Forum Moderators: rogerd
It is extremely rarely scenario where there has been made an topic that have had the exact same content (the question being phrased the exact same way and thus making the reply "style" the same).
Therefor I have found the solution:
1# Lock the "repeat thread"
2# Make a post explaining why + posting a link to the original topic.
As the most efficient and making all the gear-wheels - big and small - in the forum to work with as few complications as possible.
BUT, here comes the dilemma, 2 weeks ago I got an request from a promising experienced user whom was interested in becoming moderator.
My busy life was getting hectic therefor I found it needed to get more moderators. Plus she had all the criteria needed (An above average common sense, experience, wisdom, no arrogance, flexible etc.). She did her first moderation 2 days later.
Now, I'm not the administrator who put all mods under a microscope and follow each of their steps. Ready to correct if they do something wrong. I prefer they come to me asking questions if anything. I do not to hang them each time they do a mistake but rather let them have the freedom and hope they will later realize it if a previous mistake has had been made and learn from it; by own experience, as their own moderator experience grow. Of cause, I do confront them if their "mistake" was so big it HAD to be fixed immediately.
She thinks the idea of topic merging is fantastic and I usually listen and treat my staff members fairly. Unfortunately I can't remember them out of my head right now.
Now the dilemma is that she merges most topics she lock's, while others just lock them.
This is very confusing to the average joe of an user. Some threads just gets locked while others simply gets merged...
This is not how an efficient forum works.
We can't simply have this scenario, therefor I am making this an either/neither choice. Are we going to merge all threads? or plainly lock them? (except extremely few exceptional cases were merging is inevitable).
So far my brain is telling me that this is the best argument: "It is extremely rarely scenario where there has been made an topic that have had the exact same content (the question being phrased the exact same way and thus making the reply "style" the same). "
The topic would continue to work, but it would be all "weird" and by making a lot of threads like these, it would eventually "kill" the forum.
Also it would most likely also, be needed to edit the author post of a topic, to make it fit more exactly with the new merged posts, also. I see that as discrimination to the author!
So that is my question, what are your comments and thoughts about this? what would you choose and why!
Debate people! Debate!
Oh and to make sure I didn't explain myself too bad, I want your opinion why it is best if any forum has its repeat topics locked/merged and why.
I know webmasterworld deletes threads and send a PM to the author, I would like to hear your thoughts too!
The only real benefit of having multiple "similar but different" topics, is if you are worried about having a large thread count to make your forum "appear" larger. We don't keep track of post or thread counts at all on our forum because we want to encourage quality, not quantity and reduce the urge to spam by removing the benefits.
The question is: What kind of forum do you want to run?
There are two extremes.
#1 - A free-for-all where any passer-by can post whatever comes to their mind without worry for order and tends to read nothing but the most recent posts.
PROS = "Just for fun" attitude; No fear because anything goes; Attracts younger crowd; Practically no need for any organizational moderation at all
CONS =A lot of "junk threads" that are ignored and clutter up the forum; Lots of repeats (which is a form of Spam); Spammy threads encourages spammy posts; Lots of good topics become hard to find and get buried or abandoned because discussions never develop or are dropped for the newest thread; Younger crowd tends to result in childish behavior (including spam and flaming, etc.); Difficult to create a community that sticks around and gets along; Harder to moderate non-organizational problems with an "unruly" population.
#2 - A highly ordered set of topics that requires people to read all posts before making thouroughly composed on-topic commentary.
PROS = "Respectful and Intelligent" atmosphere; Fewer threads to moderate; Attracts and encourages a disciplined crowd; Loyal and closeknit community; Long discussions develop and dig deeper than superficial commentary; Easy to enforce rules without objection (practically enforce themselves)
CONS = Can tend to be humorless (depending on topics created); Can be intimidating to new comers, which can result in fewer posts and/or slower growth.
