Thread Spitting & Re-Naming

[JohnW2]

MOD: Please carry on this discussion in a new thread if you care. The original purpose of this has I feel been served.

As a matter of interest, does this forum's software not allow you to split threads (easily or at all)?

I ask because in most of the forums in which I have a 'staff'role, a very substantial proportion of my 'admin' activity is the splitting of threads.

Kind Regards, John

MOD: Yes, it can be done, but often by the time a thread that has wandered off at a tangent is identified, it often a few pages of posts off topic.

There are approx 40 forums on this board, so we often don't see them for a while.

 

[AndyPRK]

They would have to do that to litterly every thread in here

 

[JohnW2]

They would have to do that to litterly every thread in here

Well, not literally (or even 'litterly' ), but in a good proportion of cases ... but, as I said, that's precisely what I spend a fair bit of my time doing in other forums.

It's only really necessary when a discussion tangential to an OP becomes fairly lengthy. It's very common for their MOD: (or even there - MOD humour) to be a few messages of 'thread drift' after an OP has been answered, but that doesn't usually warrant splitting a thread. It follows that most of the thread splitting I do is fairly 'retrospective' - i.e. I wait until there have been maybe a dozen or so 'off-topic' posts before I split the thread (at the point at which the drift originally arose).


Kind Regards, John

 

[sparkwright]

God.

I've just seen 8 pages of absolute waffle on the subject of sleeving when there's no need to (only for the installers reference).

I think I'd rather all the irrelevant stuff was shipped to another forum, let alone thread. Or not even sent in the first place.

I'm being unfair.

I like to have the occasional theoretical discussion too, and lots can be learnt.

Don't see the point in starting new threads, it only splits what's already been said. All threads die a natural enough death anyway, they seldom get looked at again.

 

[JohnW2]

... I'm being unfair. I like to have the occasional theoretical discussion too, and lots can be learnt.

Same here, and that's why I get involved in such things. Were it not for 'topic drift' (whether in an internet forum, business meeting, social gathering or pub etc.) I would know a lot less about a whole variety of subjects than I know today!

Don't see the point in starting new threads, it only splits what's already been said. All threads die a natural enough death anyway, they seldom get looked at again.

Opinions vary but, as I observed (in a 'split thread') it certainly gets messy when one discussions gets spread amongst three threads (as has just happened here!).

Ironically, the main argument one hears for splitting threads relates to the interests of the 'off-topic' tangential discussion that has arisen (rather than the OP) - i.e. so that it can be split off and given a different title which might enable people to find it by searching in the future. As you say, provided that the original OP gets 'done and dusted', there's really no harm to that original thread if there is a lot of 'something else' tagged onto the end (after the OP has been dealt with).

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

I've just seen 8 pages of absolute waffle ...

Then you chose to see it - you aren't forced to keep reading and hitting the next page button
But what you considered to be waffle is (assuming we're talking about the same thread) actually of interest to some of us. If I decide that a multi-page thread isn't of interest then I don't keep reading it.

 

[sparkwright]

Then you chose to see it - you aren't forced to keep reading and hitting the next page button
But what you considered to be waffle is (assuming we're talking about the same thread) actually of interest to some of us. If I decide that a multi-page thread isn't of interest then I don't keep reading it.

I didn't read it all.

I've also explained I like a like a lengthy discussion too from time to time.

 

[JohnW2]

MOD: Yes, it can be done, but often by the time a thread that has wandered off at a tangent is identified, it often a few pages of posts off topic.

Yes, as I said above (post #3), a tangential discussion can be quite well developed before one notices and/or decides to do something about it - but, as I have said above, 'late retrospective splitting' does serve the purpose of creating a thread title which is relevant (to the tangential discussion) which may be of benefit to forum members who search for information in the future.

Whatever, if you do have the facility to split threads, I wonder why you don't do it when you detect one of these situations (even if 'late'), rather than ask the forum members to do something which is nothing like as useful, as in ...

MOD: Please carry on this discussion in a new thread if you care. The original purpose of this has I feel been served.

As I see it, there are two main problems with asking forum members to do this. Firstly, unlike you, they obviously cannot actually split the thread - they can only start a new thread, resulting in the discussion being spread over at least two threads (a problem for anyone who finds just one part of the discussion in the future). I say 'at least' because the second main problem is that it can (as in the recent example) end up with the discussion being spread amongst three or more threads, with a 'branch'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Moved to this thread

 

[JohnW2]

In the other thread, I mentioned that I'd be posting an additional wiring diagram, and here it is :

Simon, as I recently wrote ...

... As I see it, there are two main problems with asking forum members to do this. .... the second main problem is that it can (as in the recent example) end up with the discussion being spread amongst three or more threads, with a 'branch'!

As an illustration, you have now spread the discussion into a fourth thread!

There are two existing 're-births' of the original thread .... (here) and (here) . In the interests of reducing the confusion a bit, might I perhaps suggest that you re-post your recent message (to which I am replying here) this in one of those (and then perhaps 'delete' the one here)?

Kind Regards, John