I am going nuts with this

MMAPlayground.com » Off Topic » Off Topic » I am going nuts with this
POLL: Should the mods be able to merge multiple thrads on the same topic?
Yes 83% (35)
No 17% (7)
Rush
6/28/07 5:40:46PM
ok, something has to be said, because the last few days have been horrible.

If you are going to start a new thread please look at the last two pages (at least) to see if someone else has already posted that topic.

There have been at least a half dozen threads (some with nearly identical titles) posted on the same pages in the same forum.

It's one thing if the original thread was made a month ago, but there are threads being made (and made again) in the same day.

Here are some examples -

UFC and Pride Forum - first two pages
Hendo vs. Rampage
Jackson and Henderson. Who is gonna win? (Pages: 1 2 3)

Was Gray Maynard out?
who thinks grey was out?
gray won
Mazzagatti explains Maynard-Emerson Ending

UFC 73: Rashad Vs. Tito
ORTIZ Vs RASHAD
Tito Ortiz: I’ll Put Rashad Evans “in a Wheelchair” at UFC 73

Sherk or Franca?


-- and If I look back to page 4 (which is still only less than a week ago, I see multiple threads on Manny vs. Nate and more Gray Maynard threads.


MMA Lounge - first two pages
Nate Diaz vs Chris Horodecki (what if)
Hermes Franca Or Sean Sherk???


Spoilers Forum - first page
Robert Emerson vs. Gray Maynard result

Other Orgs - first two pages
Faber vs. Horodecki
Chris Horodecki

Strikeforce: Shamrock v. Baroni Video
shamrock vs baroni
Torn ACL?????
baroni medical ?????'s
frank shamrock vs phil baroni

filho vs doerkson at WEC
Doerksen is gonna roll Filho!!!!!




I mean, do we really need all those threads on the same subjects? How many threads do we need on Gray Maynard and Chris Horodecki?

Do the mods have the option of merging threads like in other forums? I think this would be a great way to keep things a little easier to follow. In fact I introduced it as a poll.

I don't like looking like the cranky forum guy, but I hate logging on and having to sift through dozens of threads that are duplicates of ones already in effect and ones that I have already replied to.
Stickan
6/28/07 5:52:00PM
I totally agree. Great points.

"The more the merrier" doesn't go on everything. It certainly doesn't on forums.
richieb19
6/28/07 6:05:30PM
Trust me, we all want the merge option...
Piccosaur
6/28/07 6:13:27PM
Just give out punishments to those who make threads that already exist.
pv3Hpv3p
6/28/07 6:33:05PM
I agree, mostly... But while multiple threads are a pain in the ass, sifting through many many pages of a thread can be equally irritating...

I'm ok with new threads if they contain new concrete info... ie: interviews, fighter payouts, something like that... I might miss going through multiple pages...

But I can't agree more, that seeing Hendo vs Rampage and Rampage vs Hendo right under eachother is stupid, and actually takes away from some possibly good debates...



Oh, and I am defending myself a little here... I just posted a Shamrock Baroni thread, but in my defense, I only wanted people to know it was reairring this weekend please don't punish me
jdubs
6/28/07 6:38:48PM
no they should not merge, is'nt that why they always delete?
Rush
6/28/07 7:14:48PM

Posted by jdubs

no they should not merge, is'nt that why they always delete?



But what if there is a really good post in more than one duplicate thread? While I think it is fair to kill the initial post if it doesn't contain new information, it's not fair to delete a legitimate post made by a bystander (not the person that started the duplicate thread)

I'm not one for just going an deleting threads as sometimes it is a new member and they made a mistake. Likewise to delete a thread if it got out of hand is not good either as many valid posts are lost in the process.
rcg916
6/28/07 8:24:35PM

Posted by pv3Hpv3p

Oh, and I am defending myself a little here... I just posted a Shamrock Baroni thread, but in my defense, I only wanted people to know it was reairring this weekend please don't punish me



BA-DUM-CHHHH
pv3Hpv3p
6/29/07 10:36:26AM

Posted by rcg916


Posted by pv3Hpv3p

Oh, and I am defending myself a little here... I just posted a Shamrock Baroni thread, but in my defense, I only wanted people to know it was reairring this weekend please don't punish me



BA-DUM-CHHHH



<tap><tap><tap>...Hello??? Is this thing on?
madmarck
6/29/07 4:46:00PM

Posted by richieb19

Trust me, we all want the merge option...



