. :)
A perfect example is a recent interview with Chris Collins that I wanted to share with Duke fans. i took a look at hits coming in on the article and it was about 70 when I posted it by itself. Someone merged it into a dying Team USA thread and there has been a grand total of 3 views from the link which is an offering a lor of folks might want to read.

The interview was conducted on Wednesday and provided fresh input from Chris on Team USA "and" the curent team and how the experience would relate to them. My point is that a lot of Duke fans missed a decent interview because of the merge. At some point merged threads need to start afresh becasue nobody in their right mind is going to go through hundreds of posts. Another issue with say, recruiting threads is the same information appears every 8 or so pages becasue nobody checks the multitude of posts prior.

I merge threads as well and think it is a good thing in some cases, but if a thread is getting comments it is probably best to let it stand on it's on. What is the harm of a Chris Collins interview link/thread instead of burying it in an existing, dying thread?

It's not an easy task to find the right formula and I understand completely the need for some merging, I just think it has become hyper merging here, but that is simply my two cents.

[micah75]

Interesting dilemma. I can certainly understand merging the threads of former Duke players now in the pros, no need for duplicates there... a JJ thread for example, along with a Duhon thread, etc, as well as recruiting threads for future prospects. No need to have multiple threads on Austin at this time, for example.

Yet... sometimes there is a need for a game thread along with a "such and such player performed well" thread. And even hidden within that theme, (perhaps subtley) there may very well be a call for an injury report on said player.... or that said player is improving dramatically and rising to the ranks of All-ACC or better, out-performing his peers much to the surprise of... well, everyone. Or that the player in question is having problems with grades, may need redshirting, is considering transferring, (god or goddess forbid), is ill, has family problems or crises (a la Andre from last season) or whatever. Often, there are numerous sub-themes that if included within one original thread, will be overwhelming to the reader, and result in numerous sub-threads, (or hijacks, as some will perceive unintentionally), and may be utterly daunting for the casual reader. Headlines (thread titles) attract attention, but a generic "Player X thread did this" with several dozen (all-inclusive) pages may have the negative impact of alienating many readers, except for perhaps the first 2 and the last 2 pages, (I've been guilty of that many times), thereby missing almost entirely all the nuances (betwixt the original predominating theme as it relates to said player), thus resulting in the very real possibility that the average reader is ill-informed to the overall discussion at hand.

Well, just some thoughts to consider, for what it's worth. $..02 or less, I'm sure.

[brevity]

I prefer merged threads. By definition, the newer ideas are on the last page of the thread...just skip to the last page and read. I like that in the mega Austin Rivers thread, I can trace it all the way back or just read the last few pages for the current thinking. To me, that's better than looking through 10 different Austin Rivers threads. Keep merging!

I also prefer merged threads, and would add that the moderators don't do enough merging. Not that I'm calling for more work on their part; I just want new threads to truly be new, and not just mild variations of existing topics. So, if the topic were Player X, there should only be a limited number of threads (not including general team threads or game threads):

1. Recruitment of Player X (early stats, video highlights, camps, visits, everything else up to signing)
2. Welcome to Duke Player X (signing, rest of HS career, summer before freshman year)
3. Player X's minutes (starter/bench use, position, role within team, awesome plays)
4. Will Player X leave early? (speculation, eventual non-story)
5. Check out what Player X did with Duke Improv!
6. Thank You Senior Player X (upperclassman highlights, off court stories)
7. Where will Player X be drafted?
8. Player X's Pro Career

It's not universal, but you get the idea. DBR is a present-day message board, but it's also an archive of fan support, and people often forget that.

[basket1544]

I like that the threads are merged because it keeps the board clean. I don't have to read through several different threads on the same topics that all get the same comments to them.
Having said that, I will never wade through the AR recruitment thread. It's just too long. I think that says something about Austin though. Out of curiosity, I've been on this board for a year, was the recruitment thread on Nolan (as an example) as long?

