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 or Retread? I say thread.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Recently I was involved in a thread about why the government knocked down WTC7. The OP thought it was superfluous. WTC 1 and 2 were already more than enough to make a point.

This thread was closed after a couple of pages because the Mod thought that people should contribute to the existing threads on the subject, rather than starting yet another thread.

I understand the Mod's point and yet in many cases people just want to get involved in a discussion on a subject. They don't want to read through 5 to 285 pages of posts on the subject before being allowed to say their two cents worth.

In the worst case they find that someone in the thread has already said the newbie's two cents worth, so there is no point in posting.

That defeats the purpose of forums like ATS. ATS isn't a research institute. Essentially, it is a gabfest, hopefully a high quality gabfest, but a gabfest nonetheless.

I'm suggesting that there be a new criterion for closing threads. Rather than closing a thread because an existing thread covers the topic, close a thread because a currently active thread covers the topic.

Multiple threads on a topic is usually a sign that newcomers are getting into a subject and starting from scratch. As long as a new thread doesn't overlap with a currently active thread, i.e., a thread on page one of the list of forum topics, I think it should be allowed to carry on.




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
well put and a great idea!!!!



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


There are couple of things worth noting . First off there is a ATS Policy that deals with big threads . Secondly there is the ATS issues thread that is ideal for the sort of issue that you have raised . Topics are already done to death on ATS as it is without repeat threads making an appearing .



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
If there was a way to code the board with some sort of auto-search feature when creating a new thread based on certian key words of topics and posts, then a list appears of the exsisting threads comes up, that might help with the repetitive thread issue. Im sure it could be done somehow.

So cmon all you coding experts out there...a challenge!!




Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Sometimes we get exact duplicate threads--especially in Breaking News. In that case it is superfluous so they tend to get shut down.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by ipsedixit
 

Secondly there is the ATS issues thread that is ideal for the sort of issue that you have raised .


I considered putting this topic into the ATS Issues thread but did not because I saw it as another big thread where the issue would be lost except to people who periodically check the most recent posts in that thread.


Topics are already done to death on ATS as it is without repeat threads making an appearing .


This goes to the heart of the point I am trying to make here. Issues are done to death on ATS for long time ATSers, but not for new people.

If they can't start new threads on old topics, then there is a kind of price of admission to post, the price being, use the search engine first, read a bunch of threads to see where you fit in and if you are lucky, what you wanted to say hasn't already been said in the thread of your choice.

Isn't there a danger of turning what is supposed to be a discussion forum into a body of work?

I know that new things are always happening in the world and therefore new topics and angles will arise, but I think that ATS will be debilitating itself somewhat if the only avenue open for discussion of old issues is to master the material that people have already posted on it, first.

In the View from Marrs forum, Jim Marrs has already asked people to post new questions in new threads because it is easier for him to get to people's questions if he doesn't have to deal with questions added onto already existing threads of varying lengths.

His would be an exaggerated case, and a special case, but the exaggeration makes the point in a way about what faces the newbie entering a topic that they know little about.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 27-1-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
Sometimes we get exact duplicate threads--especially in Breaking News. In that case it is superfluous so they tend to get shut down.


I absolutely do think that concurrently active threads should be consolidated. No argument there.

If a topic is not active, i.e., on the first page of the thread list in a particular forum, then I think such new threads should be allowed to continue. People who are veterans of older discussions of the same material can link to it where appropriate if they are involved in the new thread.

In some cases on 9/11 issues I have been involved in new threads where I knew that the material had been covered in other threads but where I also knew that there were people in the thread who just wanted to bat the ball around among themselves.

I think people should be able to do that. I don't want to jump into these threads as a "thread ender", spoiling other people's fun. Usually I put my info into the picture and if it isn't really picked up on, I just move on. No problem.

What I am trying to say here is not that I am the Mother Teresa of ATS, but that sometimes discussions are not simply about "advancing the topic".


[edit on 27-1-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I considered putting this topic into the ATS Issues thread but did not because I saw it as another big thread where the issue would be lost except to people who periodically check the most recent posts in that thread.


As I understand it staff members regularly review the ATS issues thread .




This goes to the heart of the point I am trying to make here. Issues are done to death on ATS for long time ATSers, but not for new people.


Not at all take the example of Ron Paul mania . Every time a new clip of Paul talking to the media is posted the same issues are discussed in a new topic .


If they can't start new threads on old topics, then there is a kind of price of admission to post, the price being, use the search engine first, read a bunch of threads to see where you fit in and if you are lucky, what you wanted to say hasn't already been said in the thread of your choice.


Look I haven't seen anything to indicate that ATS is unfriendly towards new members . Using the Google Search function is hardly a hassle . Reading threads could give newer members a fair idea of the wide variety of topics that are discussed on the boards .


Isn't there a danger of turning what is supposed to be a discussion forum into a body of work?


That would be a largely subjective call . Personally I would say that some of the larger threads I have taken part in could be considered body's of work. .



His would be an exaggerated case, and a special case, but the exaggeration makes the point in a way about what faces the newbie entering a topic that they know little about.


Myself I wouldn't encourage such activity even if it is from a Conspiracy Pro .



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 

I think everything you posted is valid but I don't think it invalidates my own comments. I'd like to see a slight shift in emphasis in the way newbies and new threads are handled and it seems that you are satisfied with the way things are now. Is that a fair summation? If so, we can just agree to disagree.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I agree with the OP here 100%.
In the RW new conversations are struck all the time about things that, while they may have been discussed or studied to death by others, are new to one or both of the new guys.
The current situation here is like saying, sorry, I don't want to hear your opinions or questions until you have read the entire of volumes 1,2,3, and 4 of this book -- in this case some 300 pages of redundant and repetitive arguments in an existing thread.
What a way to stifle someone's interests.
I think the OP is right, this site is not so much about the body of work that results from discussion and debate, but the discussions themselves. Its having the discussion that is most interesting.
People who have already had their fun should just sit back and let the "newbies" have theirs and not try try to be know-it-alls and spoil sports.

