New Policy re: changing thread titles?
09-19-02, 03:36 PM
#26
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by benedict
And should I ever feel moved to change any of <b>Aghama</b>'s thread titles most likely there will be an (r) left on public display. Of course 50% of the follow-ups will be asking what the (r) means and/or saying that only an idiot would misinterpret what he meant by the original title but them, as they say, is the breaks.
And should I ever feel moved to change any of <b>Aghama</b>'s thread titles most likely there will be an (r) left on public display. Of course 50% of the follow-ups will be asking what the (r) means and/or saying that only an idiot would misinterpret what he meant by the original title but them, as they say, is the breaks.
I can forward you the flow charts if you would like.
10-02-02, 06:12 PM
#27
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The People's Republic of Boulder
Posts: 24,753
Received 575 Likes
on
416 Posts
I hate to bring this to the top, but I still see this happening an awful lot in Other, even though I heard in this thread: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...4&pagenumber=2 that "Other has always been a place where the rules are more lax and any title changes are generally a matter of trying to avoid confusion or fights, getting rid of objectionable words, and the occassional moderator/admin joke." (Blade).
I have seen it happening a lot there, but this one took the cake for me: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=240874
Note that Ranger's post was 9-24-02, and I guess the thread had 0 replies. 8 days later, PerpleNerple posts a thread entitled "It was nice knowing you all...", which a mod then merged with Ranger's 8 days old 0-reply thread.
As near as I can tell, Ranger maybe posted another thread later today, but then all three were merged. Why resurrect Ranger's old thread, effectively renaming PerpleNerple's thread, when a simple lock of Ranger's 2nd thread (if that is indeed what happened) would have sufficed? PerpleNerple's title was funny, a play on all the goodbye threads we've seen over the years, and this is the Other Forum. There was no confusion or fights, no mod joke (in fact, the joke was taken out by renaming it!).
Look, I understand why you do this in the more informational forums, but it is happening on a regular basis in Other also, and it really seems to detract from some of the fun. Yes, I'm saying it: "The fun has left the Forum"
I have seen it happening a lot there, but this one took the cake for me: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=240874
Note that Ranger's post was 9-24-02, and I guess the thread had 0 replies. 8 days later, PerpleNerple posts a thread entitled "It was nice knowing you all...", which a mod then merged with Ranger's 8 days old 0-reply thread.
As near as I can tell, Ranger maybe posted another thread later today, but then all three were merged. Why resurrect Ranger's old thread, effectively renaming PerpleNerple's thread, when a simple lock of Ranger's 2nd thread (if that is indeed what happened) would have sufficed? PerpleNerple's title was funny, a play on all the goodbye threads we've seen over the years, and this is the Other Forum. There was no confusion or fights, no mod joke (in fact, the joke was taken out by renaming it!). Look, I understand why you do this in the more informational forums, but it is happening on a regular basis in Other also, and it really seems to detract from some of the fun. Yes, I'm saying it: "The fun has left the Forum"
10-02-02, 06:26 PM
#28
Administrator
Originally posted by LurkerDan
Why resurrect Ranger's old thread, effectively renaming PerpleNerple's thread, when a simple lock of Ranger's 2nd thread (if that is indeed what happened) would have sufficed?
I see the original Ranger thread was a different hurricane. Ranger shouldn't have had that second thread, but given the title of PurpleNerple's thread, how would he have known?
PerpleNerple's title was funny, a play on all the goodbye threads we've seen over the years, and this is the Other Forum. There was no confusion or fights, no mod joke (in fact, the joke was taken out by renaming it!).
And totally uninformative as to the subject matter. I got suckered into reading a weather report instead of a goodbye. Glad you liked it though.
Why resurrect Ranger's old thread, effectively renaming PerpleNerple's thread, when a simple lock of Ranger's 2nd thread (if that is indeed what happened) would have sufficed?
I see the original Ranger thread was a different hurricane. Ranger shouldn't have had that second thread, but given the title of PurpleNerple's thread, how would he have known?
PerpleNerple's title was funny, a play on all the goodbye threads we've seen over the years, and this is the Other Forum. There was no confusion or fights, no mod joke (in fact, the joke was taken out by renaming it!).
And totally uninformative as to the subject matter. I got suckered into reading a weather report instead of a goodbye. Glad you liked it though.
10-02-02, 06:26 PM
#29
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 8,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, that was my mess up.
I saw that Ranger's thread was the one most recently posted to. I mistakenly thought that since it had only one reply(the one that made you think there was a third thread behind the grassy knoll), it had just been created. Figured that the reason it was started as a new thread was because of the other thread's vague title, so I just merged the two(expecting this "new" thread to come at the end of the "It was nice knowing you all..." one). But, to my surprise, the first post in Ranger's thread became the first post of the new merged thread(since it was 8 days old). Because of this, I switched the title to that of the older thread.
