If news breaks, could we not merge threads?

[cobra]

It's a little cumbersome to come to the site and see big news that Keyshawn has been released and see that the news is "at post #115." It took me a bit to even find it.

I understanding mergers when its speculative chatter and opinions. But news should be its own thread.

[Avery]

It will be pretty annoying having 12 different threads saying 'TO SIGNED WOW!?

[Hostile]

It's a little cumbersome to come to the site and see big news that Keyshawn has been released and see that the news is "at post #115." It took me a bit to even find it.

I understanding mergers when its speculative chatter and opinions. But news should be its own thread.In a word, No.

If you know a better way to manage that many page hits I'm all ears. PM me your suggestions.

[cobra]

Well, at least one should be the breaking news with the first post.

But the Keyshawn signing was the 115th post on some thread that was about who knows what at first. So it took going through 9 pages of posts to get to the news.

So if there are three posts which say "TO signs, link from Espn", I can see those being merged. Because at least I will have the news at the beginning of a thread when I open it.

[lurkercowboy]

It's a little cumbersome to come to the site and see big news that Keyshawn has been released and see that the news is "at post #115." It took me a bit to even find it.

I understanding mergers when its speculative chatter and opinions. But news should be its own thread.

I am not too crazy about the mergers either. How about a sticky at the top if TO signs or anything else important happens. The corresponding thread could be locked, the thread title would tell us what was going on. Then we could discuss it in 'normal' thread(s).

[CaptainAmerica]

In a word, No.

If you know a better way to manage that many page hits I'm all ears. PM me your suggestions.


:laugh2: I knew what kind of reaction this thread would get if I was a moderater.

We are a lazy bunch aren't we?

[Rack Bauer]

Well, at least one should be the breaking news with the first post.

But the Keyshawn signing was the 115th post on some thread that was about who knows what at first. So it took going through 9 pages of posts to get to the news.

So if there are three posts which say "TO signs, link from Espn", I can see those being merged. Because at least I will have the news at the beginning of a thread when I open it.


You could still merge but edit the first post and put the news there.

Just a suggestion. I don't really care either way as long as the title tells you what post the news is on.

[trickblue]

In a word, No.

If you know a better way to manage that many page hits I'm all ears. PM me your suggestions.

What I would normally do is take the "Official" announcement or recap and edit it in to post #1 in quote fashion giving the credit to the poster...

[cobra]

That sounds like a good method trickblue. :)

[Hostile]

Well, at least one should be the breaking news with the first post.

But the Keyshawn signing was the 115th post on some thread that was about who knows what at first. So it took going through 9 pages of posts to get to the news.

So if there are three posts which say "TO signs, link from Espn", I can see those being merged. Because at least I will have the news at the beginning of a thread when I open it.There were 5 threads about his release before he was even released.

Like I said, if you know a better way to manage chaos PM me. 946 users online last I looked. That's a lot of people looking for news. They don't usually look at page 2. Without merging the threads we would have 20 of the same topic guaranteed. We get as many as 10 on some topics already.

[cowboys101]

Lets not merge any threads

[iceberg]

Well, at least one should be the breaking news with the first post.

But the Keyshawn signing was the 115th post on some thread that was about who knows what at first. So it took going through 9 pages of posts to get to the news.

So if there are three posts which say "TO signs, link from Espn", I can see those being merged. Because at least I will have the news at the beginning of a thread when I open it.

they change the subject line accordingly. it gets VERY annoying to see 50 KEYSHAWN RELEASED!!! threads - why would you wanna keep 'em all out front?

[Juke99]

If we have threads that take very different approaches to the same news item, then we'd probably let them stand on their own.

So, that said, get creative about how you're looking at the situation, post a thread that is different than others and it'll stay on its own.

[fortdick]

Why do people get anal over multiple threads? I prefer a new thread that doesn't have 45 pages of posts to go thru to get the most recent info.

[StanleySpadowski]

In a word, No.

If you know a better way to manage that many page hits I'm all ears. PM me your suggestions.

Have you thought of a forum solely devoted to releases and FA signings? It seems to work well for the draft news/items.

I understand some people's frustration having to wade through 20 pages of one line responses to get to the "news" that they are looking for, especially when the breaking news is buried in a pre-existing thread.

[cobra]

Hostile, I'm not trying to be critical, amigo. I think y'all are doing an awesome job, and I thank you very much for the fine place y'all give us through your labor of love.

Look, I know this is hectic for you, and it is being managed well. And it isn't like this is a general problem. Today is a truly, truly unique day.

Keep up the good work.

[lurkercowboy]

You guys realize that Cowboyszone.com is my sole source of Cowboys news.

[iceberg]

Have you thought of a forum solely devoted to releases and FA signings? It seems to work well for the draft news/items.

I understand some people's frustration having to wade through 20 pages of one line responses to get to the "news" that they are looking for, especially when the breaking news is buried in a pre-existing thread.

may as well just make a forum for any possible topic then.

[AdamJT13]

I second the original post. Tacking the actual news onto the eighth page of a thread that started with rumor/speculation/unconfirmed reports isn't convenient for anyone who wants to read the actual news article. Even if you know the article is in "post 151," you can't get there from the forum view or from page 1. You have to click on the thread, then click on page 5 (so that it gives you page 8 as an option), then click on page 8.