Personally, I lean towards option #2, but I believe there is a good middle ground regarding thread creation if you enforce some simple rules:
- ALWAYS use the search function before creating a new thread. Search for several variations of your subject matter before concluding that the topic is not already being discussed.
- ALWAYS be sure to spell your thread titles correctly (with full names when applicable) and in proper English (i.e. no l33t, slang or abbreviations).
- When creating a new thread, any topic to be discussed should be distilled into it's most general title, within reasonable parameters, to create a Master Thread. For example, if you want to discuss the characters of a specific movie you should create a Master Thread with the title of the movie as the title of your thread (i.e. "Star Wars" is Good, "Chewie Kicks Ewok Ass" is Bad)
- The Author Post of any new thread should invite the discussion of the ENTIRE topic and THEN specify your particular interest to drive the BEGINNING of the discussion. All topics are allowed and expected to evolve to cover all relevant subjects and considerations.
- We expect all posters to also be readers. We encourage all users to read all previous posts within a topic before posting their own comments. It is understood, that as threads get longer, this will become more difficult, in which case we expect AT LEAST the Author Post and the last ten posts to have been reviewed before posting.
- Revisiting old points and commentary IS allowed, and it is expected that there will be many subjects and comments that may get repeated within the topic. We expect our regular users to show patience and courtesy to new posters that may have missed earlier posts that might be able to provide answers or relevant commentary. We encourge all our posters to politely assist each other by providing relevant post numbers and links whenever possible. After all, if you are too lazy to dig for it yourself, you can't expect a new user to do the same. Remember: Always show respect for each other. Belligerence and aggravation will not be tolerated.
- Any new thread that is deemed "similar but different," or seems like an evolution or tangent from another thread will be locked, deleted or merged into the original upon the staff's discretion.
----------------------------------
In my opinion, it is a big mistake to be worried about the "extremely rarely scenario where there has been made an topic that have had the exact same content (the question being phrased the exact same way and thus making the reply "style" the same."
Two people could actually INTEND on creating the EXACT same topic (not knowing of each other), but because of their own unique "styles" they will create two "similar but different" threads. The result is that follow-up posters could easily make bascially the same comments in each thread, creating a lot of overlapping and duplication. And expecting conformity to a certain response "style" is unrealistic. Even in the most clearly requested Q & A lists, there are always some users that will answer with a different "style." Personally, I like to give our users the freedom to add as much or as little to any discussion in their own formats. What matters is that they ARE adding and don't feel restricted.
Ultimately, I have found the greatest benefit is that the community of users gets a lot closer when participating in fewer threads. Having hundreds (even thousands) of threads to choose from makes it impossible to answer to all (or even most), resulting in fewer posts per thread. Fewer threads encourages higher participation in each, and thus more interaction between multiple users. The more they see of each other, the more familiar they get with each others' opinions, styles and personalities. Plus the assistance that is provided by regular users actually helps develop a helpful and appreciative environment.
If you haven't been merging threads since the beginning, it can be a little difficult and confusing to adapt to at first. It will likely require a lot of retroactive clean-up which will muddle the beginning to end readability, but once you have cleaned everything up, and if you establish clear rules for thread creation, it quickly becomes clear to users how much easier larger master topics are to use. The search function becomes much more effective, and the internal debate over which thread is "more relevant" is eliminated, so users can more easily moderate themselves. Regular users are also usually more than happy to provide guidance and clarification if a merge ever gets a little confusing (which rarely happens once everyone is creating Master Threads to begin with and when good moderations offer explanation).
Any headaches during the transistion are highly worth the payoff. I highly recommend you give merging a chance.
That said merging takes more time to do and requires familiarity with the forum content. Anyone can lock a thread, its a two second job but merging takes a little more effort. To me merging is a more elegant solution because it makes it appear that the forums aren't 'over moderated' and that they naturally run smoothly.
The only time I would lock a thread was if it was becoming too heated a debate.