[DukieBoy]

Question

Is there anyway we could create a folder on the main pages with general topics (UNC, UK, Austin Rivers) and when you click this folder, there can be many, un-merged threads that people can go through

That eliminates congestion on the front page, but also doesn't create "mega threads"

[elvis14]

Just to add another data point. I would prefer that threads be merged much less often. The merged threads never die and separate data points on a common subject get lost in the morass posts in the merged threads. Also, if there were more varied threads, the threads that were played out or not interesting would go away.

I'm not saying never merge but I'd like to see much less merging. I understand the points others have made in favor of merging and I respect the work the mods do here, I just prefer more smaller threads.

[Newton_14]

I would favor an approach where if the new thread is an obvious duplicate of an existing thread you merge it right away, but if not a duplicate, give the thread a few days to stand on its own.

I have an example as well. Last week I saw the Doyel article on unc football and almost started a thread as I figured given our past with Doyel folks would enjoy him picking on someone else. However I knew it would get merged so I posted the article in the unc scandal thread.

The problem with that is there are likely a number of DBR members who may have grown tired of the existing thread but would want to read about the Doyel articles. I suspect many missed the Doyel article simply because they grew tired of following the longer thread and therefore never saw it.

Some topics will stand on their own even if there is an existing thread on something similar. I feel it would be better to at least give the thread a chance to stand on its own, and allow DBR members a chance to see the topic. There is a balance to be struck for sure, as you would not want 6 or 7 UK or unc threads for example. Not an easy task and I appreciate the amount of work that goes in to keeping the board clean and enjoyable.

Just my two cents..

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Joined in 2007, but I've been reading here a lot longer than that.

This is a good topic - I'm interested to hear everyone's opinions. I'm sure I am not the standard DBR Board follower, but there are almost certainly people who follow my model.

I check the board several times a day. Unless a topic is completely uninteresting to me, I click the "last page" of each item on the front page. Merged threads, non-merged threads - no difference in my world, I'm going to read it all.

I would like to point out that one thing that separates DBR from the scads of fan sites across the internet is the existence of topics like this. The genuine interest in reader feedback is great.

I'll be interested to watch this board continue to evolve; thanks for everything you do, mods!

[Greg_Newton]

I prefer merged threads. By definition, the newer ideas are on the last page of the thread...just skip to the last page and read. I like that in the mega Austin Rivers thread, I can trace it all the way back or just read the last few pages for the current thinking. To me, that's better than looking through 10 different Austin Rivers threads. Keep merging!

The problem is, you don't know if the new posts are going to be about a major announcement Rivers just made or a tangential debate about something largely unrelated to Rivers' recruitment.

I think there might be a happy medium somewhere. For example, it might be more effective if "important posts" in mega-threads (i.e. new developments, announcements, good links) were generally started as their own thread, then merged into the existing thread after a day or so. Then we wouldn't have to comb the huge threads each day in search of actual news, but the information would still all be archived together and the board would remain relatively uncluttered. The only problem is that it would be substantially more work for the mods...

[tele]

I like to use the thread titles to see if there is anything new to read. Doesn't work very well with perpetual mega threads.

Before the proliferation of mods and merging, the board was self sorting and the frequent posters would bump a topic of interest, and you could also see by who started the thread and who the last post was if it was a discussion you didn't want to miss.

I think having the posters self regulate what stays on the first page by their posts is a loss that I miss. It is the posters that bring the content and the info to the board and if it gets buried or merged in mega threads you risk overcompensating for excess number of threads with seeming obsession on a few topics.

Maybe a compromise solution would be to still merge but less frequently, say fortnightly? Remember the "colonial animal"?

[JohnGalt]

I've considered bringing this up before, but when you place your mouse over the link for the thread on the homepage, a little box appears displaying the first post...the original first post...but what good is that really? How hard would it be to change that to the most recent post? So if I want to see what post 2,697 on the Rivers thread is worth reading (i.e. something other than cinder blocks), I can just put my mouse over it for a quick glance? I guess this may belong in the 'Introducing...' thread, but I think it applies here, as well.