Sometimes I think there's too much of a tendency to merge threads here just because the topic is similar.

[silver]

I second the original post. Tacking the actual news onto the eighth page of a thread that started with rumor/speculation/unconfirmed reports isn't convenient for anyone who wants to read the actual news article. Even if you know the article is in "post 151," you can't get there from the forum view or from page 1. You have to click on the thread, then click on page 5 (so that it gives you page 8 as an option), then click on page 8.

Sometimes I think there's too much of a tendency to merge threads here just because the topic is similar.

i agree. let the rumor thread die after the article thread is posted.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's a little cumbersome to come to the site and see big news that Keyshawn has been released and see that the news is "at post #115." It took me a bit to even find it.

I understanding mergers when its speculative chatter and opinions. But news should be its own thread.

I would appreciate that as well. Would make the threads more cumbersome.

[trickblue]

Have you thought of a forum solely devoted to releases and FA signings? It seems to work well for the draft news/items.

I understand some people's frustration having to wade through 20 pages of one line responses to get to the "news" that they are looking for, especially when the breaking news is buried in a pre-existing thread.

We've tried that approach with other "Zones", but members continually post things related to said Zone in the main forum...

[BigDFan5]

Could someone merge this and move it thanks :)

[Hostile]

I second the original post. Tacking the actual news onto the eighth page of a thread that started with rumor/speculation/unconfirmed reports isn't convenient for anyone who wants to read the actual news article. Even if you know the article is in "post 151," you can't get there from the forum view or from page 1. You have to click on the thread, then click on page 5 (so that it gives you page 8 as an option), then click on page 8.

Sometimes I think there's too much of a tendency to merge threads here just because the topic is similar.In fairness, the original post was added to the existing thread. Not merged from another thread.

[cowboys101]

Why do people get anal over multiple threads? I prefer a new thread that doesn't have 45 pages of posts to go thru to get the most recent info.



I agree.

[Hostile]

Hostile, I'm not trying to be critical, amigo. I think y'all are doing an awesome job, and I thank you very much for the fine place y'all give us through your labor of love.

Look, I know this is hectic for you, and it is being managed well. And it isn't like this is a general problem. Today is a truly, truly unique day.

Keep up the good work.I'm not taking it as criticism cobra, and if you were being critical I would listen.

We're doing the best we can, but we're always open minded to better ideas how to do stuff.

[AdamJT13]

In fairness, the original post was added to the existing thread.

By a moderator.

[Clove]

I'm not taking it as criticism cobra, and if you were being critical I would listen.

We're doing the best we can, but we're always open minded to better ideas how to do stuff.No need to be Hostile.:p: J/K

[lurkercowboy]

I agree with Adam.

If TO signs, there will be hundreds of posts about it. I would like to see a sticky at the top of the page, with a closed thread, giving the official breaking news, if any. Then, we would not have to wade through all the opinion, pro and con, posts just to get to the real news.

I'm just using TO as an example.

[AdamJT13]

And by the way, even though the Keyshawn thread was edited to include the article in the first post, the next seven pages of posts are all discussing the rumors/speculation, etc. To me, that just shows that editing the first post in a thread isn't as convenient as allowing a new thread.

[Juke99]

Again folks...be creative about your thread and it won't be merged...but "This sucks" or "The Cowboys just won the Super Bowl by adding TO"...and dozens of variations of these two approaches, is gonna result in a merged thread.

If someone has something different to say...or a different perspective...then the thread will stand on its own.

[Rack Bauer]

And by the way, even though the Keyshawn thread was edited to include the article in the first post, the next seven pages of posts are all discussing the rumors/speculation, etc. To me, that just shows that editing the first post in a thread isn't as convenient as allowing a new thread.


Gotta agree with this, in that situation.


No need to add factual information to a "Rumor" thread. Just let the fact thread stay, and move the rumor thread to the opinion zone (or wherever they get moved).

[Rack Bauer]

Again folks...be creative about your thread and it won't be merged...but "This sucks" or "The Cowboys just won the Super Bowl by adding TO"...and dozens of variations of these two approaches, is gonna result in a merged thread.

If someone has something different to say...or a different perspective...then the thread will stand on its own.


In cases like this, I agree they should be merged.


But, as Adam stated, it doesn't make sense to merge a post/article with factual information into a thread that has been discussing rumors/specuation for 8 pages.

If you allow the "Fact" thread to stay, the rumor thread will die anyway. Just move the rumor thread to a diff forum, and let the fact thread stay.

JMO

[Scotman]

I think the mods do a fine job with the threads.

It's a huge chore, and evidently a thankless one too.

[Juke99]

In cases like this, I agree they should be merged.


But, as Adam stated, it doesn't make sense to merge a post/article with factual information into a thread that has been discussing rumors/specuation for 8 pages.

If you allow the "Fact" thread to stay, the rumor thread will die anyway. Just move the rumor thread to a diff forum, and let the fact thread stay.

JMO


Sure...I think that's a valid point.