Merge this Richie
your lucky im to lazy to type out the finger thing with / and ().
J/k
hippysmacker
6/29/07 4:48:45PM
I totally agree, as I spend a lot of time deleting repeat threads and sending the starters messages. This is forum rule number 10 in the forum code of conduct. it would make my life easier if people abided by it. If people don't reply to the the repeat threads it makes it a lot easier to delete them quickly. The Rashad Tito threads alone that I have deleted are mindboggling. If you any of you see repeat threads feel free to report them to us. So to everyone who reads this, please do me a favor and take this rule to heart. Thanks


10. Please check the first 5 pages of the UFC/Pride forum, and the first 3 of any other forum for a related topic, before starting a new thread.We only have so much space ,and would like to keep the discussion going, without people having to constantly repeat themselves. If you add your thoughts to the existing thread it will refresh to the top of the front page.
ncordless
7/1/07 2:20:48AM
Heh, it's funny cause even though at least two of those threads are mine...( Diaz v. Horodecki hadn't been discussed on any forum at that time that I could find. And I posted the original Hendo v. Rampage thread on this site the night it was announced.) I agree with you, for the most part.

The mods do and should merge threads on the same topic.

However, where do we draw the line? Should all topics about a fighter be merged into one big topic? Type in topic only "Tito" "Ortiz" on the forum search.

There is a reason the Dewey Decimal System goes beyond the hundred digit. Sub-division of big topics allows you to find the things relevent to what you want to talk about and I don't think anyone thinks thats bad.

All the same, having multiple topics on the same small subject is not good.
hippysmacker
7/1/07 3:58:28AM
We don't have a merge function yet. The main programmer is still really busy updating the new system, but I think he'll get to it when he can.
Rush
7/2/07 10:14:48PM

Posted by ncordless

Heh, it's funny cause even though at least two of those threads are mine...( Diaz v. Horodecki hadn't been discussed on any forum at that time that I could find. And I posted the original Hendo v. Rampage thread on this site the night it was announced.) I agree with you, for the most part.

The mods do and should merge threads on the same topic.

However, where do we draw the line? Should all topics about a fighter be merged into one big topic? Type in topic only "Tito" "Ortiz" on the forum search.

There is a reason the Dewey Decimal System goes beyond the hundred digit. Sub-division of big topics allows you to find the things relevent to what you want to talk about and I don't think anyone thinks thats bad.

All the same, having multiple topics on the same small subject is not good.





Where do you draw the line? I think that's an easy question to answer. Basically, I think any multiple thread on Tito Ortiz vs. Rashad should be merged, but not a thread on Tito Ortiz and some other incident (with a thread about Rashad). You follow me?

I think even used in only the obvious situations a merge function will help a lot. I also vote for a thread lock system for those threads that would normally get trashed.

I would also like a separate forum for the fighter vs. fighter threads. I generally don't like reading or posting those and it would be easier to sift through those if they were tucked away in their own area. But that's just me.
Trapt1nw0nder
7/3/07 6:38:46PM
I think that this site is still small enough that we dont need to merge or delete topics just yet.

"a UFC 73 RASHAD vs TITO",and a "Rashad vs Tito...who wins?" on the same page i have a problem with,but a "Tito..."I will put Rashad in a wheelchair".." mixed in with one of those i dont have a problem with

that is just people that want to report NEWS...and there is nothing wrong with that....like pv3Hpv3p said..sometimes when a thread is 3+ pages long people just dont go there often enough and they start to collect dust.

Same with PINNED topics...as soon as they get pinned people seem to ignore them..including myself



so i vote no...thats it
Zvonimir
7/3/07 8:03:56PM
MODS: You should make all new members watch this:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php
Rush
7/4/07 11:39:06AM

Posted by Zvonimir

MODS: You should make all new members watch this:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php








I'd give props, but I have to spread the love. That was great.


I'd also give you props for being a Remco fan.
Zvonimir
7/4/07 1:42:47PM

Posted by Rush


Posted by Zvonimir

MODS: You should make all new members watch this:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php








I'd give props, but I have to spread the love. That was great.


I'd also give you props for being a Remco fan.



Thanks man.
godofdixie
7/11/07 2:24:42PM
i haven't really visited the mma forums here, but if they're anything like sherdog's then they're isn't much hope imo
Copenhagen
7/15/07 12:50:22PM
Why don't Mods make "official" threads or every fight and pin them until the fight is over then unpin them. Then no one will miss it, and we'll have an official thread on each fight.
Rush
7/15/07 4:45:03PM

Posted by Copenhagen

Why don't Mods make "official" threads or every fight and pin them until the fight is over then unpin them. Then no one will miss it, and we'll have an official thread on each fight.




It's an idea, but will not work. The main problem with multiple thread starts is that people tend to have tunnel vision and don't even look for a thread.
tommyprairie
7/17/07 11:07:10PM
Definitely merge topics unless they are a few months old
Related Topics