Curious to hear your thoughts, -jk or devil84 or any of the technosavvy mods...

[-jk]

Question

Is there anyway we could create a folder on the main pages with general topics (UNC, UK, Austin Rivers) and when you click this folder, there can be many, un-merged threads that people can go through

That eliminates congestion on the front page, but also doesn't create "mega threads"

We could, but I'm not sure where we'd draw the line. We've contemplated creating a recruiting board, one where all recruiting news goes until a player signs. Perhaps even including speculation such as projected starters/playing time before we have any idea of what the roster will look like - perhaps waiting until after the nba draft pull out date passes.

-jk

[-jk]

Joined in 2007, but I've been reading here a lot longer than that.

This is a good topic - I'm interested to hear everyone's opinions. I'm sure I am not the standard DBR Board follower, but there are almost certainly people who follow my model.

I check the board several times a day. Unless a topic is completely uninteresting to me, I click the "last page" of each item on the front page. Merged threads, non-merged threads - no difference in my world, I'm going to read it all.

I would like to point out that one thing that separates DBR from the scads of fan sites across the internet is the existence of topics like this. The genuine interest in reader feedback is great.

I'll be interested to watch this board continue to evolve; thanks for everything you do, mods!

If you're going to read it all, try the "New" button rather than the "last page" button. So long as you're logged in, it will remember your place in the thread from computer to pda and back to computer.

-jk

[-jk]

The problem is, you don't know if the new posts are going to be about a major announcement Rivers just made or a tangential debate about something largely unrelated to Rivers' recruitment.

I think there might be a happy medium somewhere. For example, it might be more effective if "important posts" in mega-threads (i.e. new developments, announcements, good links) were generally started as their own thread, then merged into the existing thread after a day or so. Then we wouldn't have to comb the huge threads each day in search of actual news, but the information would still all be archived together and the board would remain relatively uncluttered. The only problem is that it would be substantially more work for the mods...


I like to use the thread titles to see if there is anything new to read. Doesn't work very well with perpetual mega threads.

Before the proliferation of mods and merging, the board was self sorting and the frequent posters would bump a topic of interest, and you could also see by who started the thread and who the last post was if it was a discussion you didn't want to miss.

I think having the posters self regulate what stays on the first page by their posts is a loss that I miss. It is the posters that bring the content and the info to the board and if it gets buried or merged in mega threads you risk overcompensating for excess number of threads with seeming obsession on a few topics.

Maybe a compromise solution would be to still merge but less frequently, say fortnightly? Remember the "colonial animal"?

The board is a lot bigger, and a lot busier, than in the old posting code days. We added 1000 new members just last season.

With the board software we have, merging takes all the messages from the two threads and mashes them together by date. If the threads have overlapping posts, they'll mesh and there's no telling which post came from which thread, you can't tell what you've read, and it completely ruins the "New" button's ability to track your place.

So purely from a back-end, tech perspective, we should never merge two threads that overlap by date by more than a very few posts. Rather we should append a new thread onto an existing one.

Where two long threads have converged to cover the same topic - and it happens, typically in a thread about a rival (or a not-our-rival) - we have locked one and added a link back to the other.

So, perhaps more apt questions are: When is it appropriate to append a thread onto another one, lock threads with a link, or just let them be?

-j "This has been an ongoing mod discussion for years" k

[-jk]

I've considered bringing this up before, but when you place your mouse over the link for the thread on the homepage, a little box appears displaying the first post...the original first post...but what good is that really? How hard would it be to change that to the most recent post? So if I want to see what post 2,697 on the Rivers thread is worth reading (i.e. something other than cinder blocks), I can just put my mouse over it for a quick glance? I guess this may belong in the 'Introducing...' thread, but I think it applies here, as well.

Curious to hear your thoughts, -jk or devil84 or any of the technosavvy mods...

Interesting idea. Of course in the recent UNC thread, you'd have seen a rather confusing parade of bells...

