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?

I agree with this suggestion - perhaps also putting into the thread starter a link back to the "speculation thread".

I would also suggest the moderators come up with a framework of when it make sense for something to be posted in an older thread, as opposed to a new thread being started - perhaps giving consideration to the length of time since the last post in the older thread, and the extent to which the new post is bringing entirely new information.

I wonder if an alternative option could be to automatically compress replies older than a certain period (1-2 months?) so that it is clear what the new posts are and which are old. This may also assist in avoiding the "necroposting" issue noted in the threads Necro posting: Old threads coming back to life and Suggestion on the issue of "necroposting" (new posts on old threads)

V/F

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?

It really comes down to a difference in viewpoint/preference. Some very active users would prefer that every related subject be grouped into a mega thread. Others, like yourself, would rather things be more fragmented.

I can see the merits of both, but hopefully there's a happy medium somewhere. It was never really a consideration with the old site, because we couldn't merge threads, and inactive threads were auto locked. When we switched to the new site, we began receiving a lot of reports from users requesting we merge threads into mega threads, so for a long time, that's really the only perspective we've had -- voices asking us to fragment things more have been much quieter, so I think the general assumption has been to group things. We've already moved to keeping rolling threads around for longer, but on set time schedules (balancing the "let's lock after 300 posts" camp vs. the "let's keep threads forever" camp), and I think that move has thus far been mostly popular.

I can certainly agree with a number of your points, especially on speculative posts. Once news becomes official, the old information becomes fairly irrelevant to the discussion. As for the rest, we as moderators will have to find a middle ground to try to satisfy everybody. In a lot of ways, we're having to redefine the culture of our site relative to the new tools this platform offers, so while the old site had well over a decade to work out the kinks, we're all still working on it here. Getting opinions from users helps us to make those decisions though, so it's always welcome.

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.

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.

However, this would be what I referred to in my last post as varying preferences on how things should operate. We have a lot of new tools we can use on this new site, but I'm not sure we've found a way to use some of them that satisfies the majority just yet. You want the speculative commentary, others want an entirely new thread. Maybe the speculative threads should be locked, and a link to it is included in the thread starter of the confirmed thread? I think it's just a matter of finding a happy medium.

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.

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.

That's the essentially point that LAX772LR was making, that speculative discussion creates a lot of clutter (often times incorrect) that confuses the issue when news is confirmed. I understand the desire for some to want to access that discussion for background, but my feelings are that they should be kept in separate threads, but linked. Speculative and confirmed threads can sometimes be two completely different discussions.

It would be good to get opinions from more users on this, but it could be something we consider adopting moving forward.

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.

Based on whose opinion? You mean like the "CONFIRMED : IRAN AIR TAKING TK 777" thread? That went well didn't it. Or how about the UPS taking JAL pax 767s for conversion thread? Several people employed by UPS confirmed it was happening and I even chimed in with photo proof of the actual plane in Japan wearing its UPS reg, but the posts were swiftly removed and ultimately the thread disappeared as well. Remind me who that turned out again?

how*

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.

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.

Okay, I fixed it. Keep in mind that sometimes we don't see everything, or we don't read things in the same manner. If you see a thread title that looks ambiguous or needs "rumor" or "unconfirmed", just report it and we'll fix it. It's got nothing to do with being selective. I promise you that I don't wake up every day with ideas on how to selectively moderate this forum, and I'm pretty sure the other moderators are the same. To be honest, I don't read as deeply into thread titles as some people do, simply because I tend to read more into the content of the thread starting post, so that's why it's helpful if people report the threads so we're given different perspectives.

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

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.

The most complaints we tend to receive are regarding speculative threads, because it seems like a lot of people are jaded by discussion short on facts. That's why we tend to merge into overall speculative discussions (like the 797 thread) because there isn't enough factual discussion taking place to exist in separate, focused discussions.

That said, if you create a unique topic with an interesting discussion, we'll let it stand on its own regardless of reports or snarky comments. You post a lot of speculative threads, and plenty have stood on their own — you can't expect to win them all, but we do try our best to keep your discussions going regardless. It's not personal, it's about keeping the forum organized and listening to the opinions of our community.

I know it's frustrating, but I hope you can see this from our point of view. We get pressure from a lot of different sides, and we have to make what we feel are the best decisions in cases like this. Either way, somebody is upset with us.

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

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.

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.

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.

I think the UA PR Issues thread was somewhat reactionary to at least two dozen separate topics created in a short period of time, and it seemed like a lot of people were getting worn out seeing yet another UA thread. Normally those topics would stand on their own, but there's been so many of them lately, I guess it seemed easier to consolidate. Despite their most recent flub, their issues seem to have cooled, so maybe it's time to close that running thread and go back to business as usual. I realize you're just using that as an example, but it's a valid point nonetheless.

We unfortunately don't have issues like that standardized yet, per se. The new site brought about a lot of new tools at our disposal, and we've more or less been left to our better judgement to varying effect. I agree that we can do better from a consistency perspective on some issues.

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

I'm not trying to insinuate that speculative threads shouldn't occur here — that's about half of what goes on here! My point is that some users become frustrated with a rash of speculation threads that are all interconnected. At one point a couple of months ago, we had five separate MOM threads going on effectively the same discussion. That's what we're trying to curtail, not to affect free speech or your ability to post your ideas. I personally enjoy seeing many of your posts, so I'm in no way trying to discourage you from posting, just trying to explain our position. However, it's a constantly evolving position, and like I said up post, we've got a few consistency issues we need to develop and work on.

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.

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.

I've subscribed to that thread (you can do that through the menu with the gear-shaped icon between the "post reply" and "search this topic" buttons), and I find it useful getting notifications of new posts - makes it really easy to keep up with what is going on, much easier than hunting through a dozen pages of the forum for new topics if I've been away for a few weeks.

V/F

Receiving updates is quite easy: simply subscribe to the desired topic and you will get a notification.