Why do moderators keep merging posts

[Deep Purple]

	Quote:	ceppych
	Are there any silver-surfer courses in the use of the EF?

Good idea. I have run short courses in the UK for silver surfers and other novices covering Facebook and Google etc.

[Phil_MCR]

	Quote:	ceppych
	Are there any silver-surfer courses in the use of the EF?

nah, just trial by fire

[adrianlondon]

Usenet:

Oh look! Porn!

alt.dodgy.porn
"Adult fun, uuencoded binary, part 1/24"

Turn on modem, select to download 24 posts, wait until next Tuesday.

Now:

Xtube, wank, sleep.

It was more fun in the olden days. More anticipation.

[nickatbasel]

Pots....kettles

Just jokin'

Cheers,
Nick

	Quote:	Uncle Max
	Or people could simply stop posting guff. That may solve the problem.

[ceppych]

Is this the right forum for finding brown sugar in
Gillygillyossenfefferkatzenellenbogen by the sea?

[chiguy]

I think amogles raises a perfectly valid point (with which I generally agree), but at the end of the day, it bears little impact on how I use EF. I can understand why mods might merge successive posts in many cases, but if there are various tangents/discussions going on within a thread, I can find it annoying or distracting if someone uses just one post to comment on multiple subthreads. In fact, it makes it more annoying to then quote the multiple-quoted thread and delete the stuff I don't care to comment on or, worse for other readers, leave the unrelated text in the quote and just comment on one point among many.

Another point I'd raise is that if I'm catching up with a quickly growing thread, I'm not going to use multi-quote from posts on page 1, 3, 7 and 12. I'm going to comment on posts as I read and react to them. At best, I might read a few pages, but beyond that, it's not worth it for me. If the mods want to merge my posts, so be it, but I'm not sure that adds to the ease of reading/use of EF IMO.

[Treverus]

	Quote:	chiguy
	I'm not going to use multi-quote from posts on page 1, 3, 7 and 12. I'm going to comment on posts as I read and react to them.

Most people do that and it is one of the biggest problems on here when it comes to quality of longer threads: People read till page 3, hit the reply button and post a reply on page 7 that is the exact same point 20 others made before them - but they were too lazy to read the thread first... one would have of course much less to read if people would use the threaded model... never mind.

[Uncle Max]

	Quote:	amogles
	Some forums have the option to tick a box called something like "auto-delete this post after 30 days". If we had that and used it when typing banter or silly jokes or winding somebody up, then only the really useful stuff would survive long-term and the problem of ancient junk threads would be reduced.

"Really useful stuff" requires sharp editing / time. And rhino-thick skin for the amount of flak one receives for even daring to question the validity - nay, Right! - of some to express every brain fart. Present company excluded

	Quote:	MathNut
	We had a thread about this a while back, and found that very few people actually read the forum in threaded mode (you, Treverus, I think two or three others - that's it.)

I tried to (I find it much easier, generally speaking) but found the experience so horrible I switched to "flat".

	Quote:	Anthony1406
	id find it better if they would simply delete many of the 2006-2007-2008 posts. many things , including members have changed since then, it would clean up the place....just my two cents

Indeed. Information quickly becomes out of date, even in slow moving Switzerland. Not saying the mods should try to pick out what is and is not current, just purge the older posts completely.

[ceppych]

	Quote:	ARandomUsername
	Indeed. Information quickly becomes out of date, even in slow moving Switzerland. Not saying the mods should try to pick out what is and is not current, just purge the older posts completely.

But then how on earth would we ever find out where to buy brown sugar?

[Uncle Max]

	Quote:	ARandomUsername
	Indeed. Information quickly becomes out of date, even in slow moving Switzerland. Not saying the mods should try to pick out what is and is not current, just purge the older posts completely.

Doing that would rip out the spine of the Forum, as the older posts contain an awful lot of useful info, something which inadvertently contributes to the high noise to signal ratio now, in fact. Most threads are still open, so if there's information anyone wishes to add to old posts, they are able.

(Welcome to EF )

[amogles]

	Quote:	ceppych
	But then how on earth would we ever find out where to buy brown sugar?

If we get rid of archives completely then we can have so much fun over and over again taunting the punters who come up with these questions.

[ceppych]

	Quote:	amogles
	If we get rid of archives completely then we can have so much fun over and over again taunting the punters who come up with these questions.