Maybe we could have analogous mouse-overs on the "new" and "last page" buttons, too. That's for a different thread, though. ;)

-jk

[Jarhead]

Question

Is there anyway we could create a folder on the main pages with general topics (UNC, UK, Austin Rivers) and when you click this folder, there can be many, un-merged threads that people can go through

That eliminates congestion on the front page, but also doesn't create "mega threads"


We could, but I'm not sure where we'd draw the line. We've contemplated creating a recruiting board, one where all recruiting news goes until a player signs. Perhaps even including speculation such as projected starters/playing time before we have any idea of what the roster will look like - perhaps waiting until after the nba draft pull out date passes.

-jk

Now we are getting somewhere. DukieBoy has hit on something, and it is encouraging, -jk, that you are giving some thought to the problem. A while back, a separate forum was created for a topic that had everyone's attention as it muddied the waters of the OT forum. That would be the LAX forum. It isolated an important, but otherwise frustrating topic, and let it run its course. Thankfully, it eventually went away. However it serves as an example of how things like th AR thread can be put in a place for enthusiastic followers of the topic to thrive. Then when AR makes his decision the forum goes to the archives.

One of the things I liked about the old Sagarmatha software was the ability to show a thread in a hierarchal format in which all of the sub-threads kind of hung together. Sometime ago a professional organization to which I belonged had a member designed bbs for members only. It required that each post in a thread be attached to a prior post, or by default, attached to the originating post in a thread. On opening a thread, you chose either a chronological list, or a tree structure. This tree structure made it easier for you to drill down to the parts of the thread that interests you. Beyond that it was rather basic. I don't know what happened to the system. I lost interest when I retired, and the bbs seems to have vanished.

[-jk]

Now we are getting somewhere. DukieBoy has hit on something, and it is encouraging, -jk, that you are giving some thought to the problem. A while back, a separate forum was created for a topic that had everyone's attention as it muddied the waters of the OT forum. That would be the LAX forum. It isolated an important, but otherwise frustrating topic, and let it run its course. Thankfully, it eventually went away. However it serves as an example of how things like th AR thread can be put in a place for enthusiastic followers of the topic to thrive. Then when AR makes his decision the forum goes to the archives.

One of the things I liked about the old Sagarmatha software was the ability to show a thread in a hierarchal format in which all of the sub-threads kind of hung together. Sometime ago a professional organization to which I belonged had a member designed bbs for members only. It required that each post in a thread be attached to a prior post, or by default, attached to the originating post in a thread. On opening a thread, you chose either a chronological list, or a tree structure. This tree structure made it easier for you to drill down to the parts of the thread that interests you. Beyond that it was rather basic. I don't know what happened to the system. I lost interest when I retired, and the bbs seems to have vanished.

You can view a thread hierarchically, but the "new" button won't work that way and on some really, really long threads, it breaks a bit. We default it to chronologically. While viewing a thread, look in the upper, right part of the screen, a bit below the search bar, and you'll see a "display" dropdown. Select "threaded mode" to see the thread presented hierarchically. Personally, I'm not real fond of it.

Anyone else have thoughts on merging/appending, and how we might do it differently? Should we do it differently? Are we close to an appropriate balance?

-jk

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I hate 98% of the thread merging. It's not really a problem because I don't read the merged threads. I don't read the recruiting threads - first because most of it is dribble and second because if there is something new and worthwhile I'll read it elsewhere without it being post #1658 in a thread I stopped reading on post #27 six months ago. The DBR boards have just about lost me, and I've been here and posting since 1997 in the Juliovision days. I've got well over 10,000 DBR posts combined, and most of them said more than "PM me". Julio and Boswell are friends of mine and the content is excellent. The boards - meh. Bring back the good old days. I discussed this with moderator Devil84 on Saturday.

The only threads that should be merged are when posters start new topics simultaneously or if a current thread has fallen off the front page in the last day or two and a new thread is started. But to bring back a year old thread with no posts in 11 months and merge it with something current and topical? Well, that's just ridiculous, and it has happened more than a time or two.