The failure of Megathreads

[Stoner]

Been discussed before and today might not be the day to revisit it (but it might be the best day), but Murray has said some things abuot not trading up, Fowler is heating up, Kane has commented on hockey in Vegas — and you can't immediately see where any of this is being discussed. We have these monster pinned threads with generic titles. If I click on them I know I will be taken back weeks. I could click on the last post, but then I'm at the end.

 

What's wrong with four or five new threads today that reflect today?

 

IMHO this discourages visitors from wanting to stick around. They take a look, see off-topic threads and topical threads that don't seem to be current and might think WTF.

 

/penny penny

[SDS]

My name is SDS and I support this message.

[nfreeman]

Well, there already is one for Stamkos and one for Vesey, and there will presumably be one for each of the Sabres' draft picks.  If PAFan (or anyone else) wants to start a dedicated Fowler thread, or a dedicated Player X thread -- have at it. 

[LGR4GM]

ask and you shall receive...

[sodbuster]

Agree. This is one of the things that I prefer more about TBD. Although, unfortunately over there it swings to he other extreme.

Edited June 24, 2016 by sodbuster

[TrueBlueGED]

Meh. Every time this is brought up things change for a bit then gradually return to normal. Plus, I prefer the megathreads.

Agree. This is one of the things that I prefer more about TBD. Although, unfortunately over there it swings to he other extreme.

It's funny how different the board cultures are. I go over there, see a zillion different threads, and immediately x out. To each their own I suppose.

Edited June 24, 2016 by TrueBlueGED

[Stoner]

I had a decent solution that no one picked up on: revise the subject to reflect trending discussions.

[Buffaslug]

Anyone familiar with slickdeals.net?

 

the way they do it is a mod inserts a post at the very top of the thread that is treated like a wiki of sorts, has all the serious notes about the topic so that way the narrative is always available at a quick at a glance. I would love that kind of setup.

[PromoTheRobot]

Here, here, PA! This is a real issue at SS. The site looks like nothing ever happens. TBD at least has a steady flow of new threads, some good, some bad. But the marketplace decides which threads grow. I always got the idea new threads are discouraged here, with the regulars preferring the marathon threads that prevent new folks from jumping in.

[Eleven]

Want a thread on a topic?  Start it.  I've seen very few threads deleted / merged over the last ten years.  Go for it.  Fortune favors the bold.

[dudacek]

Want a thread on a topic?  Start it.  I've seen very few threads deleted / merged over the last ten years.  Go for it.  Fortune favors the bold.

This exactly.

I mean I get Promo's point, but seriously, the board is what it is organically.

I don't remember seeing anyone discouraging new threads.

[nfreeman]

Speaking for myself only, the only time I will merge threads is when they are essentially redundant -- e.g. if there is a thread entitled "Should ROR be moved to wing?" and then someone starts a thread entitled "Is ROR better at center or wing?"

[Eleven]

Speaking for myself only, the only time I will merge threads is when they are essentially redundant -- e.g. if there is a thread entitled "Should ROR be moved to wing?" and then someone starts a thread entitled "Is ROR better at center or wing?"

 

Yeah, I've seen that happen a few times, and I've seen duplicate GDTs get merged, or duplicate threads concerning the same trade.  Usually it's a consequence of two people posting simultaneously and one hitting the post button minutes before the other one.  But that's about it.

[Buffaslug]

Speaking for myself only, the only time I will merge threads is when they are essentially redundant -- e.g. if there is a thread entitled "Should ROR be moved to wing?" and then someone starts a thread entitled "Is ROR better at center or wing?"

 

The reason I switched here from HFboards was because how much more lax the new thread setup is versus HFB. their megathreads redefine megathreads, well that and the people here are quite a bit more polite/kind.

 

What is the TBD being mentioned?

[dudacek]

The reason I switched here from HFboards was because how much more lax the new thread setup is versus HFB. their megathreads redefine megathreads, well that and the people here are quite a bit more polite/kind.

 

What is the TBD being mentioned?

Two Bills Drive, the football sister forum.

And where you said polite/kind, I'd say "adult"

 

Welcome aboard.

[Eleven]

The reason I switched here from HFboards was because how much more lax the new thread setup is versus HFB. their megathreads redefine megathreads, well that and the people here are quite a bit more polite/kind.

 

What is the TBD being mentioned?

 

Two Bills Drive.  It's Scott's other site.

[SDS]

This exactly.

I mean I get Promo's point, but seriously, the board is what it is organically.

I don't remember seeing anyone discouraging new threads.

 

There was an extended period of time where people who took the initiative to start new threads were redirected by other members to ongoing discussions buried in a general thread. I think that set the tone for quite sometime.

 

The 10 visit/day member may prefer the simplicity of a handful of threads. The 2/week visitor has no starting point to jump in.

[Eleven]

There was an extended period of time where people who took the initiative to start new threads were redirected by other members to ongoing discussions buried in a general thread. I think that set the tone for quite sometime.

 

The 10 visit/day member may prefer the simplicity of a handful of threads. The 2/week visitor has no starting point to jump in.

 

 

I don't recall this, but I have no reason to disbelieve you.

 

I also don't recall whether I was one of the posters doing the redirecting, but I will not do so going forward.

[spndnchz]

I'll do some stuff. I'd agree with PA for today. (wait, what?)

 

Today is about the draft and maybe a trade or two.

[Stoner]

I'll do some stuff. I'd agree with PA for today. (wait, what?)

 

Today is about the draft and maybe a trade or two.

In my best drunken Joe Namath, iwannkissuuuu.

[spndnchz]

In my best drunken Joe Namath, iwannkissuuuu.

 

No tongue plz.

[PromoTheRobot]

Want a thread on a topic?  Start it.  I've seen very few threads deleted / merged over the last ten years.  Go for it.  Fortune favors the bold.

 

This exactly.

I mean I get Promo's point, but seriously, the board is what it is organically.

I don't remember seeing anyone discouraging new threads.

 

Maybe not as much now but I recall after starting a thread being messaged that "this is being discussed in thread X..." And that thread would be "Around the NHL" and is 100 pages long.

[Randall Flagg]

The reason I switched here from HFboards was because how much more lax the new thread setup is versus HFB. their megathreads redefine megathreads, well that and the people here are quite a bit more polite/kind.

 

What is the TBD being mentioned?

Seriously. The Sabres section must average one new thread per six weeks.

[OverPowerYou]

I've been a fringe member for almost 10 years and one thing that has turned me off has been coming on every now and then and never seeing anything new. Instead I see the same 6 topics with 30 pages each.

[nobody]

Megathreads - one of the worst characters ever created by Marvel comics.