Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
LAX772LR wrote:I want to bring up something that I'd say is stifling to (1) learning and (2) quality of information, here:
And that's the seeming fervor for moderators merging official announcement, verified fact, etc posts... into older speculative threads.
Outwardly it makes no sense, and it's causing important issues to slip through the cracks.
Please help me understand the rationale here: what point does that policy have?
Examples being:
1) The DL/KE JV thread.
Someone makes a post with a link showing that it actually occurred... and then it gets buried into a speculation thread with 220 posts prior, most of which is just people talking about whether they'd like to see it or not.
Who's going to scroll through all that, every day, just to see if/when anything official ever pops up? Even using the "most recent post" feature is cumbersome, especially if you're someone who uses various different computers throughout the day.
2) Air Zimbabwe acquires 777 thread.
Someone finally posts a link with a picture making it official, and it gets merged into a nearly 3-month-old rumor thread.
*********************************************
Don't get me wrong, I get that not everyone wants to see ten thousand "Bring the 757 back" or "What will the MOM be like?" threads. But something as big as a new specific international route, new JV, major order? Isn't that bit more deserving of individualized attention?
.......would it not make so much more sense as a policy, to lock speculative threads as soon as there's an official announcement, and let conversation continue on the thread with the actual verified evidence?
If not, why?
Also, wouldn't more posts = more ad views?
TheFlyingDisk wrote:Couldn't the thread title be modified to add at note like CONFIRMED or VERIFIED once new information surfaces? That in my opinion would be a simple solution for the issue at hand.
Also, by having the new news on the old, speculative thread it provides more background information & helps readers keep track of what the topic is all about.
atcsundevil wrote:Maybe the speculative threads should be locked, and a link to it is included in the thread starter of the confirmed thread?
SamYeager2016 wrote:atcsundevil wrote:Maybe the speculative threads should be locked, and a link to it is included in the thread starter of the confirmed thread?
That would certainly be my preference. Some speculative threads degenerate into so much waffle or opposing opinions that I give up reading them so it's not always obvious to me that definitive events have finally occurred.
atcsundevil wrote:TheFlyingDisk wrote:Couldn't the thread title be modified to add at note like CONFIRMED or VERIFIED once new information surfaces? That in my opinion would be a simple solution for the issue at hand.
Also, by having the new news on the old, speculative thread it provides more background information & helps readers keep track of what the topic is all about.
What I'll do (and what I believe some moderators will also do) is update the title, including removing the word "rumor" if it was there previously, and including our reason for editing the title (it displays now in tiny blue text at the bottom of the post). We don't usually go too crazy changing thread titles, but changing labels from Rumor to Confirmed, for example, could be something we would consider.
AeroTyke wrote:Another great example of selective moderation that goes on here :
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1367203
Posted as a done deal. No mention of RUMOR anywhere in the thread title, yet the thread has been allowed to stay as a factual account that UA and B6 have merged according to the title.
keesje wrote:I'm investing some time to back up a story, create some slides put down an opinion
Than it's gets merged into a mega thread that already has got 600 replies 50.000 views.
Totally drowned. Who's thinks that's a good idea ?!
Some partisan members who always suggest to neutralize opinions they don't agree with and never seem to get resistance?
I'm backing off / increasingly opening threads in other forums / groups.
This is a waste of time. It's basically disrespect.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1365309
atcsundevil wrote:It isn't about trying to drown out your thread, because obviously that's not our intention. If there's an existing topic when you create a new topic with what appears to be a very subtly different point of discussion, we get a million requests to lock it. I would rather merge topics rather than lock so at least the discussion can continue. One day a few weeks ago, we had about six MOM/797 threads created, and everybody lost their minds. The issue is that it splits discussions, creates a lot of duplication of discussion, and seems to frustrate a lot of people. The point is, we try to merge rather than lock (the only recourse we had with the old site) so it doesn't kill the thread, but in some cases, we can't just leave the thread as is — we'll get endless reports, and the thread will get nothing but snarky comments.
Cubsrule wrote:I agree with this, but I think it is not consistent with how the moderation has worked in practice, at least recently. There's a long thread going about United's general PR issues. That is not "subtly different" from specific UA issues that attract attention, it is completely different. So, when you all merge threads about specific issues that have garnered media attention into the general PR problems thread, it makes things worse, not better.
Let's at least have a discussion about signposts and then apply them intelligently and consistently. Most of us - perhaps none of us - who start threads want to create more work for the moderators. We start new threads because we deem the topics sufficiently discrete that they warrant a thread. I think the moderators should give that judgment at least some deference.
keesje wrote:If we only accept threads that are based on fact it will a an aviation history forum soon enough. I have the impression that's not what people come to this forums for.
There's always the option not to open threads / read them if people don't like the topic/ speculation. So if they are suggesting deletion/ merge / moving they probably don't want other people to read them. I hope the MOD's realize that touches free speech. By the way I respect the profesionalism and spare time the moderators spend here & make possible the forum
keesje wrote:I don't think there is anything happening on 787 production deliveries, unless it's merged / included / hidden in 787 Production/Delivery Thread - Part 43.
The years old, all eating 787 thread.
Is it damaging the freshness, news value and accessibility of the airliner forum threads?
Yes. It was not the intention but it happens. Negatively impacting overall quality.
I get news/events on those big projects elsewhere, as most users.