ATS Members - Do You Prefer NEW Threads or Adding to Existing Threads?.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: carewemust

The only reason I appreciate a heads up with new threads is many times I am unaware of an older, existing thread already talking about an issue, so then if new news is only posted in that old thread I miss out on it.

If I am aware then I prefer posting in the older, existing thread, instead of cluttering the boards with duplicates.

I dont check recent threads all that often and rely mostly on the 'new' thread page. So sometimes I miss, or forget the older thread.

Ah..that would explain why new threads get more responses, than existing threads with additional info added!
My first click when arriving at ATS is the "Recent" button. Thanks for the reply Stoch64!

I do always appreciate members that post links to older threads on the same topic, and to the mods when they redirect to older threads.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
I think nobody really searches ATS.

When I see a couple threads on the same subject, I post to the earlier one figuring a poor mod will come in an close the newer one but even they miss one from time to time!

This is a great question! I like to take my time and make an interesting thread with a couple sources. Other times, I search and only find a pre-2012 thread. Seeing as my timeline shifted that year, I tend to stay away from those for good measure! LOL

Same here.. I usually choose the earlier one. Also, I'm finding that people have "pet" forums that they monitor. The same subject can be in two political forums, because the poster doesn't monitor any others. Personally, I start every ATS visit with a click on "Recent", because even the 911 forum receives some interesting posts, many years after that attack.

The "search" is how I find if an existing topic is available, and also how I get to existing topics that I remember seeing in the past. The responses are interesting if you post to an existing thread that was started years ago. If an astronaut said that he saw a UFO in 2008 and a thread was started, I add to that thread if he elaborates on his sighting here in 2017.

Great topic!

I need to go start a thread on this...

a reply to: carewemust
No AND yes. A mix of the two but not like it currently is.

Having worked as both a software architect and programmer, the answer to this question seems (!) easy for me:

The problem is the data-structure of this forum and forums in general. It should be possible for some events and in some choosen sub forums like politics, technic etc, so that common users can create a sub-folder for a topic. Add a feature for mods to activate a thread into a sub-folder and voila. In this topic-specific sub-folder you can then have multiple threads!

Why? Because you can´t just put each single topic in one thread, ATS is WAY to fast for this.

I dare to say it would make the same or even less work than closing double threads, that often arrise even after weeks. I´d also dare to say this is doable with a small hack* in no time. That´s something you can shake out of your hands. What I mean with this, it´s doable without lenghty planing, just do it. You just add an extra layer to the sub-forums and allow common users to create those and let a mod or two look over it.

Testing it and doing the update would take some extra time and probably multiple times longer than actually writing the code.

AND another positive feature: more ad-revenue for ATS.

I might be saying that because it´s my idea, but it´s a great idea!

originally posted by: Majic
Great topic!

I need to go start a thread on this...

a reply to: verschickter

SkepticOverlord (Bill Irvine) is the only one with the ability to access or change the code, so he would be the guy to talk to. He's been very busy with other things, though, and gets spammed with all sorts of issues on even the best of days, so I can't guarantee he'd respond, but it couldn't hurt to try.

Many moons ago I suggested using more sub-forums to better categorize topics, but Bill pointed out (correctly) that the fewer hoops members have to jump through to get to a discussion, the better. I know this isn't the same thing, but the same principle may apply.

It seems no matter where you go on the Internet, "General Discussion" is usually the most popular forum. People naturally prefer fewer constraints, and despite the value and need for some sort of topical organization to keep things from becoming one giant hairball, I really can't blame them.

For my part, I would love (and have been requesting for years) the ability to merge threads. Most modern boards have it, and it would solve tons of problems on ATS. But alas, on a custom-coded board, that's a small matter of programming and just one of a long list of things people want, and me wanting it won't change that.

Whatever the outcome, I do appreciate your interest and willingness to help.

That's never a bad thing.

a reply to: carewemust

Seems to me it all depends.
IF it is the exact same topic, we would only have one thread...the others would be closed.
Say, a big earthquake strikes somewhere.

Some updates should naturally be in the first thread.
As the story unfolds, it lends continuity.
In fact, starting a new thread with every update/announcement would get VERY confusing, IMO.
As an example, the Manchester thread was better served being one thread, in one place.
I think that is true of all fast-moving topics.

Topics like the Russia/US election events are long and ongoing, and it is more natural to have several threads devoted to various updates over many days and weeks.

a reply to: Majic
Honestly, I thought about contacting him, did similar in the past. But then I was in the thread already and just typed and posted so others at least can read it. The hive mind is always the better way. Problems I don´t see, others will point out and otherwhise.

We should use the hive mind for more things.

Back to topic, when we´re are it, can we have the feature that in some forums, a minimum amount of chars is expected or the post will not be possible? And a polling system.

I would prefer a single thread with nested replys in order to streamline the various different subtopics.

Main thread
>reply 1
>reply 2
>subreply 1
>subreply 2
>subreply 3
>subreply 4
>reply 3
Different topic

etc. with the ability to expand or condense the various different reply trees. That makes relevance easier to find, keeps rants out, and allows for easy searching of more information without reading through 30 pages to see if something was mentioned.

I try to update an existing thread when info comes out down the road, so to speak.

It's frustrating when a thread starts then people add one or two more which then splits the discussion into multiple places. I suppose some people just want to own the thread or similar.

The bottom line is we just deal with whatever happens.

originally posted by: carewemust
I've wondered this for YEARS, but never bothered to ask..until now.

When a subject is started, why do ATS members not continually add to it, as new developments arise?

Two examples...