Just a side-bar here: when I was new to this site I started reading an interesting thread and posted a response, but didn't realize that it was "ancient" and so many pages long that the idea I was responding to had been dealt with years earlier. I got some pretty snide remarks back and was soooo embarassed.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 

Thanks for the response. What you are talking about is kind of what I had an intuition might be going on.

I really think this is an issue deserving of a good look by the three amigos.

There are tasteful and courteous ways that older members can get into a newbie conversation and in reality it is done all the time already. I think the current approach to new threads is in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

A rough rule of thumb, i.e., a thread has to be on page one of the topic list to be able to bump off a newer thread would take care of this issue in my view. Also, it would be easy for the Mod closing the thread to link to the reason for the closure.



[edit on 27-1-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Good point. I see good threads closed because there ae other threads that cover it. But there are always exceptions for the no jesus, no organized religion, masonic symbols threads.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
The policy normally followed (there are exceptions) is one that we believe works well and is fair. We realize that if we didn't allow duplicate threads on ATS we should just remove the new thread button from all pages. With a site as large as ATS almost every topic has been touched on somewhere. We would hate to have new members all excited about finding ATS get here only to have all their threads closed and redirected.

Anyway the policy is for duplicate threads to be closed if the previous thread on the same subject has been active in the last 2 to 4 weeks. This way we can have fresh views on previously discussed topics with a new author excited about championing the new thread at the helm.

As always you can use the complaint button in your memCenter if you disagree with staff action. We make mistakes sometimes and are big enough to recognize and correct that if there is a case.




edit: typo

[edit on 1/27/2009 by kinglizard]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
Anyway the policy is for duplicate threads to be closed if the previous thread on the same subject has been active in the last 2 to 4 weeks.


"Why did the govt collapse Building 7?" is the title of the thread that I had posted in, that was closed after two pages of posts and which caused me to start this thread.

When I typed the title into the search engine I found a thread titled "So the Government Destroyed WTC, but Why?" which was listed on page two of the search results and is an approximation of the thread in question (at least to the point where a question like the one in the original thread's title would not be out of place). This was a four page thread which was last posted to on 22-6-2006, two and one half years ago.

In the first two pages of search results I mentioned, there are other threads on WTC7 but not on why the government chose to collapse WTC7. The OP of the thread I'm talking about could reasonably be accused of derailing if he posted his question in those threads.

Among currently active threads you have to go to page four of the threads most recently added to, to find posts which were added four weeks ago. The closest thing I could find to the question "Why did the govt collapse Building 7?" was a thread last posted to three weeks ago, "FDNY Lieutenant Admitted Plan To ‘Take Down’ WTC 7!" and again, the question posed in the thread I'm talking about seems like a divergence from the topic of this last thread which one might expect to concentrate on what the fireman said, what he really meant, etc., and not on the plotters strategy.

There is another thread from three weeks ago, "Was Flight 93 targeted for WTC 7?" which relates to the question asked by the OP of the thread in question, but a newbie might not make the connection between Flt. 93 and WTC7. The search engine doesn't really assist a new person in this case.

How is a Mod supposed to evaluate all of that when they decide to close or not to close a thread? I sincerely doubt if they do evaluate all that. (By the way, I'm not knocking the Mod who closed the thread in question. What he did was fairly typical of what Mods do in these forums.)

I'd rather see a number of smaller threads which are more nuanced and possible heavily cross linked than big threads which are hard to digest while a lot of threads posted by newcomers or people with a slightly divergent take on a subject are closed.

I should add that I know that the question of why it would be in the interests of the plotters to take down WTC7 has been covered many times in various threads but usually as an aside. However, it is not easy to find these asides using the search engine.



[edit on 27-1-2009 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 27-1-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
My recommendation to you is to contact the moderator that closed the thread and ask why it was closed and what thread you should post in now that it is. If you aren't satisfied with the answer or still disagree you may file a complaint.

I don't know the mind of the moderator that closed the thread but I must assume there is a reason and like I said we aren't perfect so if a mistake was made it will be corrected.

[edit on 1/27/2009 by kinglizard]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by kinglizard
 

What I was trying to do in this thread is suggest a mechanism that might eliminate most, if not all, of the disagreements about thread closures. I think the current closure paradigm leaves a lot of people hanging. After one has been on the forum for a while, one learns to roll with it and simply get on to something else.

I think I'm pointing to a valid issue. If the powers that be on ATS disagree, fine, we just live with it.

I agree that one could contact the moderator in question and talk it out with him. One could complain also. Have threads previously closed ever been restored? I would be very surprised if they had.

My whole aim in this thread was to have a discussion at a higher conceptual level than simply complaining about how any one thread was handled.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Oh I see, we have a dedicated thread for that.
I hate to close this thread and redirect but....

We thank you for sharing your ideas with the intent of making ATS a better more user friendly place. The staff and owners do appreciate member feedback and have always considered your thoughts and wishes when making changes to the board. So thank you for caring so much about this community that you created this thread.

By keeping all member suggestions in one place it allows staff and owners the ability to quickly and thoroughly access all member recommendations when considering board changes. Otherwise many suggestions will be very difficult to locate considering the size of this board.

Understanding that we would appreciate it if you would add your thoughts/recommendations to the official thread dedicated to members suggestions for board change.

ATS, BTS, What would you like to see in the future?

Thanks for your contributions and understanding. I will now close this thread for the reasons stated above.

Thanks,
ATS Staff

>>Closing



[edit on 1/27/2009 by kinglizard]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join