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]

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.