So no conspiracy here, I just screwed up. [cya]Or did I? Since both threads were on the same subject, I did the proper thing by merging the threads under the title of the original one.[/cya]
I saw that Ranger's thread was the one most recently posted to. I mistakenly thought that since it had only one reply(the one that made you think there was a third thread behind the grassy knoll), it had just been created. Figured that the reason it was started as a new thread was because of the other thread's vague title, so I just merged the two(expecting this "new" thread to come at the end of the "It was nice knowing you all..." one). But, to my surprise, the first post in Ranger's thread became the first post of the new merged thread(since it was 8 days old). Because of this, I switched the title to that of the older thread.
So no conspiracy here, I just screwed up. [cya]Or did I? Since both threads were on the same subject, I did the proper thing by merging the threads under the title of the original one.[/cya]
Last edited by AndyCapps; 10-02-02 at 06:45 PM.
10-02-02, 06:47 PM
#30
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The People's Republic of Boulder
Posts: 24,753
Received 575 Likes
on
416 Posts
Originally posted by X
And totally uninformative as to the subject matter. I got suckered into reading a weather report instead of a goodbye. Glad you liked it though.
And totally uninformative as to the subject matter. I got suckered into reading a weather report instead of a goodbye. Glad you liked it though.
Edited to add: I realize that AndyCapps explained this one, but it is happening an awful lot in Other, and I find it rather annoying and also that it makes the place more lifeless.
10-02-02, 06:52 PM
#31
Administrator
I didn't think enough of it to change the title. But given that it was done I think it's perfectly defensible. And it has 10 times more to do with wasting bandwidth than it has to do with wasting people's time. Think about how many people would read another hurricane report, no matter how clever. Many more people will read a goodbye.
10-02-02, 06:54 PM
#33
Administrator
Originally posted by AndyCapps
I guess we could start forwarding the complaints we get about vague titles your way.
Can't please everyone all the time, unfortunately.
I guess we could start forwarding the complaints we get about vague titles your way.
Can't please everyone all the time, unfortunately.
10-02-02, 07:14 PM
#34
DVD Talk Legend
It was totally confusing. I did try to find my first thread and then replied and posted an update, I thought that it was only going to be the first reply. I am POSITIVE that I replied in the same thread, I didn't post a new thread! What's the big deal???
Blame the weather for sending TWO hurricanes here in two weeks, OK, not the mods or whatever. But YES, PN's thread title was confusing, MINE was clear! Everybody knows I live in Louisiana!
PS, I did NOTHING wrong, I followed the ruiles. I can't read every thread here. I didn't read the other thread by PN, B/C I thought it was just going to be another Goodbye thread like Dr. DVD's a few weeks ago.
Blame the weather for sending TWO hurricanes here in two weeks, OK, not the mods or whatever. But YES, PN's thread title was confusing, MINE was clear! Everybody knows I live in Louisiana!
PS, I did NOTHING wrong, I followed the ruiles. I can't read every thread here. I didn't read the other thread by PN, B/C I thought it was just going to be another Goodbye thread like Dr. DVD's a few weeks ago.
Last edited by Ranger; 10-02-02 at 07:19 PM.
10-02-02, 07:35 PM
#35
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 8,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Ranger
It was totally confusing. I did try to find my first thread and then replied and posted an update, I thought that it was only going to be the first reply. I am POSITIVE that I replied in the same thread, I didn't post a new thread! What's the big deal???
Blame the weather for sending TWO hurricanes here in two weeks, OK, not the mods or whatever. But YES, PN's thread title was confusing, MINE was clear! Everybody knows I live in Louisiana!
PS, I did NOTHING wrong, I followed the ruiles. I can't read every thread here. I didn't read the other thread by PN, B/C I thought it was just going to be another Goodbye thread like Dr. DVD's a few weeks ago.
It was totally confusing. I did try to find my first thread and then replied and posted an update, I thought that it was only going to be the first reply. I am POSITIVE that I replied in the same thread, I didn't post a new thread! What's the big deal???
Blame the weather for sending TWO hurricanes here in two weeks, OK, not the mods or whatever. But YES, PN's thread title was confusing, MINE was clear! Everybody knows I live in Louisiana!
PS, I did NOTHING wrong, I followed the ruiles. I can't read every thread here. I didn't read the other thread by PN, B/C I thought it was just going to be another Goodbye thread like Dr. DVD's a few weeks ago.
You did reply to your original thread. That bumped it to the top of the threads list. As I stated earlier, I mistakenly thought you created the thread after PN's. So I merged the two threads. Since your first post happened before the first post in PN's thread, it came first in the merged thread. Since your second post came after the last post of PN's thread, it shows up last in the merged thread. Since your thread came first, I gave the merged thread your original title.
10-02-02, 07:41 PM
#36
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by AndyCapps
You did nothing wrong.
You did reply to your original thread. That bumped it to the top of the threads list. As I stated earlier, I mistakenly thought you created the thread after PN's. So I merged the two threads. Since your first post happened before the first post in PN's thread, it came first in the merged thread. Since your second post came after the last post of PN's thread, it shows up last in the merged thread. Since your thread came first, I gave the merged thread your original title.
You did nothing wrong.
