SINK or not threads

JorgeCosta

I know this will make me sound like a Luddite but all the angst about SINKing and duplicate threads never seemed to happen on Netaddicks.

If my memory serves me correct, we used to be able to see the build up of threads and sub threads. You could also change the sub thread heading. Whilst I think Charlton Life is great, we seem to have lost something using the this technology. Basically you get a thread heading and that's it - everything is held as coments one after another, rather than responses to particular comments/sub threads. Is there any way we could see the old hierarchy of discussions?

leftbehind

we at Into The Valley just let one die of natural death.

Im not keen on it myslef but, on some totally stupid threads yes

leftbehind

PS

Im sure there is a thread about this
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
So


SINK, SINK ;-)

colthe3rd

Sink! Already in other threads, though not that you would know from their titles! ;-)

JorgeCosta

[cite]Posted By: colthe3rd[/cite]Sink! Already in other threads, though not that you would know from their titles! ;-)

LMFAO!

Stig

Yeah, I think this avoidance of duplicate threads is way over the top, it leads to massive threads that contain more than one topic and become unreadable. For example anything that is about Pardew or Southampton gets put on the thread, "Pardew confirmed as new Saints boss". This thread is nearly a year old and contains the best part of 600 posts. The very fact that we have to make special dispensations to people who are new members shows that things ain't working as they should.

Red_in_SE8

[cite]Posted By: Stig[/cite]Yeah, I think this avoidance of duplicate threads is way over the top, it leads to massive threads that contain more than one topic and become unreadable. For example anything that is about Pardew or Southampton gets put on the thread, "Pardew confirmed as new Saints boss". This thread is nearly a year old and contains the best part of 600 posts. The very fact that we have to make special dispensations to people who are new members shows that things ain't working as they should.

You have a point. Anything about Pardew gets dumped into this thread. It could be argued that many of the posts in this thread warrant a thread in their own right. And it is strange how that has happened. But, I think the administrators are right to regularly sink new threads which obviously relate to and belong in an existing thread. If you are posting from a smart phone it is not always easy to see or check if the new thread you are starting relates to an existing thread so it will happen. I think some people are over sensitive, and take offense when they have a thread they started 'sunk' because it is deemed to be related to an existing thread. Maybe a new category of 'sink' should be used e.g 'Duplicate thread', so that such threads are distinguished from threads that are sunk because they are offensive, inflamatory or windups.

Stig

[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]

[cite]Posted By: Stig[/cite]Yeah, I think this avoidance of duplicate threads is way over the top, it leads to massive threads that contain more than one topic and become unreadable. For example anything that is about Pardew or Southampton gets put on the thread, "Pardew confirmed as new Saints boss". This thread is nearly a year old and contains the best part of 600 posts. The very fact that we have to make special dispensations to people who are new members shows that things ain't working as they should.

You have a point. Anything about Pardew gets dumped into this thread. It could be argued that many of the posts in this thread warrant a thread in their own right. And it is strange how that has happened. But, I think the administrators are right to regularly sink new threads which obviously relate to and belong in an existing thread. If you are posting from a smart phone it is not always easy to see or check if the new thread you are starting relates to an existing thread so it will happen. I think some people are over sensitive, and take offense when they have a thread they started 'sunk' because it is deemed to be related to an existing thread. Maybe a new category of 'sink' should be used e.g 'Duplicate thread', so that such threads are distinguished from threads that are sunk because they are offensive, inflamatory or windups.

That sounds like a good idea to me. I guess it would also be helpful if people were a little more specific when naming new threads (though probably not in the Pardew example).