viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1391923#unread

I thought this was a good and informative thread. It was Not “already being discussed “ and it did not criticize swa so why did it get locked??

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1391923#unread

Moved this to Site Related as I believe it's more appropriate in this forum. As to why it was locked, I cannot speak for the moderator who made the decisions, but I would assume they believed it was already being discussed in the main Southwest 1381 thread. The only comment in the thread from the mod is that the topic is already being discussed. I do not see anything about it being locked because it was critical of Southwest.

If it you had read the original thread fully it was mentioned and there were multiple replies as to why the slides weren't deployed..

Because the threads question was already answered in a different thread as noted in the closed thread.

kiowa wrote:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1391923#unread

I thought this was a good and informative thread. It was Not “already being discussed “ and it did not criticize swa so why did it get locked??

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1391923#unread

Big news stories tend to lead to multiple similar threads of discussion like this. Many users become annoyed with the fragmentation and duplication, so we have to manage it as we feel appropriate. In this case, the Moderator determined that the discussion was best continued in the existing thread, primarily because that exact question was asked and discussed fairly extensively within the thread. It's not that we always decide to have everything squeezed into one topic, but it's understandably frustrating for many people to have the same lines of discussion duplicated across multiple threads.

✈️ atcsundevil

I was disappointed the thread in question was closed.

It was a distinct thread and any comments on that subject will get lost in the main thread (which I stopped reading after about page 2).

StTim wrote:

I was disappointed the thread in question was closed.

It was a distinct thread and any comments on that subject will get lost in the main thread (which I stopped reading after about page 2).

The topic was extensively discussed on pages 7-8 in the existing thread.

The competing argument to distinct threads is that we'd have 10-15 separate topics all discussing the same incident, all effectively engaging in the same speculation. We've had that happen multiple times in the past, and experience has told us that it's generally better for discussion to try to limit fragmenting topics unless there's a good reason for it.

StTim wrote:

I was disappointed the thread in question was closed.

It was a distinct thread and any comments on that subject will get lost in the main thread (which I stopped reading after about page 2).

That was my point. Evacuation decisions are quite relevant to safety and aviation. This is a classic example and warrants its own thread.

atcsundevil wrote:

StTim wrote:

I was disappointed the thread in question was closed.

It was a distinct thread and any comments on that subject will get lost in the main thread (which I stopped reading after about page 2).

The topic was extensively discussed on pages 7-8 in the existing thread.

The competing argument to distinct threads is that we'd have 10-15 separate topics all discussing the same incident, all effectively engaging in the same speculation. We've had that happen multiple times in the past, and experience has told us that it's generally better for discussion to try to limit fragmenting topics unless there's a good reason for it.

Having been a moderator on a message board I understand the difficulties you face. There is no perfect answer.

I stop reading (after the first 2 or so pages) on accident/crash threads. They become circular in the speculation.

Tightly defined additional threads could allow a specific topic to be discussed - but closed if they degenerated into a general discussion.

As I say - no perfect answer.

StTim wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

StTim wrote:

I was disappointed the thread in question was closed.

It was a distinct thread and any comments on that subject will get lost in the main thread (which I stopped reading after about page 2).

The topic was extensively discussed on pages 7-8 in the existing thread.

The competing argument to distinct threads is that we'd have 10-15 separate topics all discussing the same incident, all effectively engaging in the same speculation. We've had that happen multiple times in the past, and experience has told us that it's generally better for discussion to try to limit fragmenting topics unless there's a good reason for it.

Having been a moderator on a message board I understand the difficulties you face. There is no perfect answer.

I stop reading (after the first 2 or so pages) on accident/crash threads. They become circular in the speculation.

Tightly defined additional threads could allow a specific topic to be discussed - but closed if they degenerated into a general discussion.

As I say - no perfect answer.

Not a perfect answer, but a feature that would be nice would be a thread summary/wiki that could be embedded into the top of a thread, above the first post (and which could auto-repeat at the top of every page) letting readers know what the latest status is, where key subtopics are being discussed, etc. Who would create/edit such a summary? No clue. But other forums have it, and it makes it easier than sifting through 150 pages of discussion to find the specific thing you are looking for. It also helps reduce the number of pages, since folks can see that something was already asked and answered.

This would be a good feature for breaking news events such as accidents that tend to get a lot of posts very quickly. It would also be nice for threads that tend to go on forever with continuous updates/revisions, such as fleet repainting/refurbishing threads at airlines, where the current status could be in the first post with the latest updates noted, rather than hunting for which page has the latest full roster.