1. North Korea - Kim Jong has sworn to launch at least 1 missile a week. There is a thread entitled "North Korea Watch 2017". In my mind, every time a test missile is launched, that information should be added to the existing thread, instead of starting a new one. This makes it easier to follow developments. Ex: Give your book a broad title, and then add chapters as the story unfolds.

Instead, there must be at least 8 threads at this point about North Korea's weapons tests.

2. James Comey: He has already testified at least twice about Russia, 2016 Election, Collusion, etc.. Today, it was announced that he was going to testify again next week. Instead of starting a thread, I found the existing "Comey Agrees to Testify" thread and added this latest announcement to it.

Meanwhile, at the same time, an ATS member started a fresh "Comey Agrees to Testify" thread.


QUESTION: As an ATS Member... do YOU prefer to see a NEW THREAD for every development or announcement, even if that development/announcement would be a natural add-on to an existing thread on the overall subject?

If most of the responses are "YES", I'll abandon the common-sense approach that we use in Industry and Business forums, and do it the ATS way. Thanks in advance for your feedback!

-CareWeMust

the list of threads linked in my signature is another example of redundancy in starting a new thread every time a development comes up in a preestablished subject or someone wants to take a shot at looking clever. it is often very repetitive and monotonous.

a reply to: carewemust

I dont think I quite MIS-interpreted it...just added an interpretive inclusion (perhaps misguided on my part!).

You know, since its been brought up? If one goes back into the individual Forums? We've got some topics in all of them that are MILES long of replies going back some to 10+ years!

Every once and awhile I scan back through some of them and am continually amazed at the sheer volume of diverse and topical, pertinent subjects we've discussed over the last decade plus...

Perhaps it would be interesting to have a "RESURRECTED THREAD" Forum with a requirement of an old thread being reborn at least 10 years old???! What new opinions/discussions and info could/would be presented?!!

Thanks!

I come to ATS for the breaking news. New threads seem to be the easiest way to find new developments, and often times I will gravitatext back to existing threads. New developments tend to get lost in existing threads... some members derail threads just to repeatedly pontificate on a point they have beaten to death, or to cast aspersions at other members. I just want to keep current on the news

First thing I check when I come here is new content, so I tend to gravitate to newer threads. When I do a search for a topic, it invariably leads to older threads, and if I post in those, it's rare that anyone responds.

My theory on why some people start new threads when there are already existing threads on the topic is so they can get flags and stars. Thread starters tend to get more of those than people who post in existing threads.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
Perhaps it would be interesting to have a "RESURRECTED THREAD" Forum with a requirement of an old thread being reborn at least 10 years old???! What new opinions/discussions and info could/would be presented?!!

Even though "necromancy" is frowned upon in many contemporary forums, it's not a crime on ATS. If a thread is open for posting, no matter how old it may be, and you're interested in continuing the discussion, by all means go for it.

Of course, content-free posts like "bump!" are discouraged, but adding relevant comments or asking fresh questions are perfectly valid ways of bringing an old topic back up for further consideration.

Not that starting a new thread isn't a good choice, either, just that there are options, and if a thread interests you, regardless of its age, please don't be shy about jumping in.

a reply to: roadgravel


I now understand how 2 or 3 threads get started on the same topic. Some members only visit certain forums. From now on, when I open AboveTopSecret.com, click on "RECENT", and see the same topic started/posted to 2 or 3 sub-forums, I'll understand why.

Like you, I was thinking that ATS had wanna-be journalist members who got-off on starting threads...making a headline. But I now realize that most of these instances are because most members don't start their ATS visit by clicking "RECENT" , like I do. There are a few members who never SEARCH before starting a topic. You see that pattern after awhile.

a reply to: carewemust

There's also a kind of "race condition" that occurs even when members do everything right. It's not unusual for two or more ATSers to start a thread within a minute or even seconds of each other without knowing who else -- if anyone -- is about to post it. It's especially problematic in the case of breaking news.

What really sucks is that one member might dig deep and work hard to write up a thorough, top-notch OP, only to get "aced" by someone else who puts up a minimal thread starter -- and neither are wrong. Being put in that position is demoralizing for members who want to spend the time to write quality posts, and drives down content quality as a whole.

For the staff, what really sucks is being put in the position of having to adjudicate these cases all the time, and we want to be fair about it. It's always a judgment call, and rarely to anyone's complete satisfaction.

I hate hate hate hate HATE having to close duplicate threads that people have already posted to and, in some cases put hours of work into, whatever the reason. I personally don't care if someone searched before posting or not, what matters is making it as easy as possible to share opinions here, and once they are posted, making it as easy as possible to continue the discussion.

Once someone posts on ATS, it becomes kind of sacred to me. It deserves to be protected. Hence my ranting about thread merging (yeah, yeah, sorry, wrong forum, I know, I know).

Anyway, what we have is what we have, and while there's always room for improvement, at least it gets the job done.

a reply to: carewemust
I prefer threads about Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I think they really help the site's image and promote an alternative forum concerned with conspiracies, ufos, cryptozoology, paranormal events.

In addition I feel the polite discourse and sharp facts used within the HC/DT threads really highlight our intellect as a group of like minded investigators.

On the subject of new vs old threa.... .... blah blah blah whatever

a reply to: carewemust The posting format of ATS makes it obsolete to add comments in existing threads, which are out dated. Is vague and I don't like it, but that's the result of the development last years. ATS is not anymore forum, it's chat room, get over it. If you want conspiracy forum, go to the bar...

Most people ignore a thread once it gets multiple pages.
And for good reason as most of it after the fourth or fifth page is BS.

Its absolutely amazing that people keep posting for 20 or 30 pages.
Only the people posting read it, nobody else does.

Buck