Oh yes, whooppee! I hadn't thought of that one.
Please, Amogles, where do you buy brown sugar in Switzerland?

[mirfield]

	Quote:	amogles
	If we get rid of archives completely then we can have so much fun over and over again taunting the punters who come up with these questions.

You know me? I never buy a ticket on the train.

I'm a rebel, I am.

[AbFab]

Best thing to do IMHO is to delete all posts after 2008. That would get rid of the duplicate threads...

[MusicChick]

Maybe communication is about global, relevant contributions, not compulsive short-attention span ones, the every 60sec hit reply behavior. If you take the time to read the entire thread and then reply, not hit as you go, it shrinks the space one takes, offering next turn to others (and actually usually is higher quality, too).

Some boards expect people not to quote at all, in order to not take too much personal space and time on account of others and for redundancy reasons. Rather, state your point, clearly and poignantly, not hit reply a couple of times ending up with a couple of consecutive posts that are pain to scroll through. It's like taking a mike and speaking, you don't run for it a couple of times in a row just to make quick quibs...

I think if I reply to a member saying something, I can take the time to edit out the thoughts I don't wish to react to, it's not such a big deal. But having a person presenting his/her thoughts in 2-3-4-5 consecutive posts without much editing or care seems a little too symptomatic of how we generally communicate now..Its like chopping up somebody's performance into bits, I am not sure how logical that is. But I will think about it. Merging is done for practical reasons, not to penalize anyone, and it is not high importance, either.

[amogles]

	Quote:	MusicChick
	Maybe communication is about global, relevant contributions, not compulsive short-attention span ones, the every 60sec hit reply behavior. If you take the time to read the entire thread and then reply, not hit as you go, it shrinks the space one takes, offering next turn to others (and actually usually is higher quality, too). Some boards expect people not to quote at all, in order to not take too much personal space and time on account of others and for redundancy reasons. Rather, state your point, clearly and poignantly, not hit reply a couple of times ending up with a couple of consecutive posts that are pain to scroll through. It's like taking a mike and speaking, you don't run for it a couple of times in a row just to make quick quibs... I think if I reply to a member saying something, I can take the time to edit out the thoughts I don't wish to react to, it's not such a big deal. But having a person presenting his/her thoughts in 2-3-4-5 consecutive posts without much editing or care seems a little too symptomatic of how we generally communicate now..Its like chopping up somebody's performance into bits, I am not sure how logical that is. But I will think about it. Merging is done for practical reasons, not to penalize anyone, and it is not high importance, either.

or turn that around.
If everbody would read in a threaded view we wouldn't need to quote at all because every post would be attached to the post to which it replied. The flat structure forces us to quote more because there is otherwise no obvious structural interelationship between posts and the responses thereto and thus makes posts more messy.

Compare this to having a chat with somebody on the bus or in the pub. You tend to respond to the most recent thing the other person said, and so the conversation develops. You don't normally suddenly respond to something the other person said half an hour previously. That's like a structured thread because every statement comes from the previous one. If I were to break away from that structure and randomly reply to things the other person had said at some point, I would have to start quoting him or her because otherwise we'd both be totally lost.

[MusicChick]

This is all interesting. I do things as I learned them the instance I started modding, it will most probably develop to suit people the most, soon, it's not like we have a super strict mode that never get changed..inspiration is always welcome.

What you wrote is logical. Though there is another aspect and that is people do not chime in after the same time, some come once a blue moon, and if they have more than one post to quote, you can sit through so many posts by one single poster. Multiquoting keeps it neat, compact and clear (most posters in my opion know what the reaction is to and keep the imaginary EF time frame in their head, anyways). I have things threaded in another board, it seems more natural here, copying the real life talks and interactions we have.

It's a dscourse, right, so there is also the pragmatic aspect, if you stand up to speak, and you keep reappearing, adding little posts and piling them up, because things are in linear way, it's like standing on the soap box and hopping on and off, constantly, for a little too long. Same goes for lengthy posts (one day my old brain will allow for brevity in foreign language).

[Treverus]

	Quote:	amogles
	You don't normally suddenly respond to something the other person said half an hour previously. That's like a structured thread because every statement comes from the previous one. If I were to break away from that structure and randomly reply to things the other person had said at some point, I would have to start quoting him or her because otherwise we'd both be totally lost.

Bottom line: The problem lies most probably with the relatively high percentage of female users on this forum.