It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thread closed. Please contribute to the existing discussion.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Well and fine... but

By the time "Thread Closed" is declared by a moderator, a member (or members) have long since taken time to add links, do research, and make valid points. But once a thread is closed; because someone else got the story 'first', that research, those valid points get buried.

I believe if someone takes it upon themselves to come here and make a researched comment about a news item, we should do what we can to preserve, classify, and make readily available that comment.

I suggest either:

1) As a matter of protocol, when closing a thread, the moderator ALSO post a link WITHIN the "existing thread" TO the "closed thread". Ie; "There is a short thread here: link that has been closed and diverted to this page."

or

2) Or, as a matter of protocol, the content of the closed thread be added to the existing active thread.

A simple example of lost data would be this morning's thread about the exorcism of the 3 year old.

SportyMB posted 5 links in his OP that did not carry to the "existing thread"; locked those links will now die.

see:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Moderation in an effort to streamline conversation wasted SportyMB time, and eliminated (buried) data.

my 2c,

Sri Oracle




posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
If the posters on the closed thread are worried about it, they can post their links and info on the remaining open thread. I've done it myself. Usually after thinking about it for two seconds, I realize that my contribution isn't worth making twice, it's already on the board if anyone wants to see it.

This is just making more work for the mods, who have enough to do, just in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
It was closed after only four posts. I can't see where a ton of info was lost. How 'bout a control/C and a control/V into the first thread? It's so easy a caveman could do it.

Since when did an exorcism involve strangulation?

Edit: I meant control/V. Maybe a caveman can't do it.


Peace


[edit on 30-7-2007 by Dr Love]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I think the OP makes a valid point. And each member who's posted on a closed thread ought to consider adding their comments to the open thread.

Thread tagging also provides a great way to tie together dispersed threads.

You're all still tagging, riiiight?




posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
If the posters on the closed thread are worried about it, they can post their links and info on the remaining open thread.


It is not the poster; but the casual researcher that is deprived of the links.

The poster will often have a "one time" opinion on the subject; as there is so much to comment on these days. But that "one time" opinion may have taken an hour to generate along with links... but it gets pushed aside for the thread starter with the quick single link and the chronologically "first" post. What about when the second thread is the better OP; as in the case of the exorcism... where thread one has only 1 link... but thread two (closed) had 6 relevent links in its OP.

And you're right... most folks are not going to go back and repost. I often do not. You easily feel defeated... posting news requires effort. Posting it twice requires 1) noticing your thread was closed 2) double effort 3) transferring, quoting, or linking to responses from the closed thread

Do we (ATS) not have a responsibility to the preservation data being generated by members?



This is just making more work for the mods


Is making ONE post in the existing thread, to redirect traffic to "locked" information, that much additional work beyond closing the thread?

Sri



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I actually think that it could be done all at one time. On other sites I have seen threads merged, with the smaller/newer thread inserted into the main thread, with a caption at the beginning and end of the insertion stating what it was. And then the "dead" thread was just removed from the board.

I'm sure this would not create any more work than is currently being done, it would free up bandwidth, and all the information would be saved.

And no one who posted would feel like their contribution was without value.

Everybody wins!



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
It was closed after only four posts. I can't see where a ton of info was lost. How 'bout a control/C and a control/D into the first thread? It's so easy a caveman could do it.


Yes... closed after 4 post.. but also 5 researched links. The exorcist example is only one example... I watch, and I am sure you have watched larger threads die to "someone else brought this up first".

How can the reader, researcher, of a thread ctrl/c ctrl/v something from a closed thread he doesn't know exists?



Since when did an exorcism involve strangulation?


Off subject, but usually exorcisms do involve something around the neck... beads, medals, a purple stole, etc. Sometimes the same object around the neck of both the priest and the subject. Such could be interpreted as a strangulation attempt in a hectic situation

(I guess I should cut and paste the above to Bizzare Exorcism)

As I am about to post this, 11Bravo makes this comment in the "existing" exorcism thread:



Funny the thread that actually had responses gets shut down, even tho there were some comments there I was going to address.