[Juke99]

I think the mods do a fine job with the threads.

It's a huge chore, and evidently a thankless one too.


Reality tosses an Annual Mod Party...Last year he rented a Karaoke machine and Winicki sang the best of Don Ho in a hula skirt...PLUS...I'll tell ya, I've never seen so many creative dishes made from CheezWhiz, Beef Jerkies, and Ritz crackers. What a shindig!

Everything would have been great last year except Cbz wanted us to play naked Twister. :eek:

So, nah...it's not a thankless job at all.

It's worse than that!

;)

[Hostile]

By a moderator.We'll punish her later I guess.

:wink2:

[Cbz40]

Reality tosses an Annual Mod Party...Last year he rented a Karaoke machine and Winicki sang the best of Don Ho in a hula skirt...PLUS...I'll tell ya, I've never seen so many creative dishes made from CheezWhiz, Beef Jerkies, and Ritz crackers. What a shindig!

Everything would have been great last year except Cbz wanted us to play naked Twister. :eek:

So, nah...it's not a thankless job at all.

It's worse than that!

;)

Shhhhhhhhhhhh you're ruining my image.:)

[Rack Bauer]

We'll punish her later I guess.

:wink2:


http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/5484/1692451tx.jpg

[Erik_H]

Again folks...be creative about your thread and it won't be merged...but "This sucks" or "The Cowboys just won the Super Bowl by adding TO"...and dozens of variations of these two approaches, is gonna result in a merged thread.

If someone has something different to say...or a different perspective...then the thread will stand on its own.

I have to chime in on the Mod side on this one. Granted, having the factual info at post 115 was a bit messed up, and I have had a few of my posts incorrectly merged into other threads. But the alternative of 10-15 similar posts filling up the first page a pushing other good threads off the first page is far worse.

do what ya gotta do guys (and gals)

[AbeBeta]

wow, 3 pages of posts about whether to merge threads or not. site is humming today.

imagine what would happen if we actually signed TO?

[Hostile]

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/5484/1692451tx.jpgI take it you want video again.

[AdamJT13]

We'll punish her later I guess.

I'm just saying, a moderator isn't likely to post a new thread if she/he knows it's going to get merged.

Anyhow, I'm not disgruntled. I just think it would be better and more convenient if the tendency to merge threads was lessened.

[Juke99]

I'm just saying, a moderator isn't likely to post a new thread if she/he knows it's going to get merged.

Anyhow, I'm not disgruntled. I just think it would be better and more convenient if the tendency to merge threads was lessened.


You bring alot of quality material to the site, so, I for one can say that I am happy you are gruntled. :D ;)

[Juke99]

I have to chime in on the Mod side on this one. Granted, having the factual info at post 115 was a bit messed up, and I have had a few of my posts incorrectly merged into other threads. But the alternative of 10-15 similar posts filling up the first page a pushing other good threads off the first page is far worse.

do what ya gotta do guys (and gals)


I agree about having to dig 6 pages to find the facts...but it's funny because geez, it only takes a few seconds to scan the material...but we've all gotten so accustomed to instant information.

I remember waiting four days to get my Dallas Cowboys Weekly in the mail.

My point in this is, folks, if you see a thread that says "Signing TO makes me ill" don't start another one that says "Signing TO Sucks" and it'll make it a lot easier for all involved.

Simply post your feelings within the appropriate thread rather than starting a new one addressing the same topic.

And we'll all be alot happier. :D

[Erik_H]

I agree about having to dig 6 pages to find the facts...but it's funny because geez, it only takes a few seconds to scan the material...but we've all gotten so accustomed to instant information.

I remember waiting four days to get my Dallas Cowboys Weekly in the mail.

My point in this is, folks, if you see a thread that says "Signing TO makes me ill" don't start another one that says "Signing TO Sucks" and it'll make it a lot easier for all involved.

Simply post your feelings within the appropriate thread rather than starting a new one addressing the same topic.

And we'll all be alot happier. :D

If most people would do that, this site would be awhole lot cleaner and there would be a need to merge nearly as much.

Pretty good point. Especially for guy who lives in Merrick

[Hostile]

I'm just saying, a moderator isn't likely to post a new thread if she/he knows it's going to get merged.

Anyhow, I'm not disgruntled. I just think it would be better and more convenient if the tendency to merge threads was lessened.I didn't take it that you were miffed Adam. I was just joking around. That's why I added the smiley.

The suggestion of news articles not merged into threads about rumors and discussions has some merit. I give you my word we'll discuss the merits of it.

We're just trying to make it so that people don't have to go back 2 or 3 pages to find the topics they want to discuss. The most challenging thing for us is to keep the front page as current as possible.

It is especially annoying on game days. We have a thread for the game talk and someone will think we need a new thread with a 2 line thought about some player stinks because he fails at something.

We try not to have 20 threads about the same blurb on ESPN News. That's all.

Fair enough?

[Juke99]

If most people would do that, this site would be awhole lot cleaner and there would be a need to merge nearly as much.

Pretty good point. Especially for guy who lives in Merrick


Well *patting myself on the back* Thanks.

So, sounds like you might know a few things about NY.