You did reply to your original thread. That bumped it to the top of the threads list. As I stated earlier, I mistakenly thought you created the thread after PN's. So I merged the two threads. Since your first post happened before the first post in PN's thread, it came first in the merged thread. Since your second post came after the last post of PN's thread, it shows up last in the merged thread. Since your thread came first, I gave the merged thread your original title.
10-03-02, 10:16 AM
#37
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The People's Republic of Boulder
Posts: 24,753
Received 575 Likes
on
416 Posts
Originally posted by Ranger
Blame the weather for sending TWO hurricanes here in two weeks, OK, not the mods or whatever. But YES, PN's thread title was confusing, MINE was clear! Everybody knows I live in Louisiana!
PS, I did NOTHING wrong, I followed the ruiles. I can't read every thread here. I didn't read the other thread by PN, B/C I thought it was just going to be another Goodbye thread like Dr. DVD's a few weeks ago.
Blame the weather for sending TWO hurricanes here in two weeks, OK, not the mods or whatever. But YES, PN's thread title was confusing, MINE was clear! Everybody knows I live in Louisiana!
PS, I did NOTHING wrong, I followed the ruiles. I can't read every thread here. I didn't read the other thread by PN, B/C I thought it was just going to be another Goodbye thread like Dr. DVD's a few weeks ago.
That's the problem with using an example. You try to pick an example as an example of a consistent practice, and the response is almost solely to address the example. I still don't know which to believe, Blade's statement or the policy that is apparently being followed. Actually, I suppose that's not true; it seems fairly apparent that Blade's statement is not really correct (sorry Blade
) because that's just not what is happening in Other.And X, although I have no idea how much bandwidth an occasionally non-descriptive thread title in Other eats up, I have donated to DVDTalk, so it's not like I'm a deadbeat. I can't tell if that's your implication or not, but I thought I should point that out.
10-03-02, 10:55 AM
#38
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 8,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to point out again that this latest example really has nothing to do with this thread. I would have left the vague thread title alone if not for the merge. When I merge two threads discussing the same topic, I give it the thread title of the first thread.
As far as the changing of vague thread titles in Other goes, there has been a forum wide call to action to ensure that threads are some sort of discussion. Vague thread titles often cause several "I didn't expect this thread to be about this" posts which take away from the topic. Good discussion topics can be ruined by vague titles. Will vague titles be changed as vigorously in Other as they are in other forums? No. Will they be changed if the focus of the thread completely shifts away from the topic to the thread title chosen? Yes. Are the moderators/Admins human and have the ability to interpret things differently? Yes.
As far as the changing of vague thread titles in Other goes, there has been a forum wide call to action to ensure that threads are some sort of discussion. Vague thread titles often cause several "I didn't expect this thread to be about this" posts which take away from the topic. Good discussion topics can be ruined by vague titles. Will vague titles be changed as vigorously in Other as they are in other forums? No. Will they be changed if the focus of the thread completely shifts away from the topic to the thread title chosen? Yes. Are the moderators/Admins human and have the ability to interpret things differently? Yes.
10-03-02, 01:22 PM
#39
DVD Talk Legend
I am all for clear titles. I actually agree with Buford that some people have caused too much confusion with their thread titles, it czn be misleading and a waste of everyone's time.
Think of each thread as a file, wheen you click on a thread, you expect the name to be appropiate with the material inside the thread, so you open and download this 'file' from Geoff's server, and then sometimes you'd find that it wasn't about what you thought it'd be, its kind of deceiving people in a way.
But opening a file that didn't interest you, you had just wasted a few minutes of your valuable time, your computer's resources, and Geoff's servers. But the point of a title is to give a brief summary of the thread. If the subject line was clear, people wouldn't open and read the thread, its kind of like a warning.
Think of each thread as a file, wheen you click on a thread, you expect the name to be appropiate with the material inside the thread, so you open and download this 'file' from Geoff's server, and then sometimes you'd find that it wasn't about what you thought it'd be, its kind of deceiving people in a way.
But opening a file that didn't interest you, you had just wasted a few minutes of your valuable time, your computer's resources, and Geoff's servers. But the point of a title is to give a brief summary of the thread. If the subject line was clear, people wouldn't open and read the thread, its kind of like a warning.
10-03-02, 03:11 PM
#40
Uber Member
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Overlooking Pearl Harbor
Posts: 16,232
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by LurkerDan
...I still don't know which to believe, Blade's statement or the policy that is apparently being followed. Actually, I suppose that's not true; it seems fairly apparent that Blade's statement is not really correct (sorry Blade) because that's just not what is happening in Other....
...I still don't know which to believe, Blade's statement or the policy that is apparently being followed. Actually, I suppose that's not true; it seems fairly apparent that Blade's statement is not really correct (sorry Blade
) because that's just not what is happening in Other....
Also, on the general application of forum rules (and I should have said this earlier if I didn't) any opinion I give is usually secondary to the opinion of the moderator(s) working the forum in question. They are going to have a much better handle on what the majority of that forum's members will want and what works for the forum they moderate.