I am,

Sri O



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
On other sites I have seen threads merged, with the smaller/newer thread inserted into the main thread, with a caption at the beginning and end of the insertion stating what it was. And then the "dead" thread was just removed from the board.


I have seen the same. Excellent solution. Certainly better than just locking the 2nd thread and letting it sink to the bottom.

Sri



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
It was closed after only four posts. I can't see where a ton of info was lost. How 'bout a control/C and a control/D into the first thread? It's so easy a caveman could do it.

Since when did an exorcism involve strangulation?

Peace



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
As stated above, you could simply copy your post, and post the same information in the existing linked discussion, it only takes seconds to do.

We do not have the merge thread option here, so we close duplicate threads as seen in the one in question here.

Also, we do allow one general forum discussion, and one breaking news discussion on the same topics, that is why sometimes you may see very similar discussions one in an ATS regular forum, the other in the breaking news forum and both can be open.

Duplicate topic threads in the breaking news forums will usually have the newer closed and linked to the earlier. The same generally applies to all regular forums as well.

[edit on 30-7-2007 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
As stated above, you could simply copy your post, and post the same information in the existing linked discussion, it only takes seconds to do.


As stated above, how does the reader do that?



We do not have the merge thread option here, so we close duplicate threads as seen in the one in question here.


Maybe I'm just a linux minded individual... Google search: ubuntu merge thread forum host With linux someone has already written the macro; its free, and more than likely there has been excellent discussion on how to imlpement. Everything we discuss is digital, its all time/day stamped, computers can do these things for us.

Closing active threads to breaking news with researched links is akin to burning books; or at least newspapers.

It doesn't matter if it was said first... anything that was said early in our memetic society changes things. Anything that was said early should be handled with utmost care.

A simple link within the newly encouraged thread, to information being excluded because of overlap, is all it would take to maintain continuity while "merge thread options" are acquired.

I feel the current policy reacts to the situation and that reactivity leads to a loss (or burying) of "breaking" data. Why not proact to maintain complete capture of chronological discussion; oral history.



Also, we do allow one general forum discussion, and one breaking news discussion on the same topics, that is why sometimes you may see very similar discussions one in an ATS regular forum, the other in the breaking news forum and both can be open.


agreed.



Duplicate topic threads [] will usually have the newer closed and linked to the earlier.


Yes, but the earlier should also be linked to any noteworthy discussion that occured in a now closed and soon to sink thread.

Two men find a noteworthy news story...

Case 1:
The man who strives to be first: he finds breaking news, gets a solid link, forms a short opinion and posts.

Case 2
The man who strives report breaking news with a little extra quality. He provides more links, more dialog, more background, spelling and grammar correct; he asks a friend to read over it... after a shrug and yeah that sounds about true... he then adds a tidbit of wisdom at the end; he clicks "post new thread"

Man 1 posts a new thread 12:17 am and Man 2 posts a new thread 12:21 am; same subject matter.

Man 2's thread will get locked and thereby sink into oblivion.

Thread 1 starts

Thread 2 dies

The first "intellegent" sounding argument in thread 1 begins the meme.

I am,

Sri Oracle



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   
If I post my thoughts in a thread, and it ends up closed. But there is another thread running on the same subject, I'll simply copy and paste my post from the closed thread, to the current one. I would ONLY do this if one had already been closed, and only if the other one is on the exact same subject.

But I have done this in the past.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Well as the author of the first post I can say I was the first to respond to the second one, placing a link to my original post there. It has since disappeared for reasons unknown, but I imagine it was still there until that thread was closed. Posting in a thread where a duplicate notification has already been issued rather than the preexisting thread I think would be obviously risky.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I think the idea of a backward link to the closed thread is an excellent one. But simply copying/pasting into the earliest thread is less desirable, since many times you are repeating what someone has already said, and that breaks some people's attention span.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
Well and fine... but

By the time "Thread Closed" is declared by a moderator, a member (or members) have long since taken time to add links, do research, and make valid points. But once a thread is closed; because someone else got the story 'first', that research, those valid points get buried.




I am the administrator of a forum for a group of friends. One of the capabilities we have on this forum is to combine threads. It should be completely available to ATS, and if not perhaps they could take some of their IPO monies and purchase the upgrade package?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
If I post my thoughts in a thread, and it ends up closed. But there is another thread running on the same subject, I'll simply copy and paste my post from the closed thread, to the current one. I would ONLY do this if one had already been closed, and only if the other one is on the exact same subject.

But I have done this in the past.



In my "real" life i manage a call center. We do customer service. I know customer service pretty well, actually.

One of the concepts of customer service (as determined by America Online) is that people want service that is fast, friendly, and useful. That is fine and dandy in the "old" system, but now there is competition for customers. Making a living isn't the goal for businesses anymore, making a fortune is the goal.

How do you attract further investment from customers? Provide additional value. provide solutions to issues presented. Asking the customer to provide the solution is not the "value add" needed to stay competitive in todays western market, as there will always be someone who will step in and fill that gap you have left (and thus, take your customers).

That is my two cents. The topic discussed here doesn't affect me so much, as i haven't started too many threads.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
There's an easy solution: Please Use The Search or Look For Your Topic BEFORE Posting a New Thread!!!

We had three news threads (in the same forum) on the topic of levitation today.

It's obvious people are not looking before posting.

Doing so can go a long way to solving this "problem" that is in fact created by members.


BTW there was a "merge threads" option in the past that would create nightmarish results of messed up board code. Due to the highly customized nature of the code on this board I don't think merge is a viable option for ATS, but SkepticOverloard is better able to answer the technical aspects of this.
.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
i generally submit a reply to the thread with the least looks/replies
if there more than one 'same idea' threads (it need not be a clone or exactly worded, duplicate title)

reason; i 'd like to give the little guy a little more active thread time...
each & every reply just might let their thread remain alive longer, or even to overtake the activity of the similar thread.
the first-in first-out is a decent starting point- -but the views/activity/responses/interest is the real 'bottom-line' issue


actually, i'd rather see a thread die on its own, rather than be 'closed'.
by a moderator because of institutional policy,
I understand (at least i think do) that a colsed thread may be accessed by the community, then, or in the future,
so the content isn't deleted
~> as is the case with a thread being relegated to the "Trash Bin"



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
There's an easy solution: Please Use The Search or Look For Your Topic BEFORE Posting a New Thread!!!

We had three news threads (in the same forum) on the topic of levitation today.

It's obvious people are not looking before posting.

Doing so can go a long way to solving this "problem" that is in fact created by members.


BTW there was a "merge threads" option in the past that would create nightmarish results of messed up board code. Due to the highly customized nature of the code on this board I don't think merge is a viable option for ATS, but SkepticOverloard is better able to answer the technical aspects of this.
.


Keep in mind that you have set up a system here that creates the problem, when seen from the angle you have given.

In this forum people are "rewarded" for starting threads and getting people to post in them, right? So, why would it be surprising that they post repeat threads? I cannot tell you how many times a thread is a duplicate, and it gets kept while the original is deleted. The reason given? Because one had more traffic than the other. I have seen people directly discuss it with moderators, and the moderator just basically did their job and "toed the line" for the ATS decision, but they could not do so intelligently because they were defending a wrong action

This is what upsets people, as well. They will take the time to post in the newest of the duplicate threads, and then it gets shut down. So, what do most people do (at least, the ones i discuss with)? They create duplicate posts in every thread as they go along (I do this) that way it doesn't get locked.

The system also does not encourage people to search. If you did a -500 point penalty for reposting a thread, i bet you could then make the system work FOR you, instead of against you.

Regarding the coding for merging threads, i believe you may be right. There is always a solution, but the technological aspects may make it too unsavory to follow such a solution.

You need to remove the attraction of getting the duplicate thread thrown up there by instituting a penalty to recoup the points gotten from throwing that duplicate thread up there without verifying that it is an original discussion.

My analogy that i use for this type of situation from an employee management perspective: it is easier to pull the string than to push it. Pushing it just causes it to collapse on itself and you won't get anywhere.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I have a question about this..

Ok so 2 threads of same thing.

On the forum I run over at So911 there is a option there to merge the threads together.

Is there such thing here on ATS... If not is it hard to implement??


I think that would be a good idea instead of killing thread b cause thread a was started before thread b..

That way it would make everyone